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”Litigation
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 RejectedOverpayment 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 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 PopaStand Aside: Third Circuit Throws Out Harriet Carter Gifts Federal Wiretapping Case On Standing Grounds
We have routinely highlighted the proliferation of wiretapping class actions, and the variety of approaches courts have taken to address them. One common pitfall for plaintiffs in these types of cases is standing, an issue highlighted in a recent Third Circuit case throwing out a proposed federal class action against Harriet Carter Gifts and NaviStone Inc., and remanding it to state court.
The case, Popa v. Harriet Carter Gifts, Inc., No. 25-1760 (3d. Cir. 2026), involved plaintiff’s allegations that Harriet Carter Gifts and NaviStone tracked her browsing activity on Harriet Carter’s website while she shopped for pet stairs, purportedly in violation of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act. After removal, the district court twice granted summary judgment for the defendants, and both decisions were appealed to the Third Circuit.
Continue Reading Stand Aside: Third Circuit Throws Out Harriet Carter Gifts Federal Wiretapping Case On Standing GroundsPennsylvania Court Dismisses WESCA Suit Alleging Use of Analytics Tools Against Health System, Requiring “Specifics” for an “Actionable Dispute”
By Kathryn Cahoy & Rachel Bercovitz on
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”Eggland’s Best Can’t Scramble “Cage Free” Consumer Class Action, Illinois Court Rules
So-called “greenwashing” claims have been the subject of significant activity over the last several years. In one recent example, the Northern District of Illinois permitted a consumer class action about “cage free” eggs to proceed against Eggland’s Best over the defendant’s argument that the eggs complied with state definitions of “cage free.”
The case, Janecyk v. Eggland’s Best, No. 24-cv-06222 (N.D. Ill. 2024), involved plaintiffs who allegedly “care[d] about animal welfare, which is reflected in their purchasing decisions,” including their decision to purchase “cage free” eggs from Eggland. Plaintiffs alleged that they were misled by Eggland’s claims on its packaging that its hens were “free to roam in a pleasant, natural environment,” when in fact the hens were allegedly housed indoors in large industrial facilities that, while technically “cage free,” lacked outdoor access. As a result of these misrepresentations, plaintiffs alleged they were injured by paying a price premium for the eggs that was not justified.
Continue Reading Eggland’s Best Can’t Scramble “Cage Free” Consumer Class Action, Illinois Court RulesA Closer Look: The Discoverability of Artificial Intelligence Prompts
By Barbara Tsao & Amy Heath on
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 PromptsSanctions Order in Website Wiretapping Suit Reinforces Importance of Early Fact Investigation
By Rachel Lia, Thea McCullough & Matthew Verdin on
Posted in Data Privacy and Cybersecurity, Litigation
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 InvestigationWebsite Wiretapping Roundup: 2025 Decisions and Developments
By Kathryn Cahoy, Jordan Joachim & Angela Li on
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 Developments