The lawsuit arises amid heightened Dutch concerns about surveillance and state data practices, with potential chilling effects on online democratic freedoms.

The Privacy Collective invites public support and offers affected users or their parents a path to register and seek compensation through the lawsuit.

A Dutch privacy advocacy group has filed a class-action against AppLovin, alleging unlawful collection and hidden tracking in apps and games that harvested and traded the personal data of millions of Dutch users, including about 1.5 million children.

Plaintiffs argue the practices breach the EU General Data Protection Regulation, challenging lawful, fair, and transparent processing and the validity of consent, with Article 8 GDPR particularly relevant due to minor data involvement.

Tracked apps and games cited include Block Blast, Subway Surfers, Helix Jump, Vinted, and CapCut Video Editor, with a fuller list available on The Privacy Collective’s site.

The Privacy Collective contends users were not adequately informed about tracking and that software is designed to maximize data collection even when tracking is opted out.

The case targets tracking software embedded in widely used apps like CapCut, Vinted, and Subway Surfers, alleging data collection to build advertising profiles across hundreds of companies.

Amnesty International Netherlands provides backing for the lawsuit, lending legitimacy to the claims.

Damages sought total €1,500 per affected child and €500 per adult claimant, potentially amounting to billions; registration for claimants opens in late May 2026.

If successful, the lawsuit could shape Dutch courts’ interpretation of mass digital tracking under EU privacy law and stand as one of the Netherlands’ largest privacy-related collective actions.

The suit claims data from millions of Dutch residents is collected and shared with hundreds of companies to build detailed advertising profiles, with AppLovin reportedly generating about $5.5 billion in revenue in 2025.

Amnesty International frames the case as a defense of digital-age human rights and urges broad support for those harmed by AppLovin’s practices.