Does an Arizona school's web-based emoji feature that asks 'How are you feeling?' count as a 'survey' that requires written parental consent under A.R.S. § 15-117?

Plain-English summary

Casa Grande Union High School District wanted to use Gnosis IQ, a web-based academic platform that includes an opt-in feature asking students "How are you feeling?" and letting them pick from twelve emojis (happy, confident, excited, content, bored, confused, mad, sad, stressed, sick, tired, depressed). The District's lawyer asked whether that feature counts as a "survey" subject to A.R.S. § 15-117's parental-consent requirement.

Attorney General Kris Mayes concluded it does not. Section 15-117(A) requires written informed parental consent before a school administers any "survey that solicits personal information" about specified topics, including "medical history or medical information" (A)(6) and "mental health history or mental health information" (A)(7). The AG read "mental health information" in the healthcare-records sense (psychotherapy notes, treatment plans, prescriptions for psychiatric medications) using the dictionary's healthcare-system definition, the proximity to "medical information," and HIPAA's parallel use of the term. A "How are you feeling?" check-in does not solicit healthcare records; it asks about a general emotional state students communicate through facial expressions and conversation every day.

The opinion did concede that "instrument" in the statute is broad enough to cover the emoji feature, but the substance of the question, not the method of asking it, controls. Reading the statute to require written parental consent every time a teacher asks "How are you today?" would be absurd, and Arizona courts avoid absurd statutory readings.

What this means for you

If you are a school district administrator or attorney

You can offer voluntary social-emotional check-in tools (emoji moods, wellness sliders, 1-to-10 scales) without triggering A.R.S. § 15-117's written-consent process, as long as the tool only captures a current general emotional state and does not branch into mental-health history, treatment, diagnosis, medication, or other items in the (A) list. The opinion is non-binding but persuasive. Document your tool's data fields and pre-clear them against the (A)(1)-(14) categories.

If you are an edtech vendor selling to Arizona schools

Build product features in two clear tiers. A general mood check-in is fine without parental consent. Anything that solicits mental-health history, asks about specific symptoms, captures medical or treatment information, or otherwise touches the (A) categories needs to be designed around the statute's parental-consent flow. Putting the same feature behind a parent portal with disable-anytime control (as Gnosis IQ did) is a reasonable defensive design even where consent is not legally required.

If you are a parent

If your child's school uses a tool that goes beyond a general emotional check-in (asks about diagnoses, medications, family mental health history, religious or political beliefs, sexuality, gun ownership, or any of the other items in A.R.S. § 15-117(A)), the school must get your written informed consent first. A simple emoji mood-check is not subject to that consent rule under this opinion, but you can still ask for the feature to be disabled through a parent portal if available.

If you are a school board member

Use this opinion when reviewing curriculum and edtech contracts. The line is healthcare-style information versus general emotional state. Any vendor pitching "social-emotional learning" tools should be able to tell you which side of that line the data fields fall on.

Common questions

Q: What does A.R.S. § 15-117 require?
A: At the time of the opinion, schools had to "obtain written informed consent" from a student's parent before administering "any survey that solicits personal information" about the student related to fourteen listed topics, which included political beliefs, religious practices, sexual behavior, illegal conduct, gun ownership, and mental and medical history.

Q: Why is "mental health information" read narrowly?
A: The AG cited four reasons. The statute lists "mental health information" right next to "medical history or medical information," which signals a healthcare-records sense. HIPAA uses "mental health information" the same way (psychotherapy notes, treatment plans). Merriam-Webster's two definitions include both a "general condition of mental and emotional state" reading and a healthcare-system reading; the surrounding statutory context favors the second. And a broad reading would require parental consent for any teacher asking how a student feels, which is absurd.

Q: Is the emoji check-in an 'instrument'?
A: Yes. The AG used the dictionary definition ("a means whereby something is achieved, performed, or furthered"). The emoji feature is the means by which the platform acquires information about the student's emotional state, so it is an instrument. But being an instrument is necessary, not sufficient: the instrument also has to investigate one of the (A) topics. This one does not.

Q: Does it matter that the feature is opt-in and parents can disable it?
A: Not for the legal analysis under § 15-117. The AG held the feature is not a covered survey at all, so the consent regime never applies. Opt-in design and parental controls are good privacy practice, but they are not what controls here.

Background and statutory framework

Arizona's parental-consent statute, A.R.S. § 15-117, exists to give parents control over what topics schools can probe in students through surveys. The statute lists fourteen sensitive categories, then defines "survey" broadly enough that the term reaches new and emerging classroom tools. The challenge with new edtech (mood-check apps, social-emotional learning platforms, AI-driven feedback systems) is mapping their data flows onto these statutory categories.

The AG's analytic move was to use textual context and analogy to HIPAA to keep the mental-health category from collapsing into a general-emotional-state catchall. That preserves the statute's protective purpose for actual mental-health records and avoids the absurdity of treating ordinary classroom check-ins as legally regulated surveys. Future edtech features should be evaluated by asking what the data field actually captures and whether it falls within the statute's listed categories.

Citations and references

Statutes:
- A.R.S. § 15-117(A), (A)(6)–(7), (O)(2)(a)
- HIPAA, Pub. L. 104-19, 110 Stat. 1936

Cases:
- State v. Mahaney, 193 Ariz. 566 (App. 1999)
- Sierra Tucson, Inc. v. Pima Cnty., 178 Ariz. 215 (App. 1994)
- Stambaugh v. Killian, 242 Ariz. 508 (2017)
- State v. Estrada, 201 Ariz. 247 (2001)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.azag.gov/opinions/i23-006-r22-013
• Original PDF: https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/CORRECTEDI23-006.pdf

Original opinion text

To:

Jessica S. Sanchez, Udall Shumway
on behalf of Casa Grande Union High School District

Question Presented

You have asked whether a feature of a web-based academic performance platform that allows students to report their present emotional state via selection of an emoji constitutes a "survey" subject to parental consent requirements under A.R.S. § 15-117. You have also asked whether, if parental consent is required, the submitted draft consent form satisfies the statute's requirements.

Summary Answer

The emoji feature does not constitute a survey subject to the parental consent requirements of A.R.S. § 15-117. Accordingly, we need not address whether the draft consent form satisfies the requirements of the statute.

Background

Casa Grande Union High School District ("the District") has considered using a web-based platform, the Gnosis IQ program, to "gain real-time insight" into students' academic performance through the use of scorecards and dynamic reports. A feature of the platform asks students the question "How are you feeling?" and allows them to report their current emotional state by selecting one of twelve emojis reflecting the following emotions: happy, confident, excited, content, bored, confused, mad, sad, stressed, sick, tired, and depressed. The District reports that this feature is intended as a social-emotional support to encourage students to self-reflect and assist schools in identifying students who may have social-emotional factors affecting their academic performance. A student's use of the emoji feature would be optional and parents would be able to access their child's responses to it, along with the student's academic progress, through a parent portal. Parents also would have the ability to disable the feature at any time through the portal.

Analysis

Arizona law requires schools to "obtain written informed consent" from a student's parent "before administering any survey that solicits personal information" about the student related to several listed topics, including gun ownership, political beliefs, religious practices, and medical and mental health history and information. A.R.S. § 15-117(A). The statute defines a "survey" as "an instrument that investigates the attitudes, behaviors, beliefs, experiences, opinions or thoughts of a pupil or group of pupils." A.R.S. § 15-117(O)(2)(a).

First, we must determine whether the emoji reporting feature is an "instrument." This term is not statutorily defined, so we apply its commonly understood meaning. See State v. Mahaney, 193 Ariz. 566, 568 ¶ 12 (App. 1999). An instrument is broadly defined as "a means whereby something is achieved, performed, or furthered." Because the emoji feature is the means by which the platform acquires information about the student's emotional state, it is an instrument.

Next, we must determine whether the question ("How are you feeling") "investigates" a student's "attitudes, behaviors, beliefs, experiences, opinions or thoughts" by "solicit[ing] personal information about the pupil" about one of the listed topics. A.R.S. § 15-117(A), (O). It does not. The question "How are you feeling" asks about a student's general emotional state. It does not ask students to provide personal information about the student's attitudes, beliefs, experiences, opinions, or thoughts regarding a particular subject, much less any of the topics listed in subsections (A)(1) through (14).

The closest listed topic to a question about a student's current emotional state is "mental health information." A.R.S. § 15-117(A)(7). The Merriam-Webster Dictionary provides two alternate definitions of "mental health." The first is the general condition of one's mental and emotional state. The second is "health care dealing with the promotion and improvement of mental health and the treatment of mental illness." The second definition often applies when the term is "used before another noun," such as in "mental health professionals" or "mental health clinic."

In the context of a survey collecting information on "mental health history or mental health information," the second definition is the most applicable. The statutory provision includes the additional nouns of "history" and "information" after the term "mental health," indicating the term is likely being used to reference healthcare related to mental health issues. A.R.S. § 15-117(A)(7). Also, "[m]ental health history or mental health information" is listed in the statute directly below "[m]edical history or medical information." The proximity and similar structure of these two related terms further supports the interpretation that "mental health information" refers to healthcare related to mental health.

The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA") also protects access to healthcare information and uses the term "mental health information" to refer to records such as psychotherapy notes, treatment plans, and prescriptions for psychiatric medications. Under HIPAA, parents have certain rights over their child's mental health information, and are generally considered to be the personal representative of their minor child. It makes sense then that § 15-117(A)(7) would require parental consent before a school official may ask a student about their private mental healthcare information.

In contrast, a student's present emotional state alone does not implicate the same privacy concerns, as students convey this information regularly (and even unwittingly) through conversation, facial expressions, and body language. It would make little sense, for example, to require a teacher to obtain written parental consent every time they wished to ask a student "How are you today?" Surely this is not what the legislature intended. Such a reading would be absurd, and courts avoid statutory interpretations that create absurd results. See State v. Estrada, 201 Ariz. 247, 251 ¶ 17 (2001).

Accordingly, the Gnosis IQ emoji feature allowing reporting of a student's current emotional state is not a survey soliciting "mental health information" for purposes of § 15-117.

Conclusion

The Gnosis IQ emoji reporting feature is not a survey subject to the parental consent requirements of A.R.S. § 15-117.

Kris Mayes
Attorney General