At the end of last month, courts handed down two decisions in favor of website operators and their service providers in session replay litigation, granting motions to dismiss on personal jurisdiction grounds.Continue Reading Website Operator and Session Replay Provider Succeed on Personal Jurisdiction Arguments
Jenna Zhang
Jenna Zhang advises clients across industries on data privacy, cybersecurity, and emerging technologies.
Jenna partners with clients to ensure their compliance with the rapidly evolving federal and state privacy and cybersecurity laws. She supports clients in designing new products and services, drafting privacy notices and terms of use, responding to cyber and data security incidents, and evaluating privacy and cybersecurity risks in corporate transactions. In particular, she advises clients on substantive requirements relating to children’s and student privacy, including COPPA, FERPA, age-appropriate design code laws, and social media laws.
As part of her practice, Jenna regularly represents clients in data privacy investigations and enforcement actions brought by the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general. She also supports clients in proactive engagement with regulators and policymakers to ensure their perspectives are heard.
Jenna also maintains an active pro bono practice with a focus on supporting families in adoptions, guardianships, and immigration matters.
Court Finds “Naked Assertions” Cannot Sustain TCPA Claim
Last week, the Western District of Washington granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss a TCPA putative class action lawsuit against Assurance IQ and Boomsourcing after finding that plaintiffs failed to allege facts to support the elements of a TCPA claim. See Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motions to Dismiss, Rogers v. Assurance IQ, LLC, No. 2:21-cv-00823-TL (W.D. Wash. March 27, 2023).Continue Reading Court Finds “Naked Assertions” Cannot Sustain TCPA Claim
Google Wins Final Dismissal In “Android Lockbox” Putative Class Action
The Northern District of California recently dismissed with prejudice a putative class action lawsuit against Google, which alleged that the company used a secret program called “Android Lockbox” to spy on Android smartphone users. See Order Granting Motion to Dismiss, Hammerling v. Google LLC, No. 21-cv-09004-CRB (N.D. Cal. December 1, 2022). The Court previously dismissed the case in July and gave plaintiffs leave to amend, but signaled that the complaint’s deficiencies would be “difficult to cure.” Finding that plaintiffs had failed to cure the previous deficiencies, the court dismissed with prejudice on all ten claims.Continue Reading Google Wins Final Dismissal In “Android Lockbox” Putative Class Action
Third Circuit Revives Wiretapping Claims Against Marketing Software Company
Last week the Third Circuit reversed a summary judgment ruling in favor of Harriet Carter Gifts and NaviStone for alleged violations of Pennsylvania’s Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, or WESCA. See Popa v. Harriet Carter Gifts, Inc., Case No. 21-2203, 2022 WL 3366425 (3rd Cir. Aug. 16, 2022). This lawsuit is one of many recent putative class actions attempting to apply decades-old wiretapping laws against websites and their service providers. The named plaintiff is a consumer that allegedly shopped on Harriet Carter Gifts’ website while NaviStone’s marketing software was installed on the website. Plaintiff argued that defendants violated WESCA by simultaneously sending her interactions with Harriet Carter’s website to NaviStone.Continue Reading Third Circuit Revives Wiretapping Claims Against Marketing Software Company
Court Tosses “Android Lockbox” Secret Spying Program Class Action
Last week, the Northern District of California dismissed a putative class action lawsuit against Google, which alleged that the company used a secret program called “Android Lockbox” to spy on Android smartphone users. See Order Granting Motion to Dismiss, Hammerling v. Google LLC, No. 21-cv-09004-CRB (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2022). The complaint alleged ten different claims for relief under a variety of legal theories, including privacy, fraud, contract, and California’s Unfair Competition Law. The Court granted Google’s motion to dismiss on all claims. Although the Court gave plaintiffs leave to amend, it noted that the deficiencies in the complaint “will be difficult to cure,” signaling that plaintiffs face an uphill battle in keeping this lawsuit alive.Continue Reading Court Tosses “Android Lockbox” Secret Spying Program Class Action