San Diego County files complaint against AppLovin over child ads

The complaint filed by San Diego County alleges AppLovin bypassed parental controls to serve adult advertisements in children’s games. The filing at San Diego Superior Court on Monday also alleges the collection of sensitive data from children’s devices. These are allegations in a lawsuit; the supplied material reports no judicial finding on their accuracy.

The case places the county’s claims alongside AppLovin’s stated advertising policies and its position on child data. The source material says the policies prohibit sexually explicit and other adult content, tobacco and nicotine, and illegal drugs. It also says alcohol advertisements require company approval. AppLovin’s policies state that it does not knowingly collect children’s personal information or serve advertisements to children.

What conduct does the county allege?

The complaint alleges AppLovin’s technology circumvented parental controls and ad tracking opt-outs, including through fingerprinting. In this context, fingerprinting means tracking a device by its identifying characteristics rather than relying on a conventional account setting. The county says that method enabled ad targeting without parental consent. It further alleges the company collected information from children’s devices that could reveal where they live and study, and whether they are sleeping.

The complaint also alleges that AppLovin’s tracking avoided settings provided by Google and Apple to block ad technology companies from monitoring children’s digital activity. It says the collected information fed into the company’s AI advertising engine. These statements describe the county’s allegations, not a determination by San Diego Superior Court. The supplied account does not provide details of a court decision or an adjudicated outcome.

Which examples appear in the filing?

The county’s complaint describes advertisements for adult dating services, alcohol, vaping and graphic sexual content appearing in games played by children. One screenshot reportedly shows a sexualised AI chatbot advertisement within a physics-based puzzle game. According to the filing as described in the source, the game was installed on an Android device configured for a six-year-old with Google parental controls enabled. Another screenshot reportedly depicts cannabis gummies on a device with those controls.

The complaint further refers to ads depicting sex acts, including bondage, in apps marked as suitable for children. AppLovin’s policies for ad buyers, in force since 18 June, prohibit sexually explicit or other adult material, tobacco and nicotine, and illegal drugs. The policies also bar ads to children and ads for products generally prohibited for under-18s. They state that advertisers are solely responsible for deciding whether a user qualifies as a child, and alcohol advertisements need AppLovin approval.

What response and procedural context are recorded?

AppLovin did not immediately respond to Bloomberg’s request for comment, according to the supplied source. Its published buyer policies state that it does not knowingly collect personal information from children or serve advertisements to them. The material does not provide a specific company response to San Diego County’s lawsuit. Accordingly, the company’s policy statement should be distinguished from a response addressing the complaint’s individual allegations.

The complaint follows earlier public claims about AppLovin’s tracking practices. In 2025, Fuzzy Panda and Muddy Waters accused the company of harvesting proprietary identifiers from other platforms without authorisation and using them to follow users across websites and apps. Adam Foroughi rejected those reports in a March 2025 blog post, describing inaccuracies and denying creation of alternative persistent device identifiers. The supplied account says the US Securities and Exchange Commission investigated data collection after a whistleblower complaint and short seller reports, and that it had not accused AppLovin of wrongdoing; it also reports Matt Stumpf said the agency closed its investigation without recommending action.

The legal status described here is a filed complaint, with allegations awaiting resolution in the court process. The available material does not state what remedy San Diego County seeks or provide a hearing schedule. Further developments would clarify how AppLovin answers the claims and how the court handles them. Until then, the complaint and the company’s stated policies represent distinct accounts of the conduct at issue.