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 the pleading stage.

Welcome to the seventeenth installment in our monthly data privacy litigation report. We prepare these reports to provide updates on how courts in the United States have handled emerging data privacy trends. In this month’s post, California district courts continue to disagree over whether “knowledge” that the third party’s actions violated the law is required to prove liability under the fourth prong of Section 631(a), with the most recent court to address the question holding such knowledge is required. These district courts also continue to apply different standards to determine whether a third party has the capability to use intercepted communication-content for its own purpose. One court found the plaintiff’s allegations conclusory and dismissed a complaint while another court found the plaintiff sufficiently alleged a third-party had the capability to use the intercepted information for its own purpose when the plaintiff alleged the third party used the communications to train its AI model.

Although we only examine one SRT decision this month, the decision examines wiretapping law in California, Maryland, Minnesota, and Florida. The decision addresses issues of consent, standing, and our more “traditional” reasons for dismissal. We also look at two VPPA decisions that illustrate how courts in different circuits are handling Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss.

Byte Back + members also get a look at two pixel-based wiretapping claims, two pen registry decisions, and two other privacy litigation decisions. Interested in learning more about Byte Back+? Contact the authors or click here.

There are many courts currently handling data privacy cases across the nation. Although illustrative, this update is not intended to be exhaustive. If there is another area of data privacy litigation about which you would like to know more, please reach out. The contents provided below are time-sensitive and subject to change. If you are not already subscribed to our blog, consider doing so to stay updated. If you are interested in tracking developments between blog posts, consider following us on LinkedIn.

Keypoint: Courts have started to issue Pixel-based wiretapping decisions, the Seventh Circuit weighs in on when a manufacturer can be forced to pay arbitration fees, and three courts showed different approaches to dismissing VPPA claims at the pleading stage.

Welcome to the sixteenth installment in our monthly data privacy litigation report. We prepare these reports to provide updates on how courts in the United States have handled emerging data privacy trends. In this month’s post, we are covering two wiretapping decisions based on chat services on website and one based on use of SRT.

If you are a Byte Back+ member, you will also see our coverage on the recent trend of cases brought under pen registry laws and—new this month—multiple “pixel” cases that are disconnected from session replay or chat-based theories and an update regarding an arbitration defendant can be forced to pay arbitration fees. Members also get access to our “other lawsuits” section, where this month we are covering one decision that involves an AI/machine learning based technology used to provide customer support agents with suggested responses to common questions from customers and two decisions from the Seventh Circuit that consider whether a large manufacturer can be forced to pay arbitration fees for thousands of arbitration demands when the manufacturer withheld payment after disagreeing with the merits of the demands.

Interested in learning more about Byte Back+? Click here.

We are also covering four VPPA decisions resolving motions to dismiss that illustrate a plaintiff’s prima facie burden at the pleading stage and the potential for joint and several liability under the statute.

There are many courts currently handling data privacy cases across the nation. Although illustrative, this update is not intended to be exhaustive. If there is another area of data privacy litigation about which you would like to know more, please reach out. The contents provided below are time-sensitive and subject to change. If you are not already subscribed to our blog, consider doing so to stay updated. If you are interested in tracking developments between blog posts, consider following us on LinkedIn.