Skip to content
COPPA · COPPA-312-GEOLOCATION

COPPA 16 CFR 312.2 - Personal information, geolocation and combined identifiers

Assess actual geolocation precision, collection timing and linked information before relying on a COPPA consent or exception basis

HIGHProcess dutyData collectionBinding regulationIn forceApplies from 1 July 2013

Where this comes from

Provision: 16 CFR 312.2 - Personal information, geolocation and combined identifiers

Instrument: Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)

Citation: 16 CFR 312.2 (Collects or collection; Personal information, paragraphs (9) and (11)), 312.3-312.5; 78 FR 3972 (17 January 2013), effective 1 July 2013, https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/2012-31341.pdf

Text version: 16 CFR 312.2/312.3, eCFR displayed through 3 September 2026, checked 6 September; FTC Six-Step Compliance Plan (May 2026) identifies connected toys/IoT as online services. 2013 final rule (78 FR 3972, effective 1 July 2013) establishes the geolocation definition. Current duties must be read with the amended consent, security and retention provisions.

Checked against the source: 6 September 2026

Read the official text ↗

Who it applies to

It applies when all of these are true:

  • COPPA assessed activity Q_COPPA_COVERED_ACTIVITY: YES
  • COPPA assessed activity Q_COPPA_GEOLOCATION_FLOW: YES

What engineering work it implies

Sample acceptance criteria Landfall generates for this obligation:

  • Inventory actual location collection and inference from GPS, networks, SDKs, submissions and server processing; assess every recipient and linked identifier rather than assuming IP-derived data is always coarse.
  • Determine whether information identifies street name and city/town under 312.2(9), and separately assess personal information combined with listed identifiers under 312.2(11); coarse location alone and combined child information are different cases.
  • Resolve notice, consent and every condition of any claimed 312.5(c) exception before non-exempt collection; a location permission or app-store disclosure is not parental consent.
  • Test what is received before truncation, rounding or deletion. Server-side precision reduction after receiving precise coordinates cannot undo earlier collection; assess the earliest collection point and what leaves the device.
  • Test background/SDK traffic, denied permissions, failures, logs/caches and derived or combined location. Assess disclosure choice and purpose limits separately; a coarse label or fixed decimal count is not proof.

Evidence an auditor expects

  • Assessment documentDocument review

    Geolocation precision, timing and linked-data assessment

    [ ] Inventory actual location collection and inference from GPS, networks, SDKs, submissions and server processing; assess every recipient and linked identifier rather than assuming IP-derived data is always coarse. [ ] Determine whether information identifies street name and city/town under 312.2(9), and separately assess personal information combined with listed identifiers under 312.2(11); coarse location alone and combined child information are different cases. [ ] Resolve notice, consent and every condition of any claimed 312.5(c) exception before non-exempt collection; a location permission or app-store disclosure is not parental consent. [ ] Test what is received before truncation, rounding or deletion. Server-side precision reduction after receiving precise coordinates cannot undo earlier collection; assess the earliest collection point and what leaves the device. [ ] Test background/SDK traffic, denied permissions, failures, logs/caches and derived or combined location. Assess disclosure choice and purpose limits separately; a coarse label or fixed decimal count is not proof. [ ] Preserve minimized flow, precision and consent-or-exception evidence using synthetic points; avoid raw child-location histories merely for proof and label minimization choices separately from statutory requirements. This evidence supports review; it is not legal approval, parental consent or an automatic exception.

Questions people ask

Does COPPA 16 CFR 312.2 - Personal information, geolocation and combined identifiers apply to my service?
It applies when COPPA assessed activity Q_COPPA_COVERED_ACTIVITY: YES; COPPA assessed activity Q_COPPA_GEOLOCATION_FLOW: YES.
From when does this apply?
COPPA 16 CFR 312.2 - Personal information, geolocation and combined identifiers applies from 1 July 2013. Its current status is: in force.
What evidence does an auditor expect?
Geolocation precision, timing and linked-data assessment.

Find out whether this one lands on you

Landfall's pre-scan answers the applicability question above for your product in minutes, then turns every obligation that applies into traceable engineering tickets with a citation chain your auditors can follow.

Not legal advice. Landfall maps regulatory obligations to engineering work for planning purposes. Its verdicts are not legal advice and create no attorney-client relationship — verify with qualified counsel before relying on them.

What Landfall Is NOT

Critical Boundaries

Understanding these boundaries is essential before using this product. Misuse of this tool for purposes outside its scope may create legal, regulatory, or commercial risk for your organization.

NOT Legal Advice

This product does not provide legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Interpretations are informational analysis, not legal counsel. Always consult qualified legal professionals for compliance decisions.

NOT a Risk Score

We do not quantify, calculate, or certify your compliance risk level.

No numerical risk rating, compliance percentage, or safety score. Risk assessment requires human judgment about your specific context.

NOT Runtime Enforcement

This is a planning and mapping tool, not a runtime enforcement system.

Does not integrate with your production systems. Does not block, filter, or enforce compliance in real-time. Implementation is your responsibility.

NOT Regulatory Approval

Using this tool does not mean you are compliant with any regulation.

No certification, seal of approval, or compliance guarantee. Regulators will evaluate your actual implementation, not your use of this tool.

NOT Authoritative Interpretation

Our interpretations are not binding and may differ from regulatory guidance.

Only regulators and courts provide authoritative interpretation. Our analysis reflects our reading of requirements, which may be incomplete or incorrect.

NOT a Safe Harbor

This tool does not shield you from enforcement actions or liability.

Documentation of your process is valuable, but does not constitute a legal defense. Compliance is ultimately your organization's responsibility.

NOT an AI Compliance Agent

AI features assist analysis but do not make compliance decisions for you.

AI-generated interpretations require human review and approval. Automated suggestions are starting points, not final answers.

NOT Complete Coverage

We do not cover all regulations, all obligations, or all jurisdictions.

Regulatory landscape is vast and evolving. Gaps in our coverage do not mean those requirements don't apply to you.

What This Tool IS:

  • A structured workflow for mapping regulatory requirements to implementation tasks
  • A documentation system for compliance decisions (audit trail)
  • A collaboration platform for compliance, legal, and engineering teams
  • An informational resource for understanding regulatory obligations