Author: Justin Donoho

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Justin Donoho, Hayley Ryan, and Ryan Garippo

Duane Morris Takeaways:  On September 3, 2025, in Golden v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC, No. 22-CV-9858, 2025 WL 2530689 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 3, 2025), Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a motion to dismiss with prejudice for a media company on a claim that the company’s use of website advertising technology on its website violated the Video Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA”).  The ruling is significant as it shows that in the explosion of adtech class actions across the nation seeking millions or billions of dollars in statutory damages under not only the VPPA but also myriad other statutes providing for statutory penalties on similar theories that the website owner disclosed website activities to Facebook, Google, and other advertising agencies, the statute and its harsh penalties should not be triggered because no ordinary person could access and decipher the information transmitted.

Background

This case is one of a multiplying legion of class actions that plaintiffs have filed nationwide alleging that Meta Pixel, Google Analytics, and other similar software embedded in defendants’ websites secretly captured plaintiffs’ web-browsing activity and sent it to Meta, Google, and other online advertising agencies.

This software, often called website advertising technology or “adtech,” is a common feature on corporate, governmental, and other websites in operation today.  In adtech class actions, the key issue is often a claim brought under the VPPA, a federal or state wiretap act, a consumer fraud act, and even the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act (GIPA), because plaintiffs often seek millions (and sometimes even billions) of dollars, even from midsize companies, on the theory that hundreds of thousands of website visitors, times $2,500 per claimant in statutory damages under the VPPA, for example, equals a huge amount of damages.  Plaintiffs have filed the bulk of these types of lawsuits to date against healthcare providers, but they also have filed suits against companies that span nearly every industry including retailers, consumer products, and universities.  Several of these cases have resulted in multimillion-dollar settlements, several have been dismissed, the vast majority remain undecided, and especially with some district courts being more permissive than others in allowing adtech class actions to proceed beyond the motion to dismiss stage (as we blogged about here), the plaintiffs’ bar continues to file adtech class actions at an alarming rate.

In Golden, the plaintiff brought suit against a media company.  According to the plaintiff, she signed up for an online newsletter offered by the media company and, thereafter, visited the media company’s website, where she watched videos.  Id. at *2-4.  The plaintiff further alleged that, after she watched those videos, her video-watching history was sent to Meta without her permission via the media company’s undisclosed use of the Meta Pixel on its website.  Id.  Like plaintiffs in most adtech class action complaints, this plaintiff: (1) alleged that before the company sent the web-browsing data to the online advertising agency (e.g., Meta), the company encrypted the data via the secure “https” protocol (id., ECF No. 56 ¶ 45); and (2) did not allege that any human had her encrypted web-browsing data or could retrieve it from the advertising agency’s algorithms or that even the advertising agency, or any other entity or person, has her web-browsing data stored or could retrieve it from the advertising agency’s algorithms in a decrypted (readable) format.  Based on the plaintiffs’ allegations, the plaintiff alleged a violation of the VPPA.

The media company moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the media company did not adequately allege that the media company “disclosed” the plaintiff’s “personally identifiable information” (“PII”), defined under the VPPA as “information which identifies a person as having requested or obtained specific video materials or services….”  Id., 2025 WL 2530689, at *5-6.

The Court’s Decision

The Court agreed with the media company and held that the plaintiff failed plausibly to plead any unauthorized “disclosure.” 

As the Court explained, “PII, under the VPPA, has three distinct elements: (1) the consumer’s identity, (2) the video material’s identity, and (3) the connection between them.”  Id. at *6.  Moreover, PII “encompasses information that would allow an ordinary person to identify a consumer’s video-watching habits, but not information that only a sophisticated technology company could use to do so.”  Id. (emphasis in original).  Therefore, “to survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must plausibly allege that the defendant’s disclosure of information would, with little or no extra effort, permit an ordinary recipient to identify the plaintiff’s video-watching habits.”  Id.  For these reasons, explained the Court, the Second Circuit has “effectively shut the door for Pixel-based VPPA claims.”  Id. at *7 (citing Hughes v. National Football League, 2025 WL 1720295 (2d Cir. June 20, 2025)).

Applying these standards, the Court dismissed the plaintiff’s VPPA claim with prejudice, holding that, “[i]n short, because the alleged disclosure could not be appreciated — decoded to reveal the actual identity of the user, and his or her video selections — by an ordinary person but only by a technology company such as Facebook, it did not amount to PII.”  Id. at *6-7.  In so holding, the Court cited an “emergent line of authority” shutting the door on VPPA claims not only in the Second Circuit but also in other U.S. Courts of Appeal.  See In Re Nickelodeon Consumer Priv. Litig., 827 F.3d 262, 283 (3d Cir. 2016) (affirming dismissal of VPPA case involving the use of Google Analytics, stating, “To an average person, an IP address or a digital code in a cookie file would likely be of little help in trying to identify an actual person”); Eichenberger v. ESPN, Inc., 876 F.3d 979, 986 (9th Cir. 2017) (affirming dismissal of VPPA case because “an ordinary person could not use the information that Defendant allegedly disclosed [a device serial number] to identify an individual”).

Implications For Companies

The Court’s holding in Golden is a win for adtech class action defendants and should be instructive for courts around the country addressing adtech class actions brought under not only the VPPA, but also other statutes prohibiting “disclosures,” and the like.  These statutes should be interpreted similarly to require proof that an ordinary person could access and decipher the web-browsing data, identify the person, and link the person to the data. 

Consider a few examples.  A GIPA claim requires proof of a disclosure or a breach of confidentiality and privilege.  An eavesdropping claim under the California Information of Privacy Act (CIPA) § 632 requires proof of eavesdropping.  A trap and trace claim under CIPA § 638.51 requires proof that the data captured is reasonably likely to identify the source of the data.  A claim under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) requires proof of an interception.

When adtech sends encrypted, inaccessible, anonymized transmissions to the advertising agency’s algorithms, has there been any disclosure or breach of confidentiality and privilege (GIPA), eavesdropping (CIPA § 632), data capture reasonably likely to identify the source (CIPA § 638.51), or interception (ECPA)?  Just as adtech transmissions are insufficient to amount to a disclosure under the VPPA, Golden shows neither should adtech transmissions trigger these similarly worded statutes because no ordinary person could access and decipher the data transmitted.

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Justin Donoho, Hayley Ryan, and Tyler Zmick

Duane Morris Takeaways:  On August 20, 2025, in Hannant v. Sarah D. Culbertson Memorial Hospital, 2025 WL 2413894 (C.D. Ill. Aug. 20, 2025), Judge Sara Darrow of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois granted a motion to dismiss while allowing a website user to re-plead her claim that the hospital’s use of website advertising technology (“adtech”) violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (“ECPA”).  The same day, in Q.J. v. Powerschool Holdings, LLC, 2025 WL 2410472 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 20, 2025), Judge Jorge Alonso of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied the Chicago school board and its educational technology (“edtech”) provider’s motion to dismiss a claim that their use of a third-party data analytics tool violated the ECPA.  These rulings are significant in that they show that in the hundreds of adtech, edtech, and other internet-based technology class actions across the nation seeking millions (or billions) in dollars in statutory damages under the ECPA, Illinois Federal courts have distinguished themselves from other courts in other jurisdictions that have refused to interpret the ECPA in such a plaintiff-friendly manner as have the Illinois Federal courts. 

Background

These cases are two of a legion of class actions that plaintiffs have filed nationwide alleging that Meta Pixel, Google Analytics, and other similar software embedded in defendants’ websites secretly captured plaintiffs’ web-browsing data and sent it to Meta, Google, and other online advertising agencies and/or data analytics companies.  In these adtech, edtech, and similar class actions, the key issue is often a claim brought under the ECPA on the theory that hundreds of thousands of website visitors times $10,000 per claimant in statutory damages equals a huge amount of damages.  Plaintiffs have filed the bulk of these types of lawsuits to date against healthcare providers, but they have filed suits against companies that span nearly every industry including education, retailers, and consumer products.  Several of these cases have resulted in multimillion-dollar settlements, several have been dismissed, and the vast majority remain undecided.

In Hannant, the plaintiff brought suit against a hospital.  According to the plaintiff, the hospital installed the Meta Pixel on its website, thereby transmitting to Meta, allegedly without the plaintiff’s consent, data about her visit to the hospital’s website. 

In Q.J., the plaintiff brought suit against the Chicago school board and its edtech provider.  According to the plaintiff, the school board and edtech provider installed a third-party data analytics tools called Heap Autocapture on the edtech provider’s online platform, thereby transmitting to Heap, allegedly without consent, information about the students’ visits to the online platform.

In both lawsuits, the plaintiffs claimed that these alleged events amounted to an “interception” by the defendant that violated the ECPA.  Neither defendant contested whether the plaintiff had plausibly alleged an “interception,” even though the events were more like the catching and forwarding of a different ball, not an interception: (1) as alleged in Hannant, see No. 24-CV-4164, ECF No. 14 ¶¶ 49, 363 (alleging that the communication Meta received was not the same transmission but a “duplicate[]” that was “forward[ed]”); and (2) despite the wholly conclusory allegations of a purported “interception” in Q.J.  However, both defendants moved to dismiss the claim under the ECPA on the grounds that, to the extent there was any interception, no liability exists under the ECPA pursuant to its exception where the party does not act “for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act.” 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d).

The Courts’ Decisions

In Hannant, the Court dismissed the ECPA claim without prejudice, and granted the plaintiff leave to re-plead in a fashion that may allow such an amended complaint to withstand the ECPA claim.  Specifically, the Court found that an amendment might plausibly allege a criminal or tortious purpose by adding sufficient detail about the plaintiff’s website interactions to show that there had been a violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”), which provides for criminal and civil penalties against a person “who knowingly … discloses individually identifiable health information [(‘IIHI’)] to another person.”  2025 WL 2413894,at *3 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1320d-6).  As the Court explained, under adtech class-action precedent in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, adding additional detail regarding alleged transmission of IIHI could be enough to allege a criminal or tortious purpose.  Id. at *3-5.

In Q.C., the Court denied the school board and edtech provider’s motion to dismiss, citing the same plaintiff-friendly precedent in the Northern District of Illinois cited by the opinion in Hannant, and explaining that while the allegedly disclosed data in this educational context did not violate the HIPAA, the plaintiff had plausibly alleged that the transmissions at issue violated the Illinois School Student Records Act (“ISSRA”), 105 ILCS 10/6, and Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1232g.  2025 WL 2410472, at *6.

Implications For Companies

In Illinois Federal courts, pixels and cookies are no longer just marketing and educational tools – they are legal risk vectors.  By contrast, other U.S. District Courts ruling on Rule 12(b)(6) motions have found no plausibly alleged interception when an internet-based communication is forwarded as opposed to being intercepted mid-flight, and no plausibly alleged criminal or tortious purpose because the purpose was not to violate any statute but rather to engage in advertising or data analytics.  (See, e.g., our prior blog entry discussing one of these several cases, here.)Website owners facing lawsuits in Illinois District Courts would do well to press such arguments finding success in other jurisdictions in order to preserve them for appeal in the Seventh Circuit, which has yet to rule on these issues.  In addition, other defenses remain, including demonstrating that plaintiffs cannot meet their burden of proof to show any actual disclosure where transmissions of information entered on the website to adtech vendors and data analytics providers such as Meta or Google are encrypted, ephemeral, anonymized, aggregated, and otherwise unviewable and irretrievable by any human and hence not any actual disclosure to a third party.

Corporate counsel seeking to deter ECPA litigation should keep in mind the following best practices (discussed in more detail in our prior blog post, here): (1) add or update arbitration clauses to deter class actions and mitigate the risks of mass arbitration; (2) update website terms of use, data privacy policies, and vendor agreements; and (3) audit and adjust uses of website advertising technologies.

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Justin Donoho, and Ryan Garippo

Duane Morris Takeaways:  On July 9, 2025, in Gutierrez, et al. v. Converse, Inc., No. 24-4797, 2025 WL 1895315 (9th Cir. July 9, 2025), the Ninth Circuit affirmed that a plaintiff had no evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that an online retailer’s use of third-party software to enable a chat feature on its website aided and abetted the third-party vendor in reading or attempting to read the contents of the plaintiff’s chat messages real-time in alleged violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA).  In rejecting this theory, the ruling is significant because it shows that CIPA claims involving alleged disclosures of website activities to third-party software providers cannot survive unless the plaintiff can show that the website owner enabled the third party to read unencrypted, real-time communications. 

Background

This case is one of a legion of class actions that plaintiffs have filed nationwide alleging that third-party software embedded in defendants’ websites secretly captured plaintiffs’ web-browsing activity and sent it to the third-party provider of the software.  Third-party software is a common feature on many websites today and comes in many forms including website advertising technologies (“adtech”), customer relationship management (“CRM”) software, enterprise resource management (“ERP”) software, and, as in this case, communications platforms.

In Gutierrez, Plaintiff brought suit against an online retailer.  According to Plaintiff, the retailer installed a chat feature on its public-facing website and thereby transmitted chat communications entered on the website to Salesforce, a third-party provider of the chat feature to the online retailer in the form of “software as a service” (“SaaS”).  2024 WL 3511648, at *2 (C.D. Cal. July 12, 2024). 

As usual since the Snowden disclosures in 2013, all of these transmissions between the web user, website, and third-party software provider were “were encrypted while in transit.”  Id. at *3.  Moreover, as is true for all internet communications, the chats were transmitted “in different network packets.”  Id.  Thus, the uncontroverted expert evidence showed that “it is ‘virtually impossible’ to learn the contents of an internet communication while it is in transit.”  Id.

The online retailer’s chat data, including chat transcripts, were stored on Salesforce’s servers.  Id.  However, this information was accessible in unencrypted format only through the retailer’s password-protected dashboard.  Id.  Plaintiff offered no evidence to show that Salesforce had access to the retailer’s dashboard or that the retailer ever provided Salesforce access to it.  Id.

Based on these facts, Plaintiff argued that the retailer violated the CIPA by aiding and abetting Salesforce’s wiretapping or attempts to learn her chat communications on the retailer’s website. 

The District Court granted the retailer’s motion for summary judgment for multiple reasons.  First, the District Court found as a matter of law that Salesforce did not violate CIPA’s first clause prohibiting intentional wiretapping or making any unauthorized connection “with any telegraph or telephone wire, line, cable, or instrument” because “Courts have consistently interpreted this clause as applying only to communications over telephones and not through the internet.”  Id. at *6-7. 

Second, the District Court found no genuine dispute of material fact existed as to whether Salesforce had violated the second clause of CIPA, Section 631(a), “because Plaintiff has presented no evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude Salesforce intercepts messages sent through [the retailer]’s chat feature ‘while … in transit’ or reads or attempts to read or learn the contents of such messages.”  Id. at *7.  As the District Court explained, “uncontroverted evidence establishes messages sent through [the retailer]’s chat feature are encrypted while in transit and, moreover, it is ‘virtually impossible’ to learn the contents of an internet communication while it is in transit because internet communications are transmitted ‘in different network packets[.]’”  Further, the District Court stated that “the fact that a user is redirected to a Salesforce-owned URL upon opening the chat feature on [the retailer]’s website does not establish the user’s messages are sent to Salesforce or Salesforce reads or attempts to read or learn the contents of such messages. Rather, this fact simply establishes . . . the user’s messages are transmitted to [the retailer]’s Service Cloud application.”  Id.  In addition, the District Court explained that “the existence of UUID [Universally Unique Identifier] values attached to chat messages and the mere possibility Salesforce ‘can’ use these values to ‘connect the dots’ between data are insufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Salesforce reads or attempts to read users’ messages while they are in transit.”  Id.

Finally, the District Court found that “because Plaintiff has not established an underlying violation of Section 631(a)’s first or second clause by Salesforce, [the retailer] cannot be liable for aiding and abetting Salesforce.”

The Ninth Circuit’s Opinion

The Ninth Circuit agreed with the retailer. It found that summary judgment for the retailer was warranted and affirmed the order below. 

In a short opinion, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s opinion by finding that “no evidence exists from which a reasonable jury could conclude” that Salesforce engaged in wiretapping or attempted to learn Plaintiff’s chat communications on the retailer’s website and, therefore, absent an underlying violation by Salesforce, no aiding and abetting liability by the retailer.  Id., at *1.

Circuit Judge Jay Bybee agreed, filing a separate concurring opinion stating that the wiretapping claim should be affirmed because “the statute, as passed in 1967, focuses on the wiretapping of telegraph or telephone wires—it criminalizes, as relevant here, the wiretapping of a telephone call” and, thus, CIPA’s clause prohibiting wiretapping “does not apply to the internet.”  Id. at *2-3.  Further, Judge Bybee opined: “Until and unless the California appellate courts tell us otherwise, or the California legislature amends § 631(a), I refuse to apply § 631(a)’s first clause to the internet.”  Id. at *3. 

Implications For Companies

The District Court’s holding and Ninth Circuit’s affirmance in Gutierrez are a win for CIPA class action defendants and should be instructive for courts around the country.  In the hundreds of CIPA class actions alleging a defendant’s disclosure of web-browsing activities to an adtech provider, for example, the plaintiff typically does not allege that the adtech provider has any ability to read any unencrypted version of the information disclosed.  This is not surprising, since the largest adtech providers often alleged in CIPA adtech class actions typically encrypt, anonymize, aggregate, and otherwise prevent their own ability to access web users’ browsing activities in any unencrypted format. 

Gutierrez shows that adtech plaintiffs will need to show, however, that the owner of the website they visited enabled the third party adtech provider to read unencrypted, real-time communications, in order to prove their CIPA claims.

By Justin Donoho, Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., and Tyler Zmick

Duane Morris Takeaways:  In Short v. MV Transportation, Inc., No. 24-CV-3019 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 10, 2025), Judge Manish S. Shah of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied defendant’s bid to dismiss a claim brought under the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act (“GIPA”).  In his ruling, Judge Shah acknowledged that U.S. Department of Transportation regulations require companies in the transportation industry (including defendant) to ensure their drivers satisfy certain physical qualification criteria.  The Court nonetheless rejected defendant’s argument that the regulations preempt the GIPA because they do not specifically require employers to ask applicants about their family medical histories (which the GIPA prohibits).  In other words, the Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss because the GIPA does not make it “physically impossible” to comply with federal regulations. 

Background

Plaintiff Kevin Short alleged that he applied for a position as a driver for Defendant MV Transportation, Inc., a company that provides paratransit services.  As part of the application process, Plaintiff was required to complete a physical examination during which he was asked about his family medical history, including whether his family members had a history of high blood pressure, heart disease, or diabetes.

Plaintiff subsequently sued MV Transportation under the GIPA, alleging that the company violated Section 25(c)(1) of the statute by “solicit[ing], request[ing], [or] requir[ing] . . . genetic information of a person or a family member of the person . . . as a condition of employment [or] preemployment application.”  410 ILCS 513/25(c)(1).

MV Transportation moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis that the Department of Transportation’s (“DOT”) regulations preempted Plaintiff’s GIPA claim.  Specifically, MV Transportation argued that Plaintiff’s claim was barred under a “conflict preemption” theory because allowing the claim to proceed would force MV Transportation to choose between complying with the GIPA or complying with federal requirements to “conduct[ ] thorough physical examinations of its drivers.”

MV Transportation pointed to the Motor Carrier Safety Act for support, under which the DOT regulates commercial motor vehicle safety by promulgating “minimum safety standards” to ensure that “the physical condition of operators . . . is adequate to enable them to operate the vehicles safely” – including by requiring drivers to satisfy 13 “physical qualification criteria.”  49 U.S.C. § 31136(a)(3).

The Court’s Decision

In denying MV Transportation’s motion, the Court noted that conflict preemption applies only where “compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility” or where the state law “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.”  Id. at 6-7 (citations omitted); see also id. at 6 (noting that “‘[i]nvoking some brooding federal interest’ is insufficient to establish preemption; instead, MV Transportation must identify ‘a constitutional text or a federal statute’ that displaces or conflicts with the state law”) (quoting Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren, 587 U.S. 761, 767 (2019)).  The Court further observed that MV Transportation had the burden of overcoming the “presumption against preemption.”

In its ruling, the Court concluded that it is not physically impossible for MV Transportation to simultaneously comply with the GIPA and DOT regulations relative to Plaintiff’s pre-employment health screening because the DOT regulations do not specifically require any inquiry into a driver’s family medical history.  MV Transportation asserted that DOT regulations nonetheless “contemplate[] that medical examiners may discuss” a person’s family medical history during a physical exam.  The Court was not persuaded, however, stating that such a scenario is “not enough to suggest that compliance with GIPA and the federal regulations is ‘physically impossible.’”  Id. at 9 (“The mere possibility that a medical examiner asks for information protected by GIPA while performing an examination does not demonstrate impossibility to comply with both federal and state law.”). 

The Court similarly held that the GIPA is not an obstacle to the execution of Congress’s purposes, as reflected in the Motor Carrier Safety Act and DOT regulations.  As support for this conclusion, the Court observed that the relevant DOL regulations and the GIPA serve different purposes – the regulations are meant to promote the safe operation of commercial motor vehicles, while the GIPA focuses on health information privacy. 

Implications Of The Decision

Short v. MV Transportation is one of several recent decisions in which courts denied bids to dismiss GIPA claims at the pleading stage. 

Given this litigation landscape and the statute’s strict penalty provision – under which statutory damages can quickly become significant ($2,500 per negligent violation and $15,000 per intentional or reckless violation, see 410 ILCS 513/40(a)(1)-(2)) – employers should ensure they comply with the statute regarding any health screenings they ask applicants or employees to complete (including by explicitly advising applicants and employees not to disclose their family medical histories during the screenings).