A federal court in Michigan significantly narrowed Michigan Attorney General (AG) Dana Nessel’s privacy and consumer protection case against Roku, Inc. (Roku) dismissing all non-Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) claims for lack of standing while allowing the state’s privacy claims under COPPA to proceed. The decision highlights COPPA’s utility as a vehicle for state AGs to bring enforcement actions in federal court, while also underscoring the jurisdictional limits on bringing companion state privacy and consumer protection claims in the same forum.

Key Holdings and Court’s Reasoning

In April 2025, the Michigan AG filed a lawsuit alleging that Roku’s smart TV platform and streaming ecosystem collect and share a wide range of personal data from children and adults in Michigan in violation of COPPA and state privacy and consumer protection laws. Roku moved to dismiss the non-COPPA counts and challenged the AG’s parens patriae authority to assert many of the state law claims on behalf of Michigan residents in federal court.

In an opinion issued last week, the court held that COPPA’s express parens patriae provision gives the Michigan AG standing to sue in federal court on behalf of children. With regard to the COPPA claims, Roku argued that the AG did not allege that Roku collects information that “identifies any actual person.” The AG, however, alleged that Roku collects children’s personal information both within and outside the Kids and Family section on the Roku channel, including device identifiers, IP addresses, cookies, account and browsing information, precise geolocation, and visual and audio information. Taking the allegations as true and drawing inferences in the AG’s favor, the court held that Roku’s data collection practices could collect individually identifiable information and therefore, the AG’s claims were sufficient at the pleading stage to establish Article III standing. 

However, the court concluded that the non-COPPA claims (including Video Privacy Protection Act claims, state privacy and consumer protection statutes, and common law theories) lacked a sufficient quasi-sovereign or sovereign interest to support parens patriae standing in federal court.  The court reasoned that the state’s theories largely mirrored private causes of action available to individual Roku users rather than a distinct, statewide injury. The court further emphasized that state statutory authorization to enforce state law cannot itself create federal court standing.

Why It Matters

• Limits on bundling federal and state privacy claims in a single AG action. For non-COPPA privacy, consumer protection, and common law claims, the opinion signals that courts will demand a specific articulation of a quasi-sovereign interest separate from the interests of the particular private parties involved to clear the parens patriae bar.
• State statutory authority does not guarantee federal court standing. Even when state law expressly authorizes the AG to bring enforcement actions, that authorization does not automatically confer federal court standing. Companies facing multitheory AG suits can expect courts to scrutinize whether each claim has a jurisdictional footing.
• Continued litigation risk on children’s data practices. Although Roku successfully eliminated several claims at this stage, the core COPPA claims survived, and the case is proceeding to discovery.

The case serves as a reminder that companies that collect consumer data, especially those that potentially collect the data of children, should closely evaluate their collection and consent mechanisms, including situations where data is collected by third parties in their ecosystems, and align practices with COPPA’s parental consent, notice, and data-minimization requirements. The need for a compliance review is particularly acute where the services offer content targeted at children or where the company has actual knowledge that children are engaging with the platform.

Troutman Pepper Locke State Attorneys General Team

	Ashley Taylor – Co-leader and Firm Vice Chair Ashley is co-leader of the firm’s nationally ranked State Attorneys General practice, vice chair of the firm, and a partner in its Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement (RISE) Practice Group. He helps his clients navigate the complexities involved with multistate attorneys general investigations and enforcement actions, federal agency actions, and accompanying litigation.
	Clay Friedman – Co-leader Clay co-leads the firm’s State Attorneys General practice and is nationally ranked by Chambers USA for AG Government Relations and in Best Lawyers for Advertising Law. He has dedicated his entire career to state attorney general and federal work, serving for nearly a decade in a senior role and more than 25+ years in private practice. Clay focuses his practice on helping industry-leading companies mitigate the risks associated with state and federal regulatory investigations and associated litigation.
	Chris Carlson Chris advises clients on regulatory, civil, and criminal investigations and litigation. With a background as an assistant attorney general, he provides practical guidance to clients with matters involving state attorneys general and federal regulatory agencies.
	Lauren Fincher Lauren has vast experience handling state attorneys general investigations, navigating complex regulatory compliance matters, and providing strategic counsel in enforcement actions across various industries. She helps clients manage high-stakes regulatory matters and guides them through complex legal landscapes.
	Stephen Piepgrass Stephen leads the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement (RISE) Practice Group, representing clients in single and multistate enforcement actions, including inquiries and investigations, as well as litigation involving state attorneys general and other state and federal governmental enforcement bodies. He has significant experience handling actions with federal agencies, including the CFPB and FTC, as well as single plaintiff and class action litigation for clients in highly regulated sectors such as financial services, health care, pharmaceutical, and education.
	Michael Yaghi Mike handles high-profile state attorneys general, FTC, and CFPB investigations by advising clients through these complex government inquiries. He assists clients through the entire life cycle of investigations, from regulatory enforcement through formal litigation.
	Matthew J. Berns Drawing on his experience in senior leadership roles in the New Jersey Attorney General’s and Governor’s Offices and as a trial attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice, Matt provides an insider’s perspective when guiding clients through complex government investigations, litigation, and other actions.
	Samuel E. “Gene” Fishel Gene is a former regulator with two decades of experience who has overseen state privacy and cybersecurity regulation enforcement, led national, multistate attorneys general privacy investigations, and prosecuted computer crimes at the state and federal levels. He has served at the forefront of state attorney general and federal enforcement, and utilizes this experience to proficiently represent client interests.
	Jeff Johnson Jeff helps clients navigate complex regulatory and litigation challenges with local, state, and federal authorities. His clients benefit from his decade of broad litigation experience, understanding of emerging state and federal regulatory issues, and strong relationships with attorneys general across the U.S. In addition to handling cases from trial through state or federal appeals, Jeff serves as amicus counsel in advancing legal rules to support his clients’ vital interests.
	Jay Myers Jay assists clients in heavily regulated industries, including health care, energy, insurance, emerging industries, and data privacy. He provides both regulatory legal advice and government relations strategies. Jay’s past and current clients include Fortune 10 companies, startups, nonprofits, industry associations, and advocacy groups. Recognizing that state government matters are often complex and multifaceted, he utilizes regulatory guidance, government advocacy, or both in tandem to deliver tailored solutions for each client’s unique needs.
	Zoe Schloss Zoe represents clients in litigation and government investigations. As former deputy attorney general for the Delaware Department of Justice, she is an experienced litigator who understands the enforcement priorities that impact her clients. Zoe works with individuals and corporate entities in highly regulated industries, including financial services, health care, and energy.
	Jessica Birdsong Jessica is an associate in the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement Practice Group. She received her J.D. from the University of Richmond School of Law, magna cum laude, where she served as associate articles editor of the Journal of Law & Technology.
	Nick Gouverneur Nick is an associate in the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement Practice Group. He received his J.D. from the University of Illinois College of Law, where he served as a member of the Journal of Law, Technology & Policy.
	Troy Homesley Troy is an accomplished litigator who has represented and defended clients across a wide range of complex, high-stakes disputes at both the trial and appellate levels. He has represented technology companies, business executives, law firms, investment funds, high-ranking federal officials, international non-profits, and asylum seekers. Troy draws on his broad litigation experience to advise clients before litigation arises, while claims are pending or threatened, and leading up to and through trial and appeals.
	Namrata Kang Namrata (Nam) is an associate in the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement (RISE) Practice Group, based in the Washington, D.C. office. She routinely advises clients on a wide variety of state and federal regulatory matters, with a particular emphasis on state consumer protection laws relating to consumer financial services and marketing and advertising. Nam’s experience transcends multiple industries, including financial services, telecommunications, media, and sports betting.
	Michael Lafleur Michael is an associate in the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy, and Enforcement Practice Group. Based out of the firm’s Boston office, Mike has deep experience in litigation, investigations, and other regulatory matters involving state-level regulators and state attorneys general.
	William LaRosa Bill represents clients in complex regulatory investigations, state attorneys general matters, and enforcement proceedings, drawing on his experience as a former assistant U.S. attorney and private sector litigator in high stakes, multistate AG and regulatory matters.
	Philip Nickerson Philip represents clients in sectors such as financial, tech, real estate, and energy in a range of litigation matters. He is experienced in matters involving trade secrets, government investigations, commercial contracts, construction and product defect.
	Lane Page Lane specializes in federal and state regulatory investigations and complex civil litigation. He focuses on representing financial institutions and other businesses, with a particular emphasis on consumer protection and fair lending issues.
	Dascher Pasco Dascher is an attorney within the Regulatory Investigations, Strategy, and Enforcement practice, based in the Richmond office. She joined our firm after working in personal injury and medical malpractice for a Virginia trial law firm. Dascher brings varied legal experience to the firm with strong litigation and regulatory strategy capabilities.
	Kyara Rivera Rivera Kyara is an associate in the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement Practice Group. She received her J.D. from the University of Richmond School of Law, cum laude, where she served as publications and online editor of the Public Interest Law Review.
	Timothy Shyu Timothy is an associate in the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement Practice Group.
	Trey Smith Trey focuses his practice on representing and advising regulated utilities before state public utility commissions. He routinely helps clients obtain certificates of public convenience and necessity for transmission infrastructure. In this role, Trey works with his clients’ subject-matter experts to manage administrative proceedings, including by preparing initial filings; responding to discovery requests; drafting rebuttal testimony; and litigating any disputed issues.
	Daniel Waltz Dan helps clients navigate all aspects highly regulated relationships between industry participants and federal, state and local governments. Whether engaging with regulators, negotiating transactions or representing clients in the courtroom, he delivers solutions that help his clients achieve their strategic goals.
	Stephanie Kozol Stephanie is Troutman Pepper Locke’s senior government relations manager in the state attorneys general department.