Recently, a Pennsylvania federal judge dismissed a suit challenging the use of a third-party website analytics tool by defendant Highlands Healthcare, Inc., an integrated health system with eight hospitals in Pennsylvania.  The Court concluded plaintiffs had failed to plead the “specifics” of their interactions with defendant’s website, which were “essential to convert [the] case” from a “law-school hypothetical to an actionable dispute” under the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (“WESCA”), the state law analog to the Federal Wiretap Act.  Muraski v. Penn Highlands Healthcare, Inc., 2026 WL 353041 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 9, 2026).Continue Reading Pennsylvania Court Dismisses WESCA Suit Alleging Use of Analytics Tools Against Health System, Requiring “Specifics” for an “Actionable Dispute”

Another recent federal court decision endorsed the “heightened intent requirement” for satisfying the crime-tort exception of the federal Wiretap Act.  Progin v. UMass Mem’l Health Care, Inc., 2026 WL 632770, at *4–5 (D. Mass. Mar. 6, 2026).

In Progin, the plaintiffs claimed that the defendants, healthcare and hospital…

Continue Reading Another Federal Court Dismisses Wiretapping Claims Premised on Crime-Tort Exception

A recent Washington federal court decision emphasizes two key federal Wiretap Act principles. First, the Act’s crime-tort exception only applies if there are plausible allegations that a party to the communication intercepted communications specifically to commit a separate wrongdoing. Second, the statute does not allow secondary liability for “procuring” an interception by a third party. Nichols v. PeaceHealth Networks on Demand LLC, 2026 WL 607763, at *3-4 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 4, 2026).Continue Reading Court Dismisses Federal Wiretap Claim Premised on Crime-Tort Exception, Rejects Aiding-and-Abetting Liability

As businesses increasingly deploy AI-powered call centers to streamline customer service, plaintiffs have turned to decades-old wiretapping laws to challenge these tools. In a recent decision, however, an Illinois federal district court held that use of an AI call analysis platform without caller consent does not violate the federal Wiretap Act because it falls within the statute’s ordinary course of business exception. Lisota v. Heartland Dental, LLC, 2026 WL 91667, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 13, 2026).Continue Reading Use of AI Call Center Without Consent Not a Federal Wiretap Violation, Court Holds

Are AI prompts, and their generative outputs, discoverable in litigation? A handful of recent district court cases suggest the answer depends on whether the AI prompts and outputs constitute attorney work product.

In Tremblay v. OpenAI, Inc., 2024 WL 3748003 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2024), the court held that AI prompts written by lawyers can constitute opinion work product when used for litigation-related purposes. The court explained that AI “prompts were queries crafted by counsel and contain counsel’s mental impressions and opinions about how to interrogate [an AI tool], in an effort to vindicate Plaintiffs’ copyrights against the alleged infringements.” In so doing, the court squarely rejected defendant’s argument that AI prompts and outputs only rise to the level of fact work product as opposed to opinion work product. That distinction is important, as opinion work product is offered near-absolute protection from disclosure whereas fact work product is discoverable upon a showing of substantial need for the materials and an inability to secure a substantial equivalent without undue hardship.Continue Reading A Closer Look: The Discoverability of Artificial Intelligence Prompts

The Ninth Circuit partially reversed an order certifying multiple state‑law classes in litigation alleging that certain Ford Super Duty trucks suffer from a steering defect. See Lessin et al. v. Ford Motor Co., No. 25‑2211 (9th Cir. Feb. 11, 2026). While the Ninth Circuit affirmed parts of the class certification order, it held that the district court abused its discretion by certifying several classes without adequately evaluating whether plaintiffs could demonstrate the alleged defect with common evidence.Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Partially Reverses Certification of Classes Challenging Ford Trucks’ Alleged Steering “Shimmy”

Although an uncommon step, defendants in putative class actions in some jurisdictions may move to deny class certification before discovery begins if the complaint’s proposed class is facially deficient.  A successful motion forces plaintiffs to proceed individually, reducing a defendant’s exposure and eliminating costly discovery into issues of class certification.  But district courts have yet to apply a consistent legal framework to those motions.

In Oliver v. Navy Fed. Credit Union, — F.4th —-, 2026 WL 346144 (4th Cir. Feb. 9, 2026), the Fourth Circuit provided such a framework, holding that “‘the appropriate procedure for a defendant to challenge class certification’—at the pleading stage or any other time—is to make ‘a motion to deny class certification under 23(c)(1)(A), coupled with a motion to strike under 23(d)(1)(D) should the motion to deny class certification be granted.’”. Continue Reading Fourth Circuit Announces Legal Framework for Pre-Discovery Motions to Deny Class Certification

In an effort to overcome hurdles to Article III standing, many website wiretapping suits today accuse businesses of unlawfully sharing sensitive health or financial data with third parties.  However, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) requires plaintiffs’ lawyers to ensure that these “factual contentions” in a complaint “have evidentiary support.”  A California federal judge gave teeth to this requirement in a recent sanctions order, admonishing the plaintiff’s lawyers for “advancing unfounded and irrelevant allegations” about a business’s sharing of “health information.”  Mitchener v. Talkspace Network LLC, No. 2:24-CV-07067-JAK (BFMX), 2026 WL 84466, at *3-4 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2026).Continue Reading Sanctions Order in Website Wiretapping Suit Reinforces Importance of Early Fact Investigation

The Ninth Circuit sent a strong message to companies considering relying on arbitration agreements introduced mid-litigation to defeat class-action litigation.  Avery v. TEKsystems, Inc., __ F.4th __, 2026 WL 218992 (9th Cir. Jan. 28, 2026)—in which the court described the defendant’s communications as “misleading,” “harmful,” “contradictory,” “disparaging,” and “inaccurate”—confirms the authority of district courts to refuse to enforce arbitration agreements that undermine Rule 23 procedures.Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Declines to Enforce “Misleading,” “Disparaging,” and “Confusing” Arbitration Agreement Mid‑Litigation