By: Dipin Sehdev

Florida has sued Netflix, accusing the streaming company of misleading families about how it collected and used personal data, including information associated with minors.

The 66-page complaint, filed by Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, alleges Netflix collected detailed information about how people used the service, including device location, searches, viewing behavior and interactions such as pauses, rewinds and when users stopped watching. Florida further alleges that Netflix later used that data to help build an advertising business after years of positioning its subscription model as an alternative to ad-supported platforms.

Netflix disputes the allegations. The company says it takes member privacy seriously, complies with applicable privacy and data-protection laws and has safeguards specifically for children. Netflix also says Kids profiles are not served behavioral advertising and that members can manage certain privacy and advertising controls.

At CE Critic, the broader issue is one we have become increasingly concerned about: how much data should any company be collecting about children in the first place?

We are strongly opposed to unnecessary data collection involving minors. Children should not be treated as another behavioral dataset, and the fact that a parent pays for a service does not mean every possible piece of behavioral information generated by a child should automatically become commercially valuable data.

Florida alleges Netflix carried out what it describes as a years-long “bait-and-switch.” The lawsuit argues that Netflix spent years differentiating itself from companies built around free services, advertising and extensive consumer tracking, only to move into advertising after launching its ad-supported tier in 2022. The state alleges that Netflix then used the large amount of information accumulated across its service to support advertising that could target consumers based on factors including household composition, income and life stage.

The complaint also focuses specifically on children. According to Florida, Netflix collected information associated with children’s viewing behavior while also designing features intended to keep younger users watching for longer periods. Those are allegations, and Netflix says the lawsuit lacks merit and that it intends to defend itself. That distinction matters.

But regardless of how the case is ultimately decided, the lawsuit raises a larger question that should concern parents and the broader technology industry: why are companies collecting this much behavioral information about kids in the first place?

A streaming service can learn an extraordinary amount simply from how someone watches. It can know what programs they choose, what they search for, what they abandon, what they rewatch, what they pause, what they skip, how long they watch, what time of day they watch and what device they use. Netflix’s own account tools make clear that the service maintains profile information and viewing activity tied to individual profiles.

For an adult, that is already a meaningful behavioral profile. For a child, it should receive a much higher level of scrutiny.

A seven-year-old does not understand what behavioral data means. A 10-year-old cannot meaningfully evaluate a privacy policy. A child does not understand the long-term implications of building a digital profile around years of viewing habits.

That responsibility belongs with adults, and in our view, the burden should be on companies to minimize collection involving minors rather than on parents to discover every setting buried inside an account dashboard.

Netflix does make an important distinction in its current policies. The company says it does not serve behavioral advertising on Kids profiles and that ads are not shown on those profiles. That needs to be included because it is directly relevant to the accusations being made.

The Florida lawsuit, however, appears to make a broader argument. The state is not simply alleging that a behavioral advertisement was shown directly to a child. It is arguing that data accumulated across families and children was ultimately commercialized as Netflix expanded into advertising.

Whether Florida can prove that is now a legal question.

The policy question is broader: should information generated by children ever contribute to advertising intelligence, household profiling or commercial targeting, even indirectly?

That is the part that should get far more attention.

This is also not just a Netflix issue. Children increasingly interact with connected televisions, streaming platforms, tablets, smart speakers, gaming devices, social platforms and AI services. All of those products can generate enormous amounts of behavioral information.

The concern is not limited to what a child intentionally types into a service. Modern devices and platforms can infer interests, habits, routines, preferences, household relationships and other characteristics simply through normal usage.

That is why data minimization around minors should become a basic expectation across consumer technology. Companies should collect what is genuinely necessary to provide the service, protect it, and avoid repurposing it simply because the technology makes doing so possible.

The advertising angle also matters because streaming economics have changed. Netflix spent years competing primarily for subscription revenue, but the introduction of an ad-supported tier created a second business model built around advertising. When a company sells subscriptions, behavioral data can help improve recommendations and reduce churn. When that same company sells advertising, that data can become much more commercially valuable.

That does not automatically mean the data is being used improperly. But it changes the incentives, and whenever the users involved include children, those incentives deserve much more scrutiny.

Parents should not have to become privacy engineers to understand what happens to their children’s data. A disclosure can be legally sufficient and still be practically useless. A privacy policy can technically explain that data is being collected without helping parents understand the consequences.

Parents should be able to quickly understand what information is collected from a child’s profile, how long it is retained, whether it contributes to recommendation systems or advertising models, whether it is combined with other household data, whether third parties can access it, and whether it can be deleted or meaningfully disabled.

Those answers should not require a lawyer.

This issue ultimately comes back to trust.

The same pattern is appearing throughout consumer technology. Smart TVs, streaming services, social platforms, connected toys, voice assistants and AI systems are all collecting increasing amounts of information about the people using them.

Companies want consumers to trust that this data is being handled responsibly.

But trust should not replace transparency.

That is especially true when children are involved.

Netflix will have its day in court, and it is important not to treat Florida’s allegations as established fact. Netflix denies wrongdoing and says it complies with privacy laws and provides dedicated protections for children.

But consumers do not need to wait for a court decision to ask a more fundamental question.

Why are technology companies collecting so much behavioral information about children at all?

At CE Critic, our position is simple.

Children deserve more privacy than adults, not less.

Their behavior should not become a commercial asset simply because they grew up using connected devices. And as technology becomes more capable of understanding, predicting and monetizing human behavior, companies should be moving toward collecting less information about minors.

Not finding new ways to make that information more valuable.