Upper Arlington High School: Critical Legal Risks in Privacy Policy & Terms – A Redline Analysis | Erayaha

## When School Privacy Policies Create Six-Figure Risks: A Case Study on Upper Arlington High School

Our analysis of Upper Arlington High School’s Terms & Conditions uncovers several legal vulnerabilities that could expose the District to significant regulatory fines, litigation costs, and reputational harm. In today’s environment, privacy missteps can result in penalties exceeding $100,000 under laws like FERPA, CCPA, and GDPR. Here’s what our redline review reveals—and how targeted improvements can close costly loopholes.

1. Ambiguity in Third-Party Data Sharing The policy states that personal information will not be transferred to non-affiliated third parties "unless otherwise stated at the time of collection, or otherwise in accordance with applicable law." This language is vague and could be interpreted to permit broad, undefined sharing—potentially violating FERPA and state privacy laws. Without explicit limitations and defined scenarios, the District risks unauthorized disclosures and regulatory scrutiny.

Legal Analysis

high Risk

Removed

Added

Personal information submitted will be maintained in accordance with applicable law and District policy and will not be transferred to any non-affiliated third parties unless otherwise statedexcept as specifically disclosed at the time of collection, or otherwise in accordance with applicableas required by law, including but not limited to responding to (such as valid requests for public records requests), and only after providing notice to the affected individual(s).

Legal Explanation

The original clause is ambiguous and could be interpreted to allow broad, undefined sharing. The revision limits third-party transfers to only those explicitly disclosed or legally mandated, with notice, aligning with FERPA and state privacy requirements.

2. Insufficient Notice and Consent for Student Data Use While the policy references seeking consent for student data, it lacks specificity on the process, timing, and documentation. Ambiguity here can lead to non-compliance with FERPA and state student privacy statutes, exposing the District to complaints, audits, and loss of federal funding (which can exceed $50,000 per incident).

Legal Analysis

high Risk

Removed

Added

In the case of a student’s personal information, the school will seek theobtain written consent from the student and/ or parent depending on the circumstances and the student’s mental ability and maturityor legal guardian prior to understand the consequences of the proposedany use andor disclosure, except where otherwise permitted by law. The process for obtaining and documenting consent will be clearly communicated and recorded in accordance with FERPA requirements.

Legal Explanation

The original clause is vague about the consent process and documentation. The revision specifies written consent and clear procedures, ensuring compliance with FERPA and reducing risk of unauthorized disclosure.

3. Overbroad Disclaimer of Liability The disclaimer disclaims "liability for errors, omissions, infringement, user reliance on this information, and any associated damages." Such blanket disclaimers are often unenforceable, especially regarding gross negligence or statutory obligations. Courts may void these clauses, leaving the District exposed to lawsuits and damages that could reach six figures in severe cases.

Legal Analysis

medium Risk

Removed

Added

The District makes no express or implied warranties regarding the accuracy of the information maintained on its domains and expressly disclaims liability for errors, omissions, infringement,or user reliance on this information provided on its domains, and any associated damagesexcept in cases of gross negligence, willful misconduct, or violations of statutory obligations.

Legal Explanation

Blanket disclaimers are often unenforceable, especially for gross negligence or statutory breaches. The revision aligns with legal standards, preserving enforceability while limiting exposure.

4. Lack of Data Breach Notification Protocol The policy omits any mention of data breach notification procedures. Under state and federal law (e.g., Ohio Data Protection Act, FERPA), failure to notify affected parties can result in regulatory penalties and class-action litigation. The average cost of a K-12 data breach exceeds $150,000, highlighting the need for explicit breach response language.

Legal Analysis

critical Risk

Removed

Added

[No clause regardingIn the event of a data breach notification or response is presentinvolving personal information, the District will promptly notify affected individuals and relevant authorities in accordance with applicable state and federal law, including the policyOhio Data Protection Act and FERPA.]

Legal Explanation

Omitting breach notification protocols violates state and federal law. The revision adds a required safeguard, reducing regulatory and litigation risk.

Conclusion: Proactive Redlining Prevents Expensive Mistakes Our examination shows that even well-intentioned policies can contain costly gaps. By redlining ambiguous clauses and adding enforceable protections, Upper Arlington High School can reduce regulatory risk, avoid litigation, and protect its reputation.

Are your policies ready for a regulatory audit? What would a six-figure privacy claim mean for your budget? How can proactive legal review safeguard your school or district?

---

This analysis is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For actual legal guidance, consult with a licensed attorney. This assessment is based on publicly available information and professional legal analysis. See erayaha.ai’s terms of service for liability limitations.