The relationship between a parent and a school involves a specific type of trust. When you send your child through the door in the morning, you presume—reasonably, for the most part—that learning takes place inside. Generally speaking, you wouldn’t think that a software program your child uses for math and reading diagnostics is also creating a behavioral profile of them and selling that profile to outside parties. In December 2025, a federal class action lawsuit was launched against Curriculum Associates, the corporation that created i-Ready, based on that accusation. The legal system is still handling the case. However, the questions it poses don’t wait for a decision.
i-Ready is not a specialty item. It is one of the most extensively utilized instructional platforms in American public schools, with over 14 million students in grades K–8 using it nationwide. Before switching to digital learning in the late 2000s, the company that created it, Curriculum Associates, was a relatively quiet textbook publisher for many years.
Currently supported by private equity, it employs about 2,700 people and generates about $750 million in revenue annually, almost all of which comes from taxpayer-funded school contracts. This financial background is important since the lawsuit contends that Curriculum Associates does not actually sell reading lessons or diagnostic tests. The plaintiffs characterize it as something more akin to surveillance than education because it is the data produced by kids completing those classes and assessments and put back into a system.
Important Information
| Field | Details |
|---|---|
| Case Name | M.C. v. Curriculum Associates, Inc. |
| Filed | December 22, 2025 — federal class action |
| Defendant | Curriculum Associates, Inc. — maker of i-Ready; founded 1969; headquartered in North Billerica, Massachusetts |
| Annual Revenue | Approximately $750 million — derived primarily from U.S. public schools |
| Plaintiffs | Four California K–12 students, represented by their parents |
| Platform at Issue | i-Ready — adaptive learning and diagnostic platform used in grades K–8 |
| Users Affected | Over 14 million students across the United States |
| Core Allegations | Unlawful collection, sharing, and monetization of student data without meaningful parental consent; creation of behavioral and psychological profiles on minors |
| Laws Cited | Federal Wiretap Act; California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA); California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (CDAFA); Massachusetts Right to Privacy Act; Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act |
| Damages Sought | More than $5 million |
| Curriculum Associates Response | Filed motion to dismiss February 27, 2026 — called the lawsuit an “ideologically motivated crusade”; cites FERPA compliance |
| Latest Development | Plaintiffs filed opposition to motion to dismiss on April 3, 2026 — case is active and unresolved |
| Track the Case | EdTech Law Center — M.C. v. Curriculum Associates |
On December 22, 2025, four California students, represented by their parents, filed the complaint, M.C. v. Curriculum Associates. The legal allegations are particular. The plaintiffs claim that without getting direct parental approval, the firm gathers student names, student IDs, grade levels, IP addresses, and answers to academic questions before sharing that data with outside service providers. They further claim that children’s behavioral and psychological profiles are created using this data.
The Federal Wiretap Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, the Massachusetts Right to Privacy Act, and the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act are some of the overlapping legal frameworks that are invoked in this action. The plaintiffs are requesting class certification, which could extend the action to millions of families, and they are demanding damages exceeding $5 million.
The portrayal has not been quietly accepted by Curriculum Associates. The corporation filed a request to dismiss on February 27, 2026, describing the lawsuit as a “ideologically motivated crusade” that sought to change school technology policy through litigation rather than legislation. The company claims that its data methods are completely compliant with the Family Educational
Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and comparable state-level frameworks, pointing out that these regulations allow schools to obtain parental agreement for data gathering related to valid educational goals. Additionally, the corporation contests the wiretapping notion, claiming that it is illegal for a business to intercept its own interactions with users of its own platform. The court is currently considering whether that legal interpretation will be upheld.
The lawsuit was kept alive on April 3, 2026, when the plaintiffs submitted their challenge to the petition to dismiss. The next significant point in the litigation will depend on the outcome of that motion, and allowing the case to continue would have significant ramifications for the larger education technology sector. Similar allegations regarding data monetization are made in a parallel lawsuit against Instructure, the company that created the popular learning management system Canvas. This suggests that M.C. v. Curriculum Associates is less of an isolated incident and more of a sign of a broader reckoning with how EdTech companies have functioned inside public schools.
The particular role that i-Ready plays in this narrative seems uneasy. Students that use the platform are required to do so. As part of their curriculum, several schools mandate that students complete 45 minutes of i-Ready arithmetic and 45 minutes of i-Ready reading each week. When the school has a contract with the corporation and the sessions take place during the regular school day, parents who oppose have few practical options. The plaintiffs’ case revolves around this framing, which links mandatory use to public education with data gathering included as a requirement. They are not discussing a consumer product that households have decided to use. They describe a system in which families were recruited without any kind of significant inquiry.
It’s difficult to ignore how long these issues have been at the rear of the EdTech growth. By pitching districts on the promise of data-driven instruction—personalized learning paths, accurate diagnosis, and adaptive content—companies like Curriculum Associates have experienced tremendous growth. Data is needed for all of it. The case raises the question of who ultimately owns that data and what happens to it outside of the classroom. It turns out that there is no definitive solution to that question.
