The District Attorney's Office for San Diego County has filed a civil enforcement action against mobile ad-tech firm AppLovin. The suit accuses the company of bypassing parental controls on children's devices, using fingerprinting techniques to harvest location and behavior data, and serving advertisements for sexual content, alcohol, and drugs inside titles marketed to minors.

Officials submitted screenshots taken from a six-year-old's smartphone with parental controls active as evidence. Those creatives, the complaint states, included ads it describes as sexual in nature alongside promotions for alcohol and drugs. The county alleges AppLovin collected the underlying data despite platform opt-outs, then routed the signals into what the filing calls an "AI-based advertising engine" capable of fine-grained behavioral targeting across age-sensitive placements.

AppLovin has not commented publicly on the complaint.

What does the complaint allege?

The suit, brought under California consumer protection statutes, rests on two claims. The first: AppLovin allegedly deploys device fingerprinting to derive granular behavioral markers — including a child's home and school locations, sleep windows, and additional traits — even when tracking restrictions and ad-network opt-outs are enabled.

The second: the resulting targeting pipeline surfaces age-inappropriate ads inside children's titles. The evidence package centers on screenshots captured on a six-year-old's device under active parental controls. Those images show creatives the complaint describes as sexual in nature alongside others promoting alcohol or drugs. The county traces the issue back to AppLovin's role as a data-driven advertising provider whose systems reach into children's apps.

How does this connect to earlier accusations?

The San Diego filing overlaps with a report short sellers circulated publicly in February 2025. That report accused AppLovin of inflating ad metrics, deploying manipulative monetization practices, and harvesting child user data. Those claims drove an inquiry by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission.

The FTC closed that investigation without imposing sanctions, according to AppLovin CFO Matt Stumpf, who said in August 2026 that "the agency decided not to impose any sanctions on the company after the investigation." That clearance covered federal advertising standards; it does not preclude state consumer-protection enforcement under California law.

The county's complaint deliberately narrows its claims to the data and ad-placement issues, omitting the broader market-integrity allegations the short sellers raised. By leaning on state statute instead of the FTC's cleared record, prosecutors preserve an independent lane to litigate the merits in their venue.

Why does the case matter for studios and ad partners?

AppLovin's advertising infrastructure, named in the complaint as active inside children's games, plays the central role in the dispute. A finding that the company knowingly ingested minor signals despite opt-outs would force publishers to reexamine which ad partners they accept and how age gates are configured on their own titles. The complaint's framing — that the data extraction happens after parental controls are set, not before — targets AppLovin directly, but discovery will test how any liability cascades across the supply chain.

For competing ad-tech firms, the case layers a state-level enforcement track on top of the cleared federal file. It also positions a county prosecutor as the first public regulator to contest AppLovin's child-data practices after the FTC closed its inquiry. AppLovin faces a separate commercial dispute with Unity Technologies, the outcome of which is still pending.

What comes next?

San Diego's filing schedule and any motion to transfer or dismiss will signal how aggressively AppLovin contests venue. The county's choice of state statute — rather than reliance on the FTC's clearance — suggests prosecutors expect to litigate the merits independently, a longer runway than a quick consent decree would produce. The first responsive pleading will reveal whether AppLovin intends to settle, fight on the state venue, or attempt removal to federal court.