FTC Decision in EdModo Case Won’t Impact District Operations

Over the course of the summer, our advocacy team had engaged with the FTC and USED to raise concerns with the FTC’s recent settlement with EdModo, stemming from accusations EdModo unlawfully used children’s personal information for advertising. You can read more about the initial case in the FTC press release. AASA reviewed the settlement and took no position on the case. In reviewing the decision, though, AASA was concerned to see the use of the words ‘school’ and ‘school representative’. 

We were concerned with a specific provision in the settlement, one we thought was unintentional but would bring significant disruption to the nation’s schools: the settlement could lead companies to believe that they can no longer contract with local or state educational agencies for educational technology in schools without obtaining verifiable parental consent (VPC). The primary problem centers around the settlement’s new definitions of “School” and “School Representative,” which limit the parties that an operator can contract with for educational technology use in a school without obtaining VPC. As currently drafted, “school” and “school representative” are defined as “an institutional day or residential school, including a public school, charter school, or private school, that provides elementary or secondary education, as determined by State law,” and “...a School employee,” respectively.  These terms are new and seemingly outside of and incongruent with long-established federal definitions for school and district. These new definitions will likely result in edtech companies incorrectly assuming that only individual schools–not the local or state education agency–can provide school authorization. This represents a significant and likely very disruptive departure from the current interpretation of COPPA, since the COPPA FAQs reference school districts.

We met with both USED and FTC to express our concerns, and followed up with a letter to the FTC (Signed by eight national organizations) asking them to amend the order to expand the definition of “School” to include LEAs and SEAs as defined by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. 

The FTC responded to us earlier this week, declining to make any change (Read their letter). We take their assurances that school and school representative are intended to be inclusive of local education agencies, educational service agencies, and state educational agencies as it relates to their role in the edtech contracting process. We will keep a keen eye on the field to ensure there is not confusion stemming from these seemingly new terms, and that edtech procurement is not unnecessarily disrupted.