Technology

Heath and health-adjacent websites, from home pregnancy test companies to eyewear companies, continue to be a target for wiretapping lawsuits if they use pixels or other common-place third-party technologies.  A Texas federal court recently dismissed one such suit challenging the use of website pixels by Eyemart Express, LLC, a company…

Continue Reading Eyewear Company Wins Dismissal of Pixel Wiretapping Suit

Health-related websites are increasingly targeted with wiretapping suits if they use pixels or other third-party technologies to power their websites.  A few months ago, a California court dismissed on multiple grounds one such suit challenging the use of website pixels by Clearblue, a company that offers home pregnancy and fertility test kits.  Saedi v. SPD Swiss Precision Diagnostics d/b/a Clearblue, 2025 WL 1141168 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2025).Continue Reading Home Pregnancy Test Company Wins Dismissal of Pixel Wiretapping Suit

“Session replay” software is one of many website analytics tools targeted in wiretapping suits under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”).  Last month, a California federal court confirmed one of the many reasons why the use of this software does not violate CIPA section 631: A defendant cannot “read” (or attempt to read) session replay data “in transit,” as CIPA requires, because “events recorded by” this software “do not become readable content until after they are stored and reassembled into a session replay.”  Torres v. Prudential Financial, Inc., 2025 WL 1135088 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2025). Continue Reading Court Grants Summary Judgment: Website Vendor Cannot Read “Session Replay” Data “In Transit” Under CIPA

Lawsuits targeting businesses’ use of website tools under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”) increasingly are filed by so-called “tester” plaintiffs.  These plaintiffs seek out websites to “test” for potential CIPA violations and then file lawsuits seeking damages for those alleged violations.  A California federal court recently confirmed that…

Continue Reading “Tester” Plaintiff Who “Actively Seeks Out Privacy Violations” Lacks Standing to Pursue CIPA Claim

Plaintiffs’ lawyers have continued to bring privacy claims targeting businesses that use vendors to help provide beneficial chat features on their website, as we last reported here.  Late last year, a Southern District of California judge dismissed another set of privacy claims challenging the routine use of these vendor services by Tonal, a popular smart home gym company named as the sole defendant in the lawsuit.  Jones v. Tonal Systems, Inc., 751 F. Supp. 3d 1025 (S.D. Cal. 2024).

Plaintiff Julie Jones, a California resident, claimed that she had visited Tonal’s website and used its chat feature to communicate with a Tonal customer service representative.  This chat feature allegedly incorporated an API run by another company to create and store transcripts of website visitors’ chats with Tonal’s customer service representatives.  According to the complaint, this alleged conduct constituted wiretapping, which Tonal purportedly aided and abetted in violation of Sections 631 and 632.7 of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”).  Plaintiff also asserted other privacy claims based on the same alleged conduct, including the California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) and the California Constitution’s right to privacy provision.

The Court granted Tonal’s motion to dismiss each of plaintiff’s claims on multiple grounds.Continue Reading Another California Court Rejects Privacy Claims Targeting Online Chat Feature

Early this month, a Northern District of California judge dismissed, with prejudice, a putative class action complaint asserting five privacy-related causes of action, concluding the “issue of consent defeat[ed] all of Plaintiffs’ claims.”  Lakes v. Ubisoft, Inc., –F. Supp. 3d–, 2025 WL 1036639 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2025).  Specifically, the Court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims under the (1) Video Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA”); (2) Federal Wiretap Act; (3) California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”) § 631; (4) common law invasion of privacy; and (5) Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. Continue Reading California Court Holds Plaintiffs’ Consent Defeats Claims Involving Use of Website Pixel

Court decisions addressing “pen register” claims brought under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”) have started trickling in after last year saw an uptick in these claims targeting businesses’ use of website tools.  Two more California courts recently joined a growing trend dismissing pen register claims, but they did so on new grounds: one confirmed that CIPA’s pen register provision was not intended to cover “internet communications,” and another held that a website tool that allegedly collected “identifying information about visitors’ devices, from visitors’ devices” does not constitute a “pen register” or “trap and trace device.”  See Aviles v. Liveramp, Inc., 2025 WL 487196 (Cal. Super. Jan. 28, 2025); Sanchez v. Cars.com Inc., 2025 WL 487194 (Cal. Super. Jan. 27, 2025).Continue Reading Courts Hold CIPA’s Pen Register Provision Does Not Apply to Internet Communications or to Alleged Data Collection “About Visitors’ Devices, From Visitors’ Devices”

A fan of celebrity LL Cool J filed a wiretapping suit against Community.com (“Community”), claiming that Community accessed her text message to LL Cool J in violation of the federal Wiretap Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”).  In an unpublished opinion highlighting that Section 632 of CIPA does not protect communications that are by nature a recorded medium, the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims. See Boulton v. Community.com, Inc., No. 23-3145, 2025 WL 314813 (9th Cir. Jan. 28, 2025).Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of CIPA and Wiretap Act Claims Against Celebrity Platform

Last month, a New Jersey federal judge applied Third Circuit precedent to hold that the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”) does not impose liability for commonplace use of website marketing/analytics pixels under the well-established party exception.  Cole v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc., 2025 WL 88703 (D.N.J. Jan. 14, 2025).Continue Reading New Jersey Court Applies CIPA’s Party Exception to Pixel Wiretap Complaint

After removing a lawsuit brought against it in Pennsylvania state court under the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (“WESCA”) to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Prime Hydration LLC argued in its motion to dismiss that the plaintiff lacked Article III standing.  Judge Nitza I. Quiñones Alejandro agreed and remanded the case to state court.  Heaven v. Prime Hydration LLC, 2025 WL 42964, at *7 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 7, 2025).

Plaintiff Shantay Heaven filed a putative class action in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas asserting that Prime Hydration allowed third parties to track the activity of visitors to Prime Hydration’s website.  Id. at *1.  Plaintiff asserted that Prime Hydration integrated the third-party pixels into its website.  Id. at *2.  Those two pieces of code, Plaintiff alleged, allowed Prime Hydration to capture “her searches for drink flavors, . . . and that this information was transmitted to” the third-party servers.  Id. at *6.Continue Reading Pennsylvania District Court Judge Remands Case After Finding No Article III Standing to Bring Wiretapping Claim