privacy

Many businesses use customer support software that may include call recording features to help ensure a better customer service experience.  A California federal court dismissed a wiretapping lawsuit filed against a software company offering this software tool (TalkDesk), holding that TalkDesk’s alleged recording of customers’ conversations with clothing retailers “is simply not private or personal enough to confer [Article III] standing.”  See Lien, et al., v. Talkdesk, Inc., No. 24-CV-06467-VC, 2025 WL 551664 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2025).Continue Reading Recording of Customer Service Call “Not Private or Personal Enough” to Confer Article III Standing

The Illinois Supreme Court recently ruled that the named plaintiff in a putative data breach class action lacked standing to pursue her claims given that her private personal information had not actually been misused by a third party.Continue Reading Illinois Supreme Court Rules That Plaintiff Lacks Standing to Bring Putative Data Breach Class Action

A Pennsylvania court recently dismissed a wiretapping complaint filed against a trio of defendants for lack of Article III standing, lack of personal jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim in Ingrao v. Addshoppers, Inc., 2024 WL 4892514 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 25, 2024).

The two plaintiffs in this case…

Continue Reading Pennsylvania Court Dismisses A Trio of Defendants in Website Wiretapping Suit Challenging Email Marketing Program

Plaintiffs sometimes try to sidestep an arbitration agreement with one company by suing only a second company for interrelated conduct.  Last month, a California federal court applied principles of fairness under the doctrine of “equitable estoppel” to reject this tactic, holding that a software vendor (Twilio) could enforce a plaintiff’s arbitration agreement with a website operator (Keeps) that was not named as a defendant.  Perry-Hudson v. Twilio, Inc., 2024 WL 493333 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2024).Continue Reading California Federal Court Allows Software Vendor to Enforce Website Operator’s Arbitration Agreement in Privacy Lawsuit

Dozens of lawsuits have started challenging businesses’ use of website tools to collect IP addresses under the “pen register” and “trap and trace device” provision of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”).  As we reported last month, a California court dismissed one of these lawsuits because of a…

Continue Reading Another California Court Holds CIPA’s Pen Register Provision Does Not Prohibit the Collection of IP Addresses

Websites cannot load without the transmission of an IP address, which tells websites where to deliver the webpages displayed on a user’s browser.  Yet a number of lawsuits have started challenging this routine transmission of IP addresses under a lesser-known provision of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”) that…

Continue Reading Court Holds CIPA’s Pen Register Provision Does Not Impose Liability for “What Makes the Internet Possible.”

In a putative consumer data breach class action, a court in the Northern District of California recently denied a cloud solution company’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ negligence claim finding that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the company owed consumers a duty of care. See In re Accellion, Inc. Data Breach Litig., 2024 WL 4592367 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2024).Continue Reading California Federal Court Finds Plaintiffs Plausibly Alleged That Cloud Solution Company Owed Consumers Duty of Care

The Northern District of Ohio recently granted summary judgment to Ancestry.com in a putative class action asserting that Ancestry.com violated plaintiff’s rights to publicity and privacy by using his yearbook photos in marketing materials without consent.  See Wilson v. Ancestry.com, 2024 WL 3992356 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 27, 2024).Continue Reading Ohio Federal Court Grants Summary Judgment on Right of Publicity and Invasion of Privacy Claims Involving Yearbook Photos

The California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) provides a private right of action only to those who have “been injured by a violation of” CIPA.  A California Superior Court decision, Rodriguez v. Fountain9, Inc., 2024 WL 3886811, at *4 (Cal. Super. July 9, 2024), confirmed that a plaintiff cannot satisfy this statutory standing requirement unless the plaintiff alleges “a concrete injury-in-fact.”Continue Reading California State Court Holds That A Concrete Injury-In-Fact Is Required To Bring Claims Under CIPA

A Central District of California court recently dismissed a putative privacy class action after determining that the movie theater defendants were not Video Tape Service Providers as defined by the Video Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA”).  See Walsh v. California Cinema Investments LLC, 2024 WL 3593569 (C.D. Cal. July 29, 2024).  Two other California federal courts recently have reached similar conclusions, and appeals of those rulings are currently pending before the Ninth Circuit.  See Garza v. Alamo Intermediate II Holdings, LLC, 2024 WL 1171737, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2024); Osheske v. Silver Cinemas Acquisition Co., 700 F. Supp. 3d 921 (C.D. Cal. 2023).Continue Reading Another California Federal Court Rules Movie Theater Is Not “Video Tape Service Provider” Under the VPPA.