Keypoint: The California legislature enters into the final week of its session with many bills still under consideration.
We are currently tracking thirteen privacy and AI-related bills that previously crossed chambers prior to the legislative deadline. With the California legislature closing on August 31, we will be providing weekly updates on the progress of these bills.
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.
Keypoint: Although not nearly as far-reaching as the Colorado AI Act, the Illinois law adds to the growing patchwork of state laws that regulate artificial intelligence.
On August 9, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker signed HB 3773 into law. The bill, which goes into effect January 1, 2026, amends the Illinois Human Rights Act to regulate the use of artificial intelligence in certain employment settings. In the below article, we provide a summary of the law and its provisions.
Keypoint: Companies onboarding AI products and services need to understand the potential risks associated with these products and implement contractual provisions to manage them.
With the rapid emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) products and services, companies using these products and services need to negotiate contractual provisions that adequately address the unique issues they present. However, given that this area is new and rapidly emerging, companies may not appreciate that the use of AI may raise unique contractual issues. Even if companies do realize it, they may not know what those provisions should state. In addition, many AI-related contractual terms are complicated and confusing, oftentimes containing new terms and definitions that companies are unfamiliar with handling.
In the below article, we identify key considerations when reviewing or preparing AI-related contracts. Although there may be other considerations depending on the specific use case, the below considerations should provide the reader with a useful starting point for how to address this issue.
Keypoint: Last week, several privacy and AI bills passed out of committee (with some receiving amendments) while two bills died in committee.
We are currently tracking thirteen privacy and AI-related bills that previously crossed chambers prior to the legislative deadline. With the California legislature closing on August 31, we will be providing weekly updates on the progress of these bills.
Keypoint: Last week, the California legislature returned from its summer recess and began moving forward with privacy and AI legislation prior to the August 31 session closing date.
We are currently tracking thirteen privacy and AI-related bills that previously crossed chambers prior to the legislative deadline. With the California legislature closing on August 31, we will be providing weekly updates on the progress of these bills.
Keypoint: The California legislature has many pending privacy and AI-related bills to consider before it closes on August 31.
The California legislature left for its summer recess on July 3 and will reconvene on August 5. Once it returns, the legislature will have twenty-six days to pass bills before it recesses for the year on August 31.
In the below article, we identify and briefly summarize the pending privacy and AI bills and where they stand in the legislative process. The bills cover a wide range of topics, including kid’s privacy, opt-out preference signals, neural data, and algorithmic discrimination. All together, we are tracking fourteen bills, one of which was signed into law on July 15. The remaining thirteen bills all passed through their chamber of origin prior to the May 24 deadline and are at various stages of consideration in the opposite chamber.
Keypoint: Courts reject personal jurisdiction arguments and suggest the Shopify decision will be overturned; Courts continue to show differing approaches to VPPA claims at the pleading stage with a large VPPA class action settlement recently approved.
Welcome to the fifteenth installment in our monthly data privacy litigation report. We would like to thank Liz Ignowski, a summer associate with Husch Blackwell, for her help with this month’s 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 look at several cases that decline to follow the Ninth Circuit’s Shopify decision, which is currently pending rehearing, and then deny motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. We also look at how courts are deciding whether the party exception applies to a complaint, and what facts are necessary to survive a motion to dismiss on consent and the contents of a communication. Additionally, we look at three VPPA decisions from June, where courts granted, denied, or deferred motions to dismiss, showing that although new VPPA cases may have decreased, courts are still allowing these claims to proceed past the pleading stage. We also highlight a VPPA class action settlement approval that illustrates how costly these claims can be if they survive the pleading stage.
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: 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 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 look at multiple courts who distinguish the Ninth Circuit’s Shopify decision and deny motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and how courts reach opposition conclusions regarding whether the “contents” of a communication were transmitted to a third party. We also take a look at two decisions that granted and denied motions to dismiss VPPA claims, and highlight one case where the federal government has again intervened to defend the VPPA’s constitutionality.
If you are a Byte Back+ member, you will also see our coverage on recent lawsuits beyond the wiretapping and VPPA claims, including the recent trend of cases brought under pen registry laws, efforts against plaintiffs who have brought wiretapping claims in private arbitration rather than the public courts, and—new this month—the recent flood of cases brought under New Jersey’s Daniel’s Law. Interested in learning more about Byte Back+? 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: The California legislature is considering several bills that, if passed, would add to the nation’s emerging legal patchwork governing the use of artificial intelligence.
In mid-May, Colorado Governor Jared Polis signed the Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act (CAIA) into law, making Colorado the first state to enact legislation governing the use of high-risk artificial intelligence systems. Earlier this year, Utah enacted SB 149, which creates limited obligations for private sector companies deploying generative artificial intelligence, including disclosing its use.
The California legislature is currently considering seven AI-related bills that, if passed, would add to the growing patchwork of state AI laws. All of these bills have passed their chamber of origin and are currently being considered by the opposite chamber. While many state legislatures have already closed for the year, California’s legislative session does not end until August 31, 2024, meaning that there is still time for California to pass one or more bills.
In the below article, we briefly summarize these bills (as they are currently drafted) and identify their current status. We previously discussed four of these bills in our April 25 AI Legislation Update.