Florida’s new lawsuit against Netflix does not accuse the company of showing targeted ads to children — it accuses Netflix of collecting the behavioral data that would make that possible, inside kids profiles it marketed to parents as a child’s own space. Attorney General James Uthmeier filed the case on September 9, 2026. It seeks civil penalties and court-ordered data purges, not payments to subscribers, so there is nothing for Netflix customers to claim.
Status: Lawsuit filed September 9, 2026 | Allegations only, no response yet | State enforcement action — no class, no fund, no claim form
The Case at a Glance
| Case | Office of the Attorney General, State of Florida, Department of Legal Affairs v. Netflix, Inc. |
| Court | Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit in and for St. Johns County, Florida; e-filing no. 256635678 |
| Laws invoked | Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) and the Florida Digital Bill of Rights |
| Jury | The State demands a jury trial |
| Relief sought | Civil penalties, a permanent injunction, data purges, disgorgement, fees and costs |
Florida is suing on the State’s own behalf. There is no settlement fund, no class, no administrator and no claim form, and individual subscribers are not being asked to do anything. Netflix had not answered the complaint, and nothing in it has been proven.
The Kids Profile Theory
According to the complaint, Netflix asks during account setup whether any kids will be watching, describes a kids profile as a child’s own space, promotes the service as great for kids, and says in its Help Center that it does not engage in behavioral advertising on kids profiles.
Florida calls that last statement a half-truth. It alleges the wording is designed to leave parents believing their children are not tracked at all, when the same telemetry and logging systems used for adults allegedly run inside kids profiles. The State’s point is that the question for a parent is not only whether an ad is eventually shown, but whether the data needed to profile a child is collected in the first place. It alleges children’s playback events, searches, browsing patterns and device and location signals can reveal a child’s routines, interests and attention patterns.
The complaint further alleges Netflix uses the no-behavioral-advertising claim as a reason to withhold the behavioral-ads opt-out from kids profiles entirely, and points to Netflix Games and the Netflix Playground games hub for children aged eight and under as additional collection points it says are not explained to parents.
The Ad-Free Promise
The broader theory is a bait-and-switch. Florida alleges Netflix sold subscriptions on the idea that paying a monthly fee let people step out of behavioral surveillance. The complaint cites a 2015 statement by the then-chief executive that no advertising was coming, 2016 and 2019 shareholder letters describing the business as not dependent on advertising and the absence of ads as core to the brand, a January 2020 earnings call describing Netflix as a safe respite from the controversy around advertising, and a 2016 product executive’s comparison of Netflix with Google and Facebook.
Meanwhile, the State alleges, Netflix was logging viewer behavior at enormous scale — the complaint cites engineering presentations describing hundreds of billions of recorded events per day. The events it says Netflix captures include what was watched and when and where; the device used and other devices in the home; searches and scrolling; plays, pauses, rewinds, fast-forwards and where a viewer quit; session length; and ratings. Then, in November 2022, Netflix launched the ad-supported tier it had said it would not build, allegedly using data gathered while those promises were being made.
Florida also alleges Netflix did not name specific event types in its privacy statement until April 2024, after an investigation by the Dutch data protection authority, and that an April 2025 revision separating ad-related processing from the ad-supported plan suggests data from ad-free subscribers feeds the ad business too.
Advertising Partners Named in the Complaint
Relying on Netflix’s own advertiser-facing announcements, the State alleges Netflix lets advertisers bring in first-party data for matching, has opened access to commercial data brokers, runs clean-room collaborations and offers targeting across more than one hundred interests in over seventeen categories. The partners it names include LiveRamp, Experian, Acxiom, Google Display & Video 360, The Trade Desk, Yahoo DSP and Amazon DSP. Florida says none of this appears in any meaningful form in the consumer-facing privacy statement.
Autoplay, Cancellation and the California Switch
A separate count targets design. Florida alleges autoplay is on by default on every profile, kids profiles included; that there was no way to disable preview autoplay until 2020; and that the setting is still hard to find. It alleges autoplay removes natural stopping points, affects minors disproportionately, and adds more behavioral data with every extra minute watched. The complaint also alleges Netflix obstructs cancellation.
One allegation is unique to Florida: that California users get an account-level switch to turn off behavioral-data sharing, while Floridians must switch it off profile by profile.
Five Counts and the Penalties Attached
Four counts arise under FDUTPA, sections 501.201 through 501.213 of the Florida Statutes: data commercialization for advertising, kids profile misrepresentations, tracking and surveillance advertising, and dark patterns. The fifth alleges Netflix violated section 501.715 of the Florida Digital Bill of Rights by selling sensitive data — which includes data from a known child and precise geolocation — without the required consent or the required notice.
| Willful FDUTPA violation | Up to $10,000 each |
| Violation affecting a senior citizen | Up to $15,000 each |
| Digital Bill of Rights violation | Up to $50,000 each, trebled where a known child is involved |
The requested injunction would require Netflix to purge data the State says was deceptively collected from Floridians; stop using data from the no-advertising years, and any system or model trained on it, for advertising; stop collecting behavioral data through kids profiles without full disclosure and purge what it has; stop selling sensitive data without the statutory notice; and stop using dark-pattern designs.
Texas Came First
The Texas Attorney General filed a similar suit in May 2026 in Collin County under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act, seeking up to $10,000 per violation and default-off autoplay on kids profiles. Florida adds the Digital Bill of Rights count and the California comparison. The same Florida office resolved a children’s privacy action against Roku in June 2026 with roughly $25 million committed to child-protection features and no consumer fund or claim form.
Next come Netflix’s answer or preliminary motions, then discovery. Subscribers who want more control now can turn off autoplay per profile, including kids profiles, and review each profile’s privacy and ad settings. Any site promising a Netflix privacy payout from this case is not legitimate. The full 66-page complaint is embedded on our sister site’s Florida Netflix lawsuit page.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can Netflix subscribers get money from the Florida lawsuit?
No. It is a government enforcement action, not a class action or a settlement. Florida seeks civil penalties payable to the State and court orders changing how Netflix handles data. There is no fund and no claim form.
Does Florida say Netflix showed targeted ads to children?
No. The State alleges Netflix’s statement that it does not do behavioral advertising on kids profiles misleads parents into thinking children are not tracked, when the same logging systems used for adults allegedly run inside kids profiles.
What laws does the Florida Netflix lawsuit rely on?
Four counts under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, sections 501.201 through 501.213, and one count under section 501.715 of the Florida Digital Bill of Rights over the alleged sale of sensitive data without consent or notice.
How large are the penalties Florida is seeking?
Up to $10,000 per willful FDUTPA violation, up to $15,000 per violation affecting a senior citizen, and up to $50,000 per Digital Bill of Rights violation, trebled where a known child is involved.
How is this different from the Texas Netflix lawsuit?
Texas sued in May 2026 under its deceptive trade practices law. Florida adds a Digital Bill of Rights count with much higher per-violation penalties and alleges Floridians get fewer privacy controls than California users.
Has Netflix responded?
As of mid-September 2026, Netflix had not filed a response and no court had ruled on any allegation.
Sources
- Office of the Attorney General, State of Florida, Department of Legal Affairs v. Netflix, Inc., Complaint, Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit, St. Johns County, Florida, e-filing no. 256635678 (filed September 9, 2026) — read the complaint (PDF).
- Florida Office of the Attorney General, news releases; MyFloridaLegal.com.
- Florida Statutes, Chapter 501 (FDUTPA and the Florida Digital Bill of Rights).
- Dutch Data Protection Authority, Netflix fined for not properly informing customers.
- Netflix company announcements, including advertising product releases.
- OpenClassActions.com — Florida Attorney General Sues Netflix Over Alleged Secret Tracking of Families and Kids Profiles.
Source and credit: this report builds on our sister site’s coverage — OpenClassActions.com: Florida Sues Netflix, Alleging It Tracked Families and Kids Profiles — which follows the case and is updated as new filings, orders and payment news come in.
Legal Disclaimer
This article is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. OpenClassActions.org is a consumer news site, not a law firm, and is not affiliated with any party to the matters described. Allegations are allegations until a court rules on them, and court schedules and outcomes can change.