Statute
Wiretap Act
55 published works
Inside Class Actions
Pixel Tracking Technologies and Article III Standing: Lessons from the Rack Room Shoes Decision
In 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…
Privacy + Cyber + AI
Beyond CIPA: SB 690 Clears the Legislature: What the Pen Register Fix Does — and Where the Claims Go Next
Key point: SB 690 passes the California legislatures and eliminates the private right of action for website-based pen register and trap-and-trace claims and reaches back two years, but it leaves…
Consumer Finance Monitor
Adding to the Tally: Another Court Denies Bid for Class Certification in Cookie Tracking Case
By J. Matthew Thornton, Lexi Chapman, Elizabeth A. James
On July 20, 2026, another California federal court denied class certification in a putative privacy class action involving a company’s cookie-based advertising platform. Lewis v. Magnite, Inc., 2:25-cv-03448-MWC-SSC (C.D. Cal. July…
CyberAdviser
Adding to the Tally: Another Court Denies Bid for Class Certification in Cookie Tracking Case
By J. Matthew Thornton, Lexi Chapman, Elizabeth A. James
On July 20, 2026, another California federal court denied class certification in a putative privacy class action involving a company’s cookie-based advertising platform. Lewis v. Magnite, Inc., 2:25-cv-03448-MWC-SSC (C.D. Cal.…
Chicago Business Litigation Lawyer Blog
The Tracking Pixel Lawsuit Wave Hits Illinois: Why the “Crime or Tort” Exception Argument Is Splitting the Federal Courts
By Peter S. Lubin, James V. DiTommaso
If you operate a healthcare practice, a telehealth platform, a behavioral health clinic, a fertility center, an addiction treatment facility, a dental or optometry chain, or any consumer facing business…
Inside Class Actions
Another Federal Court Dismisses Wiretapping Claims Premised on Crime-Tort Exception
By Vivian Wen, Jordan Joachim, Kathryn Cahoy
Another 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,…
Consumer Class Defense Blog
Consumer Counterpoint: Episode 13 – Federal Wiretap Act
By Kristine Argentine, Paul Yovanic Jr.
Episode 13 is now live. In this Episode, we discuss wiretap and tracking pixel claims under the Federal Wiretap Act and the different ways those claims are being plead and…
Inside Class Actions
Court Dismisses Federal Wiretap Claim Premised on Crime-Tort Exception, Rejects Aiding-and-Abetting Liability
By Kathryn Cahoy, Thea McCullough
A 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…
LawSnap
Is Your AI Phone System Wiretapping Your Customers?
By LawSnap
Heartland Dental adopted an AI-powered phone system. Now it is defending a federal wiretap suit over how that system handled patient calls.The claim is not just “this call was recorded.”…
Inside Class Actions
Use of AI Call Center Without Consent Not a Federal Wiretap Violation, Court Holds
By Kathryn Cahoy, Libbie Canter, Thea McCullough
As businesses increasingly deploy AI-powered call centers to streamline customer service, plaintiffs have turned to decades-old wiretapping laws to challenge these tools. In a recent decision, however, an Illinois federal…