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 ExceptionA 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
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
Last week, a judge in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed a putative class’s wiretapping claims against health insurer Cigna. Adair v. Cigna Corporate Services, LLC, 2026 WL 295744 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 4, 2026). Five plaintiffs alleged that Cigna traded insureds’ privacy for commercial gain by embedding third-party tracking tools throughout its website and member portals. Id. at *1. On their own behalf and on behalf of a proposed class, they brought claims under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (“ECPA”) and the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (“WESCA”), together with common law intrusion-upon-seclusion, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment claims. Id. at *2. Continue Reading Pennsylvania Federal Court Dismisses Wiretapping Claims Against Health Insurer
In a recent decision from the Superior Court of California for Los Angeles County, Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl granted summary judgment and dismissed a putative class action alleging that an online retailer, I Am Beyond d/b/a Beyond Yoga, had aided and abetted violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act
Continue Reading California Court Dismisses Wiretapping Claims Regarding Retailer’s Website Chat Feature on Summary JudgmentIn 2025, courts continued to issue significant decisions concerning the application of wiretap and privacy laws to pixels, session replay, and other website technologies. Over the past year, we have featured posts discussing claims regarding website analytics and advertising tools brought under the federal Wiretap Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”), the Video Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA”), and other laws. A selection of posts highlighting important developments in this area is below. Continue Reading Website Wiretapping Roundup: 2025 Decisions and Developments
In a recently published award, an arbitrator rejected claims that Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. (“Dick’s”) violated the Federal Wiretap Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”) by purportedly installing website analytics and marketing technologies on its website after an evidentiary hearing. Asad v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc., JAMS Ref. No. 5220005532 (Dec. 8, 2025).Continue Reading Arbitrator Rejects Website Wiretapping Claims After Hearing
Last week, the Third Circuit affirmed dismissal of a putative class action asserting that defendant Quest Diagnostics violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”) and the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (“CMIA”) by employing a website pixel to track and collect data about their website activity for advertising purposes. See Cole v. Quest Diagnostics Inc., No. 25-1449, 2025 WL 3172640 (3d Cir. Nov. 13, 2025). The Third Circuit held that Quest was not liable under CIPA for aiding and abetting wiretapping because no wiretapping had occurred, nor under CMIA because Plaintiffs had not alleged the disclosure of protected “medical information.”Continue Reading Third Circuit Affirms Dismissal of CIPA and CMIA Claims
Recently, a California federal court granted summary judgment for defendant Eating Recovery Center (“ERC”) on a plaintiff’s California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”) § 631(a) wiretapping claim, joining other California federal courts that have granted summary judgment on CIPA claims for a plaintiff’s failure to “satisfy [CIPA’s] ‘in transit’ requirement as a matter of law.” In granting summary judgment, the court critiqued CIPA’s language as “ill-suited for application to internet communications” and called upon the California Legislature to “step up” and “speak clearly” about whether and how CIPA applies to website-based data collection tools. Doe v. Eating Recovery Ctr., LLC, –F. Supp. 3d–, 2025 WL 2971090 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2025).Continue Reading California Court Grants Summary Judgment for Defendant, Urging the California Legislature to “Bring CIPA”—“A Total Mess”—“Into the Modern Age”