📎 Source Note: Transparency is essential in journalism. The facts and figures presented in this article are derived directly from the legal filings in this case. A copy of which can be found at the bottom of this article. We encourage readers to review the primary source document for themselves.

Corporate Greed Case Study: Instructure, Inc. & Its Impact on K-12 Students

TLDR: A sweeping class-action lawsuit alleges that education technology giant Instructure, Inc., the company behind the widely used Canvas learning platform, has built a multi-billion-dollar empire by systematically surveilling and monetizing the personal data of millions of K-12 students without their parents’ consent. The complaint claims Instructure’s business is not merely providing educational tools but is foundationally a data-harvesting operation that collects vast troves of sensitive information on children—from their academic performance and online behavior to their personal thoughts shared in assignments. This data is allegedly used to build intimate digital profiles sold as “insights” and “analytics” to schools and shared with a network of over one thousand corporate partners, turning the compulsory nature of public education into a captive market for data extraction.

Read on to explore the damning details of how a company entrusted with educating children is accused of exploiting them, the structural economic failures that enable such a model, and the profound harm inflicted when a child’s life becomes a corporation’s most valuable asset.

Introduction: The Surveillance Business of Education
Inside the Allegations: A Data-Harvesting Empire
Regulatory Loopholes: The Fiction of Consent
Profit-Maximization at All Costs: From Data Points to Dollars
The Economic Fallout: Uncompensated Digital Labor
Public Health Risks: The Psychological Cost of Surveillance
How Capitalism Exploits Delay: The Strategic Use of Time
The PR Machine: A Foundation of Deception
Wealth Disparity & Corporate Greed: Profiting from Public Schools
This Is the System Working as Intended
Conclusion: When Corporate Accountability Fails Our Children
Frivolous or Serious Lawsuit?

1. Introduction: The Surveillance Business of Education

In the modern digital economy, it has been said that education is “the world’s most data-mineable industry by far.”

Who said that? Me. I said that just now. Anyway,

A recent lawsuit filed against Instructure, Inc. provides a chilling case study of this reality, alleging that the company’s core business is not education, but the mass collection and monetization of children’s data. This model, often called surveillance capitalism, thrives on extracting personal information to predict and influence human behavior for profit.

The legal complaint alleges Instructure has perfected this model within the compulsory environment of K-12 schools, where students have no choice but to use its products. Millions of children are allegedly subjected to intrusive data practices, having intimate details of their lives harvested to build profiles used by schools and a host of third-party companies.

This arrangement transforms the fundamental right to an education into a nonconsensual transaction, where a child’s personal development becomes raw material for a corporate empire.

2. Inside the Allegations: A Data-Harvesting Empire

The class-action complaint paints a detailed picture of a sprawling data-harvesting apparatus. Instructure is accused of generating, collecting, storing, and analyzing student data on a massive scale, creating what its own former CEO once boasted was “the most comprehensive database on the educational experience in the globe.” The lawsuit claims this data collection is an intentional and foundational part of the company’s business model.

Instructure obtains student information through three primary channels: its own products like the Canvas learning management system (LMS), a series of corporate acquisitions, and extensive data-sharing agreements with more than a thousand partner companies.

The data flows freely between these sources, creating what the company calls its “Instructure Ed-cosystem”—a synergistic network designed for maximal data extraction and analysis.

This integrated system allows Instructure to consolidate all the data it collects to enhance its analytics products, which are then marketed back to schools and other third parties.

The complaint details how Instructure grew its data trove through strategic purchases of other EdTech companies. This timeline of acquisitions shows a deliberate strategy to absorb platforms specializing in different forms of student data, from academic records to career portfolios.

Timeline of Instructure’s Data Empire Expansion

Year	Company Acquired	Data Type Gained
2019	MasteryConnect	Assessment and curriculum platform data.
2019	Portfolium	Detailed student career portfolio information.
2021	Kimono	Platform facilitating data syncing across EdTech apps.
2022	LearnPlatform	EdTech efficacy-assessment and usage data.
2022	Concentric Sky	Platform cataloging academic performance and skill development.
2023	Parchment	Digital credentials and academic records management.
2024	Scribbles Software	Student data and workflow management.

The lawsuit specifies the breathtaking scope of personal information Instructure apparently collects. It far exceeds what would traditionally be considered an “education record” and includes deeply personal and sensitive data points.

Allegedly Collected Student Data Categories

Data Category	Specific Examples
Student Account Information	Name, date of birth, gender/pronouns, email, phone number, home address, profile picture, login credentials, location, parents’ names.
Student Activity Data	Messages, discussion comments, uploaded files (essays, research papers), test results, grades, evaluations, socioeconomic information, disabilities.
Device and Usage Data	IP address, device identifiers, browser type, operating system, links clicked, time spent on pages, referring URLs, how students use products.
User-Generated & Submitted Content	Creative writing, portfolios, media (music, photos, videos, voice recordings), and other uploaded content.

This vast collection of information, when aggregated and processed, enables Instructure and its partners to build dynamic and intimate dossiers on children.

3. Regulatory Loopholes: The Fiction of Consent

At the heart of the lawsuit is the claim that Instructure’s entire business model is built upon a legal fiction of consent. For any agreement to be valid, it must be informed, voluntary, and supported by consideration. The complaint argues that Instructure fails on all three counts, exploiting legal gray areas and regulatory loopholes to maintain its operations.

The consent is not informed because Instructure’s data policies are scattered across more than a dozen different documents, websites, and agreements, making it impossible for a reasonable person to understand what they are agreeing to. For children under 13, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) requires “clearly and understandably written, complete” notice to parents, a standard the lawsuit claims Instructure fails to meet.

Furthermore, any consent is not voluntary. With compulsory education laws in every state, students and parents are coerced into using Instructure’s platforms. The lawsuit argues that placing families in a position where they must choose between their right to an education and their right to privacy makes any purported agreement unenforceable.

The complaint also claims Instructure has engineered a system to bypass its legal obligations under COPPA. For children under 13, Instructure relies on the school’s consent alone, falsely informing schools that they are authorized to consent in lieu of parents.

For children 13 and older, it purports to shift the burden of obtaining parental consent to schools without confirming it was ever obtained. This practice creates a critical loophole, as school administrators are not the legal guardians of students and lack the authority to consent to the commercial exploitation of their data by a for-profit technology company.

4. Profit-Maximization at All Costs: From Data Points to Dollars

The lawsuit alleges that Instructure’s mission is not social but financial, quoting a leading EdTech investor who stated such companies “aren’t a social mission…They’re there to create return.” This profit-maximization imperative is the driving force behind the company’s far-reaching data-harvesting scheme. The value of this data has translated into immense corporate wealth.

Instructure went public in 2021 at a $2.5 billion valuation and was later taken private in 2024 in a deal valued at approximately $4.8 billion. This financial growth was fueled by the company’s ability to turn student data into profitable products. The complaint claims Instructure uses the data to build predictive algorithms marketed as “insights,” “analytics,” and “personalized learning journeys.”

These products are sold to schools to help them automate evaluations, manage students, and make other administrative decisions. The lawsuit argues that while marketed as beneficial to education, these are undeniably commercial, for-profit products that have enabled Instructure to build a surveillance empire at the expense of student privacy. The company’s focus is on “measurability” and “scalability,” profit-driven metrics that are often at odds with the healthy development and privacy of children.

5. The Economic Fallout: Uncompensated Digital Labor

Under neoliberal capitalism, data has become a form of currency, and the lawsuit frames Instructure’s practices as a form of economic exploitation. Children in K-12 education are compelled to attend school, in part to keep them out of the labor market. Yet, the complaint argues that through their required use of Instructure’s products, these same children are performing valuable, uncompensated digital labor.

Every assignment submitted, every message sent, and every interaction with the platform generates valuable data that fuels Instructure’s multi-billion-dollar business. The lawsuit claims that Instructure unfairly diminishes the value of students’ personal information and their future property interests without any compensation. The only thing students receive in return is an education to which they are already legally entitled.

This one-sided arrangement represents a significant transfer of value from a captive population—public school students—to a private, for-profit corporation. The legal complaint alleges that Instructure has been unjustly enriched by this system, depriving students of their choice to participate in the data market and their right to control the economic value of their own information.

6. Public Health Risks: The Psychological Cost of Surveillance

Beyond the economic and privacy harms, the lawsuit details the profound psychological and developmental risks that persistent surveillance poses to children. The complaint argues that Instructure’s practices are not benign, but harm children in ways that are significant and long-lasting. The constant monitoring and tracking inherent in the company’s platforms can decrease opportunities for autonomy and independence.

Research cited in the complaint suggests that persistent surveillance hinders the development of self-regulation and decision-making skills crucial for forming a healthy identity. It can lead to passivity and self-censorship, compromising a child’s freedom of thought, expression, and creativity. The practice normalizes surveillance as a part of everyday life, training children not to value their own privacy or the privacy of others.

Moreover, the massive stores of sensitive data collected by Instructure create a permanent security risk. The complaint highlights the rising rates of cybercrime targeting schools, which can lead to leaks of highly personal information with devastating, long-term consequences for children’s futures, including their ability to get into college or find a job.

7. How Capitalism Exploits Delay: The Strategic Use of Time

A key element of corporate misconduct in the digital age is the ability to operate in the shadows, delaying accountability for years. The lawsuit against Instructure argues that the company’s data-harvesting scheme was successful precisely because it was intentionally concealed from the public. This alleged concealment allowed the business model to flourish long before parents or regulators could understand its true nature.

The complaint asserts that Instructure had a continuous duty to disclose how it was tracking students, storing their data, and sharing it with partners. Instead, Instructure engaged in active and knowing concealment, misleading parents, schools, and the public about its practices. By making its system intentionally opaque and claiming to protect student privacy, Instructure created an environment where its data extraction could proceed without challenge.

This strategic delay is a hallmark of how capitalist systems can reward harmful behavior. The lawsuit argues that the statute of limitations should be tolled under the “discovery rule,” meaning the clock on legal action did not start until the plaintiffs could have reasonably discovered the scheme. This claim itself highlights the core problem: when a company’s profits depend on keeping its methods secret, time becomes a strategic asset, allowing harm to compound while victims remain unaware.

8. The PR Machine: A Foundation of Deception

The lawsuit accuses Instructure of engaging in a calculated public relations campaign to mask its true business model. The complaint alleges the company makes numerous false and misleading statements, intending for school personnel, parents, and the public to rely on them. This creates a façade of corporate responsibility that directly contradicts the company’s actions.

At the top of its privacy page, Instructure publicly touts its “Commitment to Privacy,” claiming its approach is built on principles of “transparency, accountability, integrity, security, and confidentiality.” The lawsuit flatly rejects these claims, pointing to the company’s actual practices of maximal data collection and sharing. The complaint further alleges that Instructure’s statement that its products are “private by design” is false, arguing they are instead designed for openness and data extraction.

The deception extends to its compliance with laws and industry standards. The lawsuit claims Instructure falsely states it adheres to the Student Privacy Pledge, a commitment that includes not building personal profiles of students for non-educational purposes and clearly disclosing what data is collected. Similarly, the complaint argues that Instructure’s claim of complying with COPPA is false, alleging multiple violations, including collecting more information than necessary and failing to obtain proper parental consent. This pattern of public misrepresentation is presented as a deliberate tactic to build trust while undermining it.

9. Wealth Disparity & Corporate Greed: Profiting from Public Schools

The legal complaint against Instructure illustrates a distressing narrative of wealth extraction, where immense corporate profits are allegedly generated from the data of a vulnerable, captive population: public school children. This system creates a profound disparity, enriching a private corporation and its investors while the individuals providing the valuable data receive nothing in return.

The lawsuit highlights Instructure’s staggering financial success, which it claims is a direct result of its data monetization practices. The company, which went public at a $2.9 billion valuation in 2021, was acquired in an all-cash deal valuing it at $4.8 billion in 2024. This wealth, the complaint argues, was built on the compromised privacy and uncompensated labor of children.

This arrangement is framed as fundamentally unjust. Instructure receives benefits at the direct expense of students and their families, who are subjected to continuous surveillance and the risks of data exposure. While the company and its shareholders reap billions, students are provided only with the education they are already legally entitled to, forcing them into a one-sided bargain that trades their fundamental rights for corporate profit.

10. This Is the System Working as Intended

The allegations against Instructure are presented not as an anomaly, but as a predictable outcome of a system that structurally prioritizes profit over people. The lawsuit describes a business model that mirrors what scholars call “surveillance capitalism,” an economic logic perfected by Big Tech and now deployed in the classroom. This is the system of late-stage capitalism working exactly as designed.

In this model, the extraction imperative demands the maximal collection of data to create behavioral predictions that can be sold.

The legal complaint argues Instructure followed this playbook perfectly by gaining access to a captive audience—students required to use its software—and building an “Ed-cosystem” architected for “OPEN DATA” and seamless sharing with over a thousand partners. The profit motive is the engine, and the lack of meaningful regulation is the fertile ground in which it grows.

The use of opaque terms of service, the shifting of legal burdens onto under-resourced schools, and the public relations campaigns that obscure the company’s true methods are not signs of a system failing. They are the tools used to sustain a profitable, extractive enterprise. The lawsuit suggests that when the most valuable resource is data, and the subjects are a vulnerable population with no ability to opt out, exploitation is not a bug; it is the core feature.

11. Conclusion: When Corporate Accountability Fails Our Children

The class-action lawsuit against Instructure, Inc. is more than a legal dispute; it is an indictment of a system that has allowed the surveillance economy to infiltrate one of society’s most sacred spaces: the public school classroom. The complaint details a profound failure of corporate accountability, where a company entrusted with a child’s education prioritizes its bottom line over their privacy, security, and healthy development.

The human cost outlined in the complaint is immense. It is the harm of an invaded privacy, where a child’s thoughts and academic journey are transformed into corporate assets. It is the psychological weight of persistent surveillance, which can stifle creativity and autonomy. And it is the economic injustice of having one’s personal data—a valuable form of property and labor—taken without knowledge or compensation.

Ultimately, the lawsuit argues that Instructure has forced families into an impossible choice between the fundamental right to an education and the fundamental rights to privacy and property. When a company can build a multi-billion-dollar empire on this coercive premise, it signals a deep failure in our laws and our capacity to protect the most vulnerable. This legal battle represents a critical effort to reassert that children are not data points and that education must never be a pretext for exploitation.

12. Frivolous or Serious Lawsuit?

Based on the evidence presented in the 82-page complaint, the class-action lawsuit against Instructure, Inc. appears to be a serious and meticulously prepared legal challenge. The allegations are not vague or speculative; they are grounded in specific claims about the company’s technology, business practices, and public statements, demonstrating a deep investigation into its operations.

The complaint’s credibility is bolstered by its detailed references to Instructure’s own technical infrastructure, including its open API, “Live Events” data feeds, and specific “Payload Examples” that allegedly transmit granular student data to third parties. It also directly quotes from the company’s privacy policies, terms of service, and shareholder disclosures to build a case for misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment.

Furthermore, the lawsuit anchors its claims in a robust legal framework, citing violations of multiple federal and state laws, including the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, COPPA, and California’s stringent privacy statutes. The sheer depth of the factual allegations, combined with the comprehensive legal arguments, elevates this case far beyond a frivolous claim. It represents a significant and substantive effort to hold a major corporation accountable for practices that allegedly harm millions of children.

hernandez-silva-et-al-v-instructure-inc Download

💡 Explore Corporate Misconduct by Category

Corporations harm people every day — from wage theft to pollution. Learn more by exploring key areas of injustice.

💀 Product Safety Violations — When companies risk lives for profit.
🌿 Environmental Violations — Pollution, ecological collapse, and unchecked greed.
💼 Labor Exploitation — Wage theft, worker abuse, and unsafe conditions.
🛡️ Data Breaches & Privacy Abuses — Misuse and mishandling of personal information.
💵 Financial Fraud & Corruption — Lies, scams, and executive impunity.

How Instructure Inc. Allegedly Turned Public Schools into a Surveillance Goldmine.