Many California-based privacy claims have turned on the application of longstanding statutes to modern technologies, with courts frequently holding that certain online tracking technologies can qualify as impermissible trap-and-trace devices in violation of California Penal Code section 638.51, part of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA). A recent decision from the Central District of California, however, signals that these arguments will not always succeed.
Continue Reading Federal Court Rejects Claim that Cookies Are Illegal Trap and Trace DevicesPennsylvania Court Dismisses WESCA Suit Alleging Use of Analytics Tools Against Health System, Requiring “Specifics” for an “Actionable Dispute”
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 Federal Court Dismisses Wiretapping Claims Premised on Crime-Tort Exception
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 ExceptionCourt Dismisses Federal Wiretap Claim Premised on Crime-Tort Exception, Rejects Aiding-and-Abetting Liability
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 LiabilityUse of AI Call Center Without Consent Not a Federal Wiretap Violation, Court Holds
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 HoldsSanctions Order in Website Wiretapping Suit Reinforces Importance of Early Fact Investigation
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 InvestigationPennsylvania Federal Court Dismisses Wiretapping Claims Against Health Insurer
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
California Court Dismisses Wiretapping Claims Regarding Retailer’s Website Chat Feature on Summary Judgment
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 JudgmentWebsite Wiretapping Roundup: 2025 Decisions and Developments
In 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 DevelopmentsArbitrator Rejects Website Wiretapping Claims After Hearing
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