The Third Circuit continues to draw a firm line on Article III standing in website “wiretapping” cases. Just weeks after the court’s decision in Harriet Carter Gifts, the court has issued yet another decision reinforcing that the alleged collection of data through third party tools does not create a concrete injury unless the tools capture truly sensitive, identifying information.
Continue Reading Third Circuit Addresses Standing in Website Wiretapping Claims—AgainTenth Circuit Emphasizes Prior Holding that Ascertainability Does Not Require Administrative Feasibility
By Stephen Rees on
Posted in Tenth Circuit
As we previously covered, the Tenth Circuit in Cline v. Sunoco, Inc. (R&M), 159 F.4th 11711 (10th Cir. 2025) adopted the majority view that “administrative feasibility” for identifying class members is not an independent requirement for certifying a class under Rule 23. Instead, the Tenth Circuit held that…
Continue Reading Tenth Circuit Emphasizes Prior Holding that Ascertainability Does Not Require Administrative FeasibilityEighth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Antitrust Class Action Alleging Group Boycott of Agricultural E-Commerce Platforms for “Impermissible Group Pleading”
By Maya McCollum & Brandon Gould on
In In re: Crop Inputs Antitrust Litigation, No. 24-3104, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of an antitrust class action alleging that suppliers of seeds, pesticides, and other agricultural inputs conspired to refuse to sell their products to direct-to-consumer e-commerce platforms. According to plaintiffs, defendants—which included manufacturers, wholesalers, and authorized retailers—agreed to boycott the platforms to prevent the emergence of price transparency, which defendants allegedly feared farmers could use to negotiate lower prices.
Continue Reading Eighth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Antitrust Class Action Alleging Group Boycott of Agricultural E-Commerce Platforms for “Impermissible Group Pleading”Wiretapping Suit Meets Triple Defeat: No Standing, Consent Established, Class Allegations Rejected
By Rachel Lia & Steve Petkis on
Continuing the trend of early dismissals in website wiretapping cases, a California federal court has dismissed a putative class action challenging the use of third-party pixel technology on nonprofit food bank websites. Timothee v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 25-CV-05106-LB, 2026 WL 1130363 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2026). The court held plaintiffs failed to plausibly plead concrete injury to establish Article III standing, consented to the third party’s receipt of their information, and proposed an impermissibly broad nationwide class.
The plaintiffs in Timothee alleged that several nonprofit food banks embedded third-party pixel technology into their websites, which collected and transmitted users’ addresses and “intent to receive nutrition assistance.” Some plaintiffs further alleged that the pixel technology collected detailed information about “financial hardship,” “disability status, mobility status, and urgency of [their] need for food assistance.” According to plaintiffs, this information was then used by the third party to target them with advertisements. The plaintiffs claimed these transmissions violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”), the Federal Wiretap Act, and various California privacy and common-law doctrines. The court disagreed, dismissing plaintiffs’ claims, with leave to amend, on three grounds.
Continue Reading Wiretapping Suit Meets Triple Defeat: No Standing, Consent Established, Class Allegations RejectedOne Plan, Many Accounts: Fourth Circuit Slams the Door on Mandatory ERISA Classes in Defined Contribution Cases
By Samuel Crimmins & Nick Pastan on
In Trauernicht v. Genworth Financial, Inc., 169 F.4th 459 (4th Cir. 2026), the Fourth Circuit delivered a significant win for defendants facing ERISA class actions. Reversing a district court’s certification order, the court held that claims under ERISA § 502(a)(2) seeking monetary relief for alleged fiduciary breaches in a defined contribution plan cannot be certified as a mandatory class under Rule 23(b)(1). The court also rejected the notion that ERISA fiduciary-duty claims “inherently” satisfy Rule 23’s commonality requirement.
Continue Reading One Plan, Many Accounts: Fourth Circuit Slams the Door on Mandatory ERISA Classes in Defined Contribution CasesOverpayment Claims Don’t Always Fly: The Fifth Circuit on Article III Standing
By Samuel Crimmins on
Plaintiffs in consumer class action lawsuits often assert a theory of harm based on an alleged overpayment. The typical claim is that a plaintiff bought a good or service that had some alleged defect or was subject to some misrepresentation, and that they therefore paid more than they would have absent the defect or misrepresentation. While that may be enough to establish Article III standing in some cases, the Fifth Circuit recently reaffirmed that the theory has limits.
Continue Reading Overpayment Claims Don’t Always Fly: The Fifth Circuit on Article III StandingProminent Arbitration Clause Signage Precludes Parking Lot Class Action
By Andrew Ruffino & Zhi Yang Tan on
A federal court in Colorado recently confirmed that a conspicuous arbitration clause may preclude a consumer from prosecuting class claims in court even if the consumer did not affirmatively and expressly consent to the clause.
Continue Reading Prominent Arbitration Clause Signage Precludes Parking Lot Class ActionAnother Court Dismisses Website Privacy Suit for Lack of Article III Standing
By Thea McCullough & Kathryn Cahoy on
Posted in Data Privacy and Cybersecurity
Adding to a growing body of case law following the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Popa v. Microsoft Corporation, a California federal court has dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction a privacy suit against a news website, holding that the plaintiffs failed to allege a concrete injury sufficient to establish Article III standing. In Re: USA Today Co., Inc. Internet Tracking Litigation, 2026 WL 932655, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2026).
Continue Reading Another Court Dismisses Website Privacy Suit for Lack of Article III StandingSensitive Search Terms Not Enough To Establish Article III Standing Under Popa
A recent decision from the Southern District of California underscores a point courts have made increasingly clear after the Ninth Circuit’s precedential decision in Popa v. Microsoft: alleging the disclosure of online activity—even activity touching on sensitive health topics—is not enough, by itself to establish Article III standing. As the Court put it, the mere allegation that a defendant disclosed “sensitive health related” search terms, without any indication in the search terms that they “were tied to his personal medical history,” cannot establish a concrete injury. Maghoney v. Dotdash Meredith, Inc., 2026 WL 497402 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2026) (emphasis added).
Continue Reading Sensitive Search Terms Not Enough To Establish Article III Standing Under PopaSeventh Circuit Holds that BIPA Amendment Applies Retroactively
By Inside Privacy on
Posted in Data Privacy and Cybersecurity, Seventh Circuit
In a new post on the Inside Privacy blog, our colleagues discuss the Seventh Circuit’s recent Clay v. Union Pacific Railroad Company holding that a 2024 amendment to the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) limiting damages to a per-person basis applies retroactively to cases pending when the amendment…
Continue Reading Seventh Circuit Holds that BIPA Amendment Applies Retroactively