Breaking Down the Complaint to the FTC Alleging Apple Misled Parents

If a parent wants to set up controls for their children’s activity on Roblox, they have to create a parent account, verify their age, link it to the child’s account and dig through menus to manage content, chat, servers spending and screen time. On TikTok, parents must create a parent account, navigate multiple menus to a feature called Family Pairing, send a link to the teen, wait for them to accept within 48 hours and then toggle all the settings they want to control. On Character.ai, parents have to wait for the teen to invite them via email, then create their own account and accept the connection before they can see anything. Meanwhile, a kid who wants to dodge all of the above can simply enter any birthdate before September 2007. In the United States, most of this digital labor occurs on an iPhone (used by 88% of teens) or iPad (40% of children have their own tablet by age two).

It is within this context that the Digital Childhood Institute filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission arguing that Apple’s parental controls were unfair and deceptive. The complaint is directly responsive to the agency’s agenda setting event earlier this summer, “The Attention Economy: How Big Tech Firms Exploit Children and Hurt Families.”

The Digital Childhood Institute, a collection of child safety advocates, asserted five violations of Section 5 of the FTC Act, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act and the 2014 FTC consent decree on in-app purchases. Here’s a breakdown of the complaint:

1. Knowingly marketing harmful or age-restricted apps as safe for kids

First, the complaint alleges that Apple’s app rating process is inadequate and deceptive, relying on developers’ self-reported answers without fully assessing harmful content. Apple is accused of advertising apps as age-appropriate while knowing they contain inappropriate material. By controlling the rating system, the complaint argues Apple is not a neutral distributor but actively responsible for misleading ratings.

This is similar to the legal precedent in Porter & Dietsch v. FTC, in which the Seventh Circuit held that retailers could be held liable for false statements about products they sold — even if they merely republished the manufacturer’s claims and were unaware they were false. The complaint argues that Apple goes further than the Porter & Dietsch scenario because it both amplifies and controls the deceptive ratings, making it directly responsible for misleading consumers.

2. Deceptive safety claims and the failure of Apple’s parental controls

Second, the complaint alleges Apple falsely markets the vetting and quality control it performs on App Store apps and its parental controls. The complaint highlights its Screen Time feature as difficult to set up and unreliable, leaving parents with a false sense of safety.

The FTC is justified in taking action due to its history of enforcing against deceptive advertising of technical features. For example, in 2014, Sony settled charges that it misled consumers about the capabilities of the PlayStation Vita; in 2017, Lenovo settled after the FTC charged it with installing software that compromised browser security; and Lumosity was found to have made deceptive “brain-training” claims without adequate scientific backing.

These cases demonstrate the FTC’s willingness to act when companies exaggerate or misrepresent the safety, security, or effectiveness of their products.

3. Unfair trade practices involving exploitative contracting with minors

Next, Apple allegedly engages in unfair trade practices by allowing minors to enter binding digital contracts through hidden clickwrap agreements, without parental involvement or disclosure of costs. Minors lack the capacity to consent, and according to the complaint, the agreements are not reasonably avoidable.

The complaint cites Specht v. Netscape, which held that digital contracts are unenforceable if terms are not sufficiently visible at the time of assent, meaning meaningful consent requires clear, upfront notice — something Apple makes “impossible or impractical.”

The FTC has challenged unfair or deceptive contractual practices in the past, such as the 2024 warning against franchisors imposing undisclosed or punitive fees, the 2009 action against Sears Holdings for burying disclosures in end-user license agreements, and the 2004 action against Gateway Learning Corp. for deceptive changes to privacy policies.

The advocates argue that it’s expected that the agency will step in when companies obscure terms or take advantage of vulnerable consumers.

4. Widespread violations of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)

Apple is also accused of knowingly allowing developers to collect personal data from children under 13 without parental consent, despite having actual knowledge of the user’s age. By withholding age information from developers and offering “freemium” apps that condition participation on data collection, Apple allegedly facilitates COPPA violations.

The complaint highlights prior FTC enforcement demonstrating the agency’s willingness to act in similar circumstances: in 2019, ByteDance’s TikTok paid a $5.7 million penalty for unlawfully collecting data from children under 13; YouTube settled for $170 million for knowingly collecting personal information from children through “made for kids” content; and in 2023, Microsoft was fined $20 million for allowing children under 13 to create Xbox accounts without proper parental consent.

5. Violation of the 2014 FTC consent decree on in-app purchases

Finally, the complaint accuses Apple of violating its 2014 FTC consent decree, which requires express, informed parental consent for in-app purchases by minors.

The original lawsuit alleged that Apple allowed children to incur charges without parental authorization, and the resulting consent decree enjoined Apple from billing accounts for any in-app charges without obtaining express, informed consent from the account holder.

Despite this, Apple continues to allow teens over 13 to make purchases without linking to a parent account, and parental controls are underutilized or unreliable, leaving most children ages 13–17 and many under 13 able to spend without approval. One example in 2022 involved over $16,000 in unauthorized in-app spending. The complaint highlights historical FTC enforcement in similar contexts, including actions against Google, Amazon, and Epic Games for unauthorized or deceptive in-app purchases by children.

The complaint comes at a moment of heightened attention to children’s safety and wellbeing online. Across the country, states are moving to regulate how tech companies handle underage users and scrutinizing what platforms know about user age, while Congress and federal agencies have struggled to secure meaningful victories.

With significant bipartisan support for stronger oversight, the issue reflects widespread concern among parents, policymakers, and child advocates.

The FTC complaint highlights persistent gaps in platform accountability: Apple seemingly has the information needed to identify underage users but provides inadequate parental controls and fails to prevent exploitative or unsafe practices. More broadly, it represents an action item for the federal agency to take against the Big Tech gatekeeper for families.