Developments and Trends Affecting Class Actions
In Shah v. Politico LLC, 5:25-cv-05213 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2026), the Court addressed plaintiffs’ attempts to invoke equitable tolling, delayed discovery, and fraudulent concealment to save untimely claims under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”).
Defendant Politico LLC (“Politico”) had filed a motion to dismiss allegations…
Continue Reading N.D. Cal. Rejects Non-Specific Tolling Arguments in Shah v. Politico LLCIn Smith v. Rack Room Shoes, Inc., No. 24-cv-06709-RFL (N.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2026), Plaintiffs sought class certification on claims under the California Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Penal Code §§ 631 and 632, and the Federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a). Plaintiffs asserted that Defendant Rack Room, an online shoe retailer, helped third-party pixel-tracking services intercept private communications containing personally identifiable information. The Court found that Plaintiffs had no Article III standing, rejecting harm theories based on both actual and attempted interception of private information, and dismissed those claims without prejudice while denying class certification.
Continue Reading Pixel Tracking Technologies and Article III Standing: Lessons from the Rack Room Shoes DecisionIn a consolidated putative class action arising out of an alleged data breach, In re A-Line Staffing Solutions Data Security Incident Litigation, Case No. 24-cv-11917 (E.D. Mich. May 27, 2026), a Michigan district court declined to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) but granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss without prejudice on Rule 12(b)(6) grounds. The decision exemplifies a theme in such data breach cases: even where plaintiffs clear the Article III standing hurdle, their allegations may still fail to state a claim.
Continue Reading Standing Found, But Negligence Fails: Eastern District of Michigan Dismisses Data Breach Claims for Lack of CausationWe 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 GroundsMany 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 DevicesAnother 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 LiabilityAre 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 PromptsIn 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 InvestigationIn 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