San Diego County has sued AppLovin, alleging it bypassed parental controls to show adult ads in children’s games. The complaint, filed with San Diego Superior Court on Monday, also alleges sensitive data was collected from children’s devices. The claims raise questions about how ad tracking settings work and what protections children receive in apps.
How did the complaint describe earlier tracking?
The complaint says AppLovin gathered sensitive information even when parental controls and ad tracking opt-outs were enabled. It alleges the company used fingerprinting to track children for advertising without parental consent. Fingerprinting is a way to recognise a device through characteristics associated with it, rather than relying on a user account. The complaint says the information could indicate where children live and study, and whether they are sleeping.
The filing also alleges that AppLovin’s advertising technology passed around settings offered by Google and Apple to block tracking of children’s digital activity. The source material identifies those controls as tools intended to restrict ad technology companies from following children online. It says the alleged tracking supported ad targeting. The complaint further characterises the data as material used by the company’s AI advertising engine.
What does the latest filing allege?
San Diego County’s case concerns ads that the complaint says appeared in apps suitable for children. The alleged examples include adult dating services, alcohol, vaping, graphic sexual content and cannabis gummies. A screenshot described in the complaint shows a sexualised AI chatbot advertisement in a physics-based puzzle game. The game was installed on an Android device configured for a six-year-old, with Google parental controls enabled.
Another screenshot, according to the source, showed cannabis gummy advertisements on a device with the same parental controls. The complaint also refers to advertising depicting sex acts, including bondage, in apps marked appropriate for children. These descriptions are allegations presented by the county, rather than findings made by a court. The complaint was filed with San Diego Superior Court, and AppLovin had not immediately responded to Bloomberg’s request for comment.
What policies and earlier claims are relevant?
AppLovin’s policies for ad buyers state that the company does not knowingly collect personal information from children or serve advertisements to them. The policies have been in force since 18 June and prohibit sexually explicit or other adult content, tobacco and nicotine, and illegal drugs. Alcohol advertising requires AppLovin’s approval, while ads to children and ads for products generally prohibited for under-18s are barred. The policies place responsibility on advertisers to determine whether a user qualifies as a child.
The complaint’s allegations arrive against a background of earlier fingerprinting claims. In 2025, short sellers Fuzzy Panda and Muddy Waters accused AppLovin of taking proprietary identifiers from other platforms without authorisation. They said those identifiers were used to track users across websites and apps. Chief executive Adam Foroughi wrote in a March 2025 blog post that those reports contained inaccuracies and denied creating alternative persistent device identifiers.
What remains unresolved after the complaint?
The filing does not establish that the alleged conduct occurred, and the supplied material describes no court ruling. It also does not include an immediate response from AppLovin to Bloomberg about this lawsuit. The policies provide the company’s stated restrictions, while the county’s complaint alleges a gap between those rules and ads shown on children’s devices. The next public record to watch is how the case proceeds in San Diego Superior Court and whether AppLovin responds to the allegations.