Privacy Litigation

Subscribe to Privacy Litigation via RSS
  • Revisit pending claims and demands. SB 690 may offer new grounds to challenge pending pen register claims, but its effect depends on when the action was filed and what other claims are asserted. Companies facing these claims or demand letters should consult counsel on next steps.
  • Know what your trackers
…

Key Takeaways:

  • The Ninth Circuit court of appeals reviewed three separate proposed class actions against Papa John’s International Inc., Converse Inc., and Bloomingdale’s, all centered on whether certain website tracking activities violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA).
  • The plaintiffs in these cases alleged that companies unlawfully used technologies like “session replay” software and chatbots to monitor website visitors’ interactions, intercepting their information and transmitting it to third parties without consent, thereby violating CIPA Section 631.
  • The court assessed how CIPA, an older wiretapping law, applies to modern website tracking like session replay and chatbots, focusing on definitions of “interception” and “contents.”

Key Takeaways

  • In a recent decision by the Ninth Circuit in Briskin, the court ruled that e-commerce platform Shopify purposefully directed its conduct toward California because of its nationwide operations, rejecting the need for differential targeting of a forum state.
  • Notably, the court found a direct causal nexus between Shopify’s conduct and Briskin’s claims, deeming an exercise of specific jurisdiction over Shopify in California fair and reasonable.
  • Legal scholars are concerned that the decision could broadly expand the scope of specific personal jurisdiction and increase litigation risks for online platforms.
  • Companies should reassess their data practices and anticipate forum shopping by plaintiffs following Briskin.
  • There has been a recent surge of privacy class action lawsuits under the Arizona Telephone, Utility, and Communication Service Records Act targeting the use of common email marketing analytics technologies.
  • Defendants are asserting standard defenses including lack of Article III standing as well as challenging the 2007 Arizona law’s applicability to email tracking pixels.
  • Central District of California dismisses lawsuit alleging that a third-party’s interception of communications over a website’s live chat feature violated California’s wiretapping and eavesdropping prohibitions.  
  • Important to the Court’s holding was its finding that the code used by the third party to acquire and transmit the contents of the chat communications was not necessarily used to intercept the communications while they were “in transit” but rather to store them after they were received.

While French skincare company L’Occitane (the “Company”) successfully thwarted a mass arbitration effort by plaintiffs’ firm Zimmerman Reed and approximately 3,000 customers (the “Claimants”), the Southern District of California Court presiding over the matter indicated that the Company’s case against them was on the verge of dismissal. L’Occitane v. Zimmerman Reed, et al., No. 2:24-cv-01103 (C.D. Cal. April 15, 2024).

A federal judge in the Northern District of California delivered a blow to a potential class action lawsuit against Google over its ad auction practices. The lawsuit, which allegedly involved tens of millions of Google account holders, claimed Google’s practices in its real-time bidding (RTB) auctions violated users’ privacy rights. But U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers declined to certify the class of consumers, pointing to deficiencies in the plaintiffs’ proposed class definition.