Keypoint: In this post: (1) Standing may depend on how specific plaintiffs’ complaint is; (2) the 2d Circuit adopts the 3rd and 9th Circuit’s narrower interpretation of PII under the VPPA; (3) Promises in privacy policies not...more
Keypoint: California district courts continue to split over whether “knowledge” is required to plead liability under Section 631(a)’s fourth prong while two decisions show courts taking different approaches to VPPA claims at...more
Keypoint: The Central District of California issued several wiretapping decisions in May while two decisions on the VPPA illustrate how claims fail or succeed at the pleading stage. Welcome to the fourteenth installment in...more
Keypoint: The Central District of California issues a major victory for website owners facing CIPA-arbitration demands, two decisions address whether a plaintiff consented as a defense to wiretapping claims, three courts in...more
Keypoint: Courts resolved six motions to dismiss wiretapping claims based on session replay technology in January, while two VPPA decisions highlight balance struck by courts. A new privacy litigation theory based on “pen...more
Keypoint: The Southern District of New York dismissed a VPPA claim after finding use of the Meta Pixel does not violate the VPPA when used to transmit information about a visitor’s general activity on a webpage, even where...more
Keypoint: Plaintiffs’ attorneys continue to expand lawsuits relating to website tracking technologies. Chick-fil-A once again found itself in the spotlight last week when it was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in...more
Passed in 1988, the VPPA prohibits a “video tape service provider” from “knowingly” disclosing a consumer’s “personally identifiable information” (“PII”) to third parties without his or her consent. The VPPA defines a “video...more