Netflix Class Action Lawsuit, Ohio Parents Say Netflix Tracks Kids’ Viewing Data

Two Ohio parents have sued Netflix, claiming the company told families its kids’ profiles were safe while it logged what children watch, rewatch, pause, and abandon, and while autoplay kept them watching. The case is Mosley, et al. v. Netflix Inc., filed on September 28, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. It is a putative class action, which means no judge has agreed yet that it can proceed on behalf of other families.

Everything below describes allegations in the complaint. No court has ruled on any of them, and Netflix has said it will fight the case.

Quick facts: Mosley v. Netflix class action lawsuit

Detail	Information
Case name	Mosley, et al. v. Netflix Inc.
Case number	5:26-cv-02534
Court	U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division
Filed	September 28, 2026
Plaintiffs	Kayla Mosley and Jonathan Austin, individually and as parents and next friends of their minor children
Defendant	Netflix, Inc., a Delaware corporation based in Los Gatos, California
Plaintiffs’ attorney	George W. Cochran III, Law Office of George W. Cochran, Kent, Ohio
Claims	Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act; Ohio statutory product liability; injunctive relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2)
Proposed class	Ohio residents who are parents or guardians and subscribed to Netflix as a Household or Extra Member since September 26, 2024
Class certified?	No
Settlement or claim form?	None
Jury trial	Demanded

What the Netflix lawsuit alleges

The complaint says Netflix built its brand on being the opposite of an ad-driven tech company. It points to years of public statements from Netflix executives. In a 2019 shareholder letter, Netflix called its ad-free model a deep part of its brand proposition. In a January 2020 earnings call, the CEO said Netflix was “not integrating everybody’s data.”

The plaintiffs say that picture was misleading. According to the complaint, Netflix was building a data-logging operation the whole time, and it launched an ad-supported tier in November 2022 that put that data to work. The complaint describes the plan in blunt terms: keep children and families on the screen, collect their data while they watch, and sell the value of that data to advertisers.

The complaint also cites figures meant to show the scale of the business. It says Netflix has more than 325 million paid memberships, that ad revenue passed $1.5 billion in 2025, and that Netflix expects ad revenue to roughly double in 2026. The complaint states that ad-tier reach is above 250 million monthly active viewers, up from 94 million a year earlier. These numbers come from the plaintiffs’ filing, not from a court finding.

The Netflix kids’ profiles claim

A large part of the complaint focuses on Netflix Kids profiles. The plaintiffs say Netflix encouraged parents to create child profiles at signup and advertised them as “Great for kids.” Parents, they argue, would reasonably take that to mean their children were not tracked the way adult users are.

The complaint says that is not how it works. It alleges Netflix gathers detailed behavioral information from children through the same logging systems it uses everywhere else on the platform. That includes what a child watches, rewatches, searches for, pauses, and gives up on. The plaintiffs also say Netflix told parents it does not run behavioral advertising on kids’ profiles, but left out that it still collects the underlying data. In their view, that omission is the deception.

The complaint adds that Netflix lets advertisers and ad-tech companies match what they know about a person with what Netflix has collected. It names Experian, Acxiom, Google Display & Video 360, LiveRamp, and The Trade Desk. The plaintiffs say Netflix never got consent from subscribers for that matching.

Autoplay and “dark patterns” in the Netflix lawsuit

The second theme is design. The plaintiffs allege Netflix uses “dark patterns,” a term for interface choices that steer users toward what the company wants them to do.

Autoplay is the main example. The complaint says it is switched on by default for every profile, including children’s profiles. When one episode ends, the next one starts without any input, so the natural stopping points disappear. The plaintiffs argue this weakens parents’ control over screen time and also increases the amount of behavioral data Netflix can collect.

The complaint quotes a Netflix engineer describing the company as “a logging company that occasionally streams movies.” The plaintiffs use that line to argue that data collection sits at the center of how Netflix operates.

Related article: GPGI Securities Class Action, What the $113.9 Million Q2 EBITDA Results Mean for Investors

How the Texas and Florida attorney general cases connect to Mosley v. Netflix

The Ohio parents are not the first to make these arguments. The complaint relies heavily on two lawsuits filed by state attorneys general.

• Texas: The complaint says the Texas Attorney General sued Netflix about four months before the Ohio filing under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Texas is seeking civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation, according to the Ohio complaint.
• Florida: The Florida Attorney General filed a similar suit on September 9, 2026, in the Seventh Judicial Circuit in St. Johns County.

The plaintiffs borrow much of their factual story from those cases, including the executive statements, the engineer quote, and the autoplay allegations. They also reference the earlier social media addiction litigation against Meta and other platforms. The complaint says 51 attorneys general announced a proposed settlement with Meta on May 26, 2026, with up to $17 billion in payments to the states over ten years. The Ohio plaintiffs use that history to argue that engagement-driven design has already been treated as a serious harm to children.

Claims against Netflix under Ohio law

The complaint has three counts.

Count I: Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (R.C. 1345.01 et seq.). The plaintiffs say each Household or Extra Member subscription is a consumer transaction. They allege that calling Netflix “safe for kids” is a per se deceptive act under R.C. 1345.02(B)(1), and that failing to disclose the use of children’s viewing data to support advertising is a separate violation of the same provision. They also cite R.C. 1345.02(B)(10) and Ohio Administrative Code Rule 109:4-3-10(A). The plaintiffs point to the statute’s reach to conduct “after the transaction,” arguing it covers monitoring that continues after a family signs up. They allege the violations were willful, which they say supports noneconomic damages of up to $5,000 per violation under R.C. 1345.09(B).

Count II: Ohio statutory product liability (R.C. 2307.71 et seq.). The plaintiffs argue that features such as parental controls, screen-time limits, and account deactivation are “products” for purposes of the statute, separate from any show’s content. They say Netflix’s design choices, including autoplay by default, are a defect and that a safer alternative design was available. The count seeks damages for emotional distress, and the complaint also describes the design as a public nuisance.

Count III: Injunctive relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). This count asks the court to stop Netflix from operating the design described in the complaint and to order it corrected.

What the plaintiffs want from Netflix

The complaint asks the court to order Netflix to:

• Purge data it allegedly collected deceptively from Ohioans
• Stop targeted advertising without express informed consent
• Stop collecting children’s behavioral data without parental consent
• Turn off autoplay by default on children’s accounts

The plaintiffs also seek actual and compensatory damages, including emotional distress and mental anguish, noneconomic damages for willful violations, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and a jury trial. The complaint does not name a total dollar figure. It says the amount will be determined at trial. It invokes federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act and states that more than $5 million is in controversy.

Who is in the proposed Netflix class

The complaint defines the proposed class as all Ohio residents who subscribed to Netflix’s streaming product as a Household or Extra Member at any time since September 26, 2024, and who are also parents or legal guardians of one or more minor children. The children are included through their parents. Netflix, its affiliates, its officers and employees, and the judge and court staff on the case are excluded.

The named plaintiffs are:

• Kayla Mosley of New Franklin, Ohio, who has three minor children and has been an Extra Member of Netflix for several years.
• Jonathan Austin of Boardman, Ohio, who has one minor child and has been a Household Member since 2017.

Both say they worry about the effect of binge-watching and Netflix’s design on their children’s mental health. The class is limited to Ohio. Families in other states are not part of this case, though Texas and Florida have their own suits.

Who represents the plaintiffs in Mosley v. Netflix

The plaintiffs are represented by George W. Cochran III of the Law Office of George W. Cochran in Kent, Ohio. The complaint asks the court to appoint the plaintiffs as class representatives and their counsel as class counsel.

Netflix’s response to the Ohio lawsuit

Netflix has given a short public statement: “We intend to vigorously defend the matter.” As of October 5, 2026, I did not find a filed response or a ruling from the court. The company has not yet laid out its legal defenses in this case.

Key dates in the Netflix class action

Date	Event
November 2022	Netflix launches its ad-supported tier
September 26, 2024	Start of the proposed Ohio class period
May 26, 2026	Proposed Meta settlement with 51 attorneys general announced, as described in the complaint
September 9, 2026	Florida Attorney General files suit against Netflix
September 28, 2026	Mosley v. Netflix filed in the Northern District of Ohio

What happens next in Mosley v. Netflix

Nothing is required of Ohio families right now. There is no settlement, no claim form, and no deadline to file anything. Because this is a putative class action, the court first has to decide whether to certify a class under Rule 23. Netflix’s next filing, whether an answer or a motion to dismiss, will show which defenses it plans to raise.

Parents who want more control over viewing in the meantime can check each profile’s settings, since Netflix has offered autoplay controls at the profile level.

If you want to follow other cases involving children’s data and online platforms, see our related coverage:

• [INTERNAL LINK: add pillar page for class action lawsuits, using its exact page title as anchor text]
• [INTERNAL LINK: add article on any related Netflix lawsuit, using its exact title as anchor text]
• [INTERNAL LINK: add article on any related data privacy settlement, using its exact title as anchor text]

Frequently asked questions about the Netflix class action lawsuit

What is the Mosley v. Netflix lawsuit about?

It is a putative class action filed by two Ohio parents. They claim Netflix marketed its kids’ profiles as safe while collecting behavioral data from children and using autoplay and other design features to keep them watching, all to support its advertising business.

Can I join the Netflix class action lawsuit?

There is nothing to join yet. No class has been certified. If the court certifies a class, Ohio residents who meet the definition would likely be included automatically and would be told about their options at that point.

Is there a Netflix settlement or claim form?

No. The case was filed on September 28, 2026, and there is no settlement and no payout available.

Who qualifies as part of the proposed class against Netflix?

Ohio residents who are parents or legal guardians of minor children and who subscribed to Netflix as a Household or Extra Member at any time since September 26, 2024.

Is the Ohio lawsuit connected to the Texas and Florida attorney general cases against Netflix?

They are separate cases, but the Ohio complaint draws on both. It repeats the allegations about executive statements, kids’ profiles, autoplay, and data-logging that Texas and Florida made in their suits.

What Ohio laws does the Netflix complaint rely on?

The Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (R.C. 1345.01 et seq.) and Ohio’s statutory product liability law (R.C. 2307.71 et seq.), plus a request for injunctive relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).

What has Netflix said about the lawsuit?

Netflix has said it intends to vigorously defend the matter. It has not publicly addressed the specific allegations.

This article is general information based on public court filings and news reports. It is not legal advice, and the author is not an attorney. The allegations described here are unproven.

Sources

1. “Netflix Sued Over Addictive Design, Surveillance of Child Users,” Bloomberg Law, https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/netflix-sued-over-addictive-design-surveillance-of-child-users