Tony Parrish, proceeding without counsel, filed suit individually and on behalf of his minor child, J.P., against The Hudson School, a private school in New Jersey, along with administrators and board members, asserting a sweeping set of claims arising out of concerns regarding student data privacy and an allegedly retaliatory report to New Jersey child welfare authorities.
According to the complaint, Parrish began receiving communications from Apple in October 2024 concerning suspected unauthorized access to his child’s digital information through educational software called IXL Learning, Inc., allegedly used by the School. Parrish claimed that Apple representatives expressed concern about possible third-party interception of data inconsistent with Apple’s privacy standards. He further alleged that he discovered indications of spyware or intrusive software on both personal and School-issued devices used by his child.
Parrish requested information from the School regarding third-party software vendors and data privacy safeguards. According to the complaint, School administrators responded defensively and directed him to contact the educational software providers directly. Parrish later informed the School that he was revoking consent for data sharing relating to his child.
The complaint alleged that days after Parrish revoked consent, School administrators filed a report with the New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency (“DCPP”) alleging concerns about the child’s tight-fitting clothing and Parrish’s “mental decline.” Parrish contended that the report was retaliatory and intended to punish him for questioning the School’s technology and data practices. He further alleged that DCPP ultimately found the allegations “Not Established.”
Parrish asserted more than twenty claims against the School, administrators, and trustees, including claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title VI, FERPA, COPPA, the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, negligence theories, emotional distress claims, and claims relating to student privacy and educational discrimination.
The Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. A central aspect of the ruling was the Court’s conclusion that The Hudson School, as a private school, was not a “state actor” for purposes of constitutional claims brought under § 1983 or the New Jersey Civil Rights Act. The Court explained that even extensive regulation or receipt of public funds does not convert a private school into a governmental actor. Because constitutional protections such as due process and equal protection generally apply only to state action, the Court dismissed with prejudice the constitutional claims asserted against the School and its administrators.
The Court also held that Parrish, as a non-lawyer parent proceeding pro se, could not represent his child in federal court. The Court explained that while individuals may represent themselves, non-attorney parents cannot litigate claims on behalf of minor children. The Court therefore directed Parrish either to obtain counsel for J.P. or face dismissal of the child’s claims without prejudice.
In addition, the Court dismissed the majority of the complaint because it improperly lumped together seventeen defendants without specifying which individual allegedly engaged in which conduct. The Court characterized the pleading as impermissible “group pleading,” explaining that the allegations failed to place each defendant on notice of the claims against them.
The Court separately dismissed claims against the School’s board members for negligent hiring and supervision, finding that the complaint failed to plausibly allege that the Board knew of any specific dangerous propensities or that any board action proximately caused Parrish’s alleged injuries.
Ultimately, the Court dismissed some claims with prejudice, dismissed the remaining claims without prejudice, and permitted Parrish an opportunity to amend the complaint to address the deficiencies identified by the Court.
Parrish v. Hudson Sch. (D.N.J. May 13, 2026) 2026 WL 1328364.
Note: As schools increasingly rely on educational technology and third-party learning platforms, parents are raising more questions regarding data collection, student privacy, and consent. This case underscores the value of maintaining clear disclosures regarding software vendors, privacy protections, and data-sharing practices.