{"id":2662,"date":"2026-01-13T14:26:03","date_gmt":"2026-01-13T18:26:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=2662"},"modified":"2026-01-13T14:26:04","modified_gmt":"2026-01-13T18:26:04","slug":"video-dmcar-trend-4-the-landscape-of-privacy-class-actions-continued-to-shift","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2026\/01\/13\/video-dmcar-trend-4-the-landscape-of-privacy-class-actions-continued-to-shift\/","title":{"rendered":"VIDEO \u2013 DMCAR Trend #4: The Landscape Of Privacy Class Actions Continued To Shift"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-large\"><a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/01\/T4-DMCAR-2026.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1024\" height=\"576\" src=\"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/01\/T4-DMCAR-2026-1024x576.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-2663\" srcset=\"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/01\/T4-DMCAR-2026-1024x576.png 1024w, https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/01\/T4-DMCAR-2026-300x169.png 300w, https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/01\/T4-DMCAR-2026-768x432.png 768w, https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/01\/T4-DMCAR-2026-1536x864.png 1536w, https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/01\/T4-DMCAR-2026.png 1920w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 767px) 89vw, (max-width: 1000px) 54vw, (max-width: 1071px) 543px, 580px\" \/><\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Jennifer A. Riley<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><em>Duane Morris Takeaway:<\/em><\/strong><em> Continued settlements in the privacy space have inspired more members of the plaintiffs\u2019 bar to make privacy litigation the centerpiece of their business models. Although the landscape has shifted over the past five years, the recipe has remained similar &#8212; combine archaic statutory schemes, which provide for lucrative statutory penalties, with a ubiquitous technology, to yield the threat of a potential business-crushing class action that can be made via widespread use of form letters and cookie-cutter complaints, to generate payouts on a massive scale.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Watch Class Action Review co-editor Jennifer Riley explain this trend in the following video:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-embed is-type-video is-provider-youtube wp-block-embed-youtube wp-embed-aspect-16-9 wp-has-aspect-ratio\"><div class=\"wp-block-embed__wrapper\">\n<iframe loading=\"lazy\" title=\"Trend #4 \u2013 The Landscape Of Privacy Class Actions Continued To Shift\" width=\"525\" height=\"295\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/mNGwZX1Bkk0?feature=oembed\" frameborder=\"0\" allow=\"accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share\" referrerpolicy=\"strict-origin-when-cross-origin\" allowfullscreen><\/iframe>\n<\/div><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>Privacy continued to dominate as one of the hottest areas of growth in terms of class action filings by the plaintiffs\u2019 bar in 2025.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>As noted, the landscape has shifted over the past five years. In 2023, many plaintiffs\u2019 attorneys targeted session replay technology, which captures and reconstructs a user\u2019s interaction with a website, or website chatbots, which are programs that simulate conversation through voice or text, or biometric technologies, which capture traits like fingerprints or facial scans for purposes of identification.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Over the past two years, the focus for many plaintiffs\u2019 class action lawyers has shifted to website pixels \u2013 pieces of code embedded on websites to track activity and, in some circumstances, to provide information about that activity to third-party social media and analytics providers. Plaintiffs have launched thousands of claims via form letters, cookie-cutter complaints, and mass arbitration campaigns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In 2025, while plaintiffs pulled back on filings in areas like biometric privacy, we saw a surge in litigation over internet tracking technologies based on a patchwork quilt of state-level laws, including the California Invasion of P<a><\/a>rivacy Act (\u201cCIPA\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-large\"><a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/01\/Privacy-Laws.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1024\" height=\"576\" src=\"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/01\/Privacy-Laws-1024x576.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-2664\" srcset=\"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/01\/Privacy-Laws-1024x576.png 1024w, https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/01\/Privacy-Laws-300x169.png 300w, https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/01\/Privacy-Laws-768x432.png 768w, https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/01\/Privacy-Laws.png 1431w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 767px) 89vw, (max-width: 1000px) 54vw, (max-width: 1071px) 543px, 580px\" \/><\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<ol start=\"1\" class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><a><strong>I<\/strong><\/a><strong>llinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (\u201cBIPA\u201d) Claims<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p>Following steep year-over-year growth between 2017 through 2024, companies that operate in Illinois finally saw a reprieve from the growth in B<a><\/a>IPA litigation in 2025. The B<a><\/a>IPA was once one of the most popular privacy laws in the United States. On August 2, 2024, however, the Illinois Governor signed a long-awaited amendment to the B<a><\/a>IPA that eliminated \u201cper-scan\u201d statutory damages in favor of a \u201cper-person\u201d model. Over the past year, the impact of this amendment became apparent as the plaintiffs\u2019 class action bar shifted its attention away from the B<a><\/a>IPA and toward potentially more lucrative statutory schemes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Enacted in 2008, the B<a><\/a>IPA regulates the collection, use, and handling of biometric information and biometric identifiers by private entities. Subject to certain exceptions, the B<a><\/a>IPA prohibits collection or use of an individual\u2019s biometric information and biometric identifiers without notice, written consent, and a publicly available retention and destruction schedule.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>For nearly a decade following enactment of the B<a><\/a>IPA, activity under the statute remained largely dormant. The plaintiffs\u2019 bar filed approximately two total lawsuits per year from 2008 through 2016 before filings increased in 2017 and then skyrocketed in 2019. In 2020, plaintiffs filed more than six times as many class action lawsuits for alleged violations of the B<a><\/a>IPA than they filed in 2017 and more than the number of class action lawsuits they filed from 2008 through 2016 combined.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Filings continued to accelerate in 2023, prompted by two rulings from the Illinois Supreme Court that increased the opportunity for recovery of damages under the B<a><\/a>IPA. On February 2, 2023, the Illinois Supreme Court held that a five-year statute of limitations applies to claims under the B<a><\/a>IPA, and, on February 17, 2023, the Illinois Supreme Court held that a claim accrues under the B<a><\/a>IPA each time a company collects or discloses biometric information. <em>See<\/em> <em>T<a><\/a>ims v. Black Horse Carriers<\/em>, 2023 IL 127801 (Feb. 2, 2023); <em>C<a><\/a>othron v. White Castle System, Inc.<\/em>, 2023 IL 1280004 (Feb. 17, 2023). BIPA-related filings jumped markedly in the months following these rulings.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In 2024, the Illinois General Assembly abrogated <em>C<a><\/a>othron<\/em>. On August 2, 2024, the Illinois Governor signed SB 2979 into law, which amended the B<a><\/a>IPA and clarified that plaintiffs are limited to one recovery per person under \u00a7<a><\/a>\u00a7 15(b) and 15(d). In other words, a private entity that, in more than one instance, collects, captures, or otherwise obtains the same biometric identifier or biometric information from the same person using the same method of collection \u201chas committed a single violation\u201d for which an aggrieved person is entitled, at most, to one recovery. <em>See<\/em> 7<a><\/a>40 ILCS 14\/20 (b), (c).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-full\"><a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/01\/BIPA.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"694\" height=\"961\" src=\"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/01\/BIPA.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-2665\" srcset=\"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/01\/BIPA.png 694w, https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/01\/BIPA-217x300.png 217w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 694px) 100vw, 694px\" \/><\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>In a welcome relief for defendants, within a year after the BIPA\u2019s new \u201cper person\u201d damages regime took effect, we saw a substantial drop in filings. Whereas their rate of growth slowed in 2024, BIPA-related filings remained robust in 2024 in comparison with prior years. In 2025, however, filings declined by a substantial margin. Plaintiffs filed only 150 lawsuits invoking the B<a><\/a>IPA in 2025, compared with 427 lawsuits in 2024, 417 in 2023, and 362 in 2022.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The graphic shows the number of BIPA-related filings over the past eight years, including the year over year growth, followed by the substantial drop off in 2025. The rapid drop in BIPA-related filings suggests that damages available under other, perhaps more widely applicable and\/or more generous per-violation statutes proved a more attractive lure to the plaintiffs\u2019 class action bar in 2025.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol start=\"2\" class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><a><strong>Website Advertising Technology <\/strong><\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p>Although website activity tracking tools are nothing new, and appear on most websites, this past year they continued to fuel a growing wave of lawsuits alleging that such tools caused companies in various industries to share users\u2019 private information. In 2025, plaintiffs filed thousands of class action complaints \u2013 and served many more demand letters \u2013 alleging that companies had software code embedded in their websites that secretly captured plaintiffs\u2019 data and shared it with Meta, Google, or other online advertising agencies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Advertising technology, often called \u201cadtech,\u201d broadly describes the software and tools that advertisers use to reach audiences and to measure digital advertising campaigns. Adtech enables advertisers to track customers\u2019 online behaviors so that they can shape advertising content. Advertisers rely on adtech to inform decisions on who to target, how to present information, and how to track success.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Plaintiffs have asserted claims attacking adtech based on one or more of a wide variety of statutes and legal theories, such as the V<a><\/a>ideo Privacy Protection Act (\u201cVPPA\u201d), the E<a><\/a>lectronic Communications Privacy Act (\u201cECPA\u201d), as well as state specific statutes such as the California Invasion of P<a><\/a>rivacy Act (\u201cCIPA\u201d). Many of the statutes that plaintiffs seek to invoke predate the technology by multiple decades, forcing courts to attempt to apply them to technologies that the drafters never contemplated, leading to a patchwork quilt of divergent outcomes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Plaintiffs typically seek to invoke a statute that provides for statutory damages, asserting that hundreds of thousands of website visitors, times $10,000 per claimant in statutory damages under the F<a><\/a>ederal Wiretap Act, for example, or that hundreds of thousands of website visitors, times $5,000 per violation in statutory damages under the C<a><\/a>IPA, equals billions of dollars in supposed damages.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Certain members of the plaintiffs\u2019 class action bar have constructed business models designed to efficiently leverage such allegations. After identifying any of millions of websites with adtech, they generate form or templated demand letters asserting violations of the C<a><\/a>IPA or other statutes based on the use of tracking technologies provided by companies such as TikTok, LinkedIn, X, or others. They slow-play any formal filing, with the goal of leveraging a quick settlement and avoiding investment of fees and costs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This repeatable formula is fueled by settlement dollars and dependent on continued disagreement among courts on basic attributes of these claims. This past year plaintiffs asserted such claims under various statutes and common law theories. While claims under the V<a><\/a>PPA encountered roadblocks, court rulings in other areas showed more promise, driving claims toward statutes like C<a><\/a>IPA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol start=\"1\" style=\"list-style-type:upper-alpha\" class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>The VPPA<\/strong><br><br>In cases where websites allegedly transmit video viewing information, plaintiffs often assert claims for alleged violations of the federal VPPA. The statute prohibits a \u201cvideo tape service provider\u201d from knowingly disclosing \u201cpersonally identifiable information concerning any consumer of such provider.\u201d 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 2710(b)(1).<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p>The statute defines a \u201cvideo tape service provider\u201d to include any person \u201cengaged in business, or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, of rental, sale, or delivery of prerecorded video cassette tapes or similar audio-visual materials.\u201d 1<a><\/a>8 U.S.C. \u00a7 2710(a)(4). The V<a><\/a>PPA provides for damages up to $2,500 per violation in addition to costs and attorneys\u2019 fees for successful litigants, making it an attractive source of filings for the plaintiffs\u2019 class action bar.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Reflecting its comparatively narrower scope, Plaintiffs filed fewer V<a><\/a>PPA class actions in 2025, compared to 116 V<a><\/a>PPA class actions in 2024, and 137 in 2023, fueled in large part by adtech claims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-full\"><a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/01\/VPPA-1.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"715\" height=\"990\" src=\"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/01\/VPPA-1.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-2667\" srcset=\"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/01\/VPPA-1.png 715w, https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2026\/01\/VPPA-1-217x300.png 217w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 715px) 100vw, 715px\" \/><\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>In 2025, many defendants succeeded in dismissing V<a><\/a>PPA claims at the outset, particularly in the Second Circuit, which surely depressed filings in this area. <em>S<a><\/a>olomon v. Flipps Media, Inc<\/em>., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 10573 (2d Cir. May 1, 2025), is a prime example. In that case, the Second Circuit applied a narrow reading of the V<a><\/a>PPA, holding that the statute protects against only those disclosures that an ordinary person could use to identify a consumer\u2019s video-viewing history. The plaintiff, a subscriber to Flipps Media\u2019s streaming platform, alleged that each time she watched a video on the platform, Flipps transmitted to Facebook, via the Facebook Pixel, an encoded URL identifying the video and her unique Facebook I<a><\/a>D (FID) in violation of the V<a><\/a>PPA. The district court dismissed the complaint reasoning that, although Flipps transmitted data to Facebook, the plaintiff had not shown that her Facebook I<a><\/a>D, even when paired with a video URL, would enable an ordinary person to identify her or her video-viewing behavior. On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed. The Second Circuit emphasized that Congress intended to prevent disclosures that an average person, \u201cwith little or no extra effort,\u201d could use to link an individual to specific video content. <em>I<a><\/a>d.<\/em> at *27. The data Flipps transmitted was embedded in a mass of technical code and unreadable to a layperson.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Whereas such rulings had a muting effect on filings, courts in other jurisdictions applied different standards, signaling some continued daylight for the V<a><\/a>PPA to fuel claims. In <em>M<a><\/a>anza, et al. v. Pesi, Inc<\/em>., 784 F. Supp. 3d 1110 (W.D. Wis. 2025), for instance, the plaintiff purchased videos from Pesi, Inc. and she brought a putative class action alleging that Pesi disclosed her purchasing history and unique identifiers (<em>e.g.,<\/em> Facebook I<a><\/a>D, Google\/Pinterest client or user IDs, hashed emails, IP addresses) to third-party ad platforms and data brokers via tracking technologies (Meta Pixel, Google Analytics\/Tag Manager, Pinterest Tag) without her consent in violation of the V<a><\/a>PPA. Pesi moved to dismiss arguing that: (i) it is not a \u201cvideotape service provider\u201d under the V<a><\/a>PPA (citing its nonprofit status); (ii) the data disclosed is not \u201cpersonally identifiable information\u201d within the meaning of the statute; and (iii) Manza\u2019s factual allegations were insufficient to satisfy federal pleading standards. <em>I<a><\/a>d<\/em>. at *2-3. The court denied the motion. It held that, at the pleading stage, it was reasonable to infer that Pesi is a \u201cvideotape service provider\u201d because it regularly sold videos on its website. <em>I<a><\/a>d<\/em>. at *5. The court held that unique identifiers tied to a specific account (<em>e.g.,<\/em> Facebook I<a><\/a>D, client\/user IDs) qualify as personally identifiable information under the V<a><\/a>PPA when paired with video titles the customer obtained from the defendant. Finally, the court rejected the \u201cordinary person\u201d test (and decisions adopting it), reasoning that the VPPA\u2019s text and purpose support a broader reading that covers identifiers capable of being used to trace a customer\u2019s video purchases.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol start=\"2\" style=\"list-style-type:upper-alpha\" class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>The CIPA<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p>Companies that operate websites frequented by California consumers have received a wave of demand letters threatening claims under the C<a><\/a>IPA, many of which have matured into lawsuits and arbitration proceedings. The C<a><\/a>IPA presents an attractive option for plaintiffs because it offers statutory damages of $5,000 per violation, making it one of the most, if not the most, generous damages schemes provided by any privacy law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>California passed the C<a><\/a>IPA, a criminal statute, in 1967 to prevent unlawful wiretapping to eavesdrop on telephone calls. Among other things, the C<a><\/a>IPA prohibits use of pen registers and \u201ctrap and trace\u201d devices without either a court order or explicit consent. The C<a><\/a>IPA defines a pen register as &#8220;a device or process that records or decodes dialing, routing, addressing, or signaling information&#8221; for outgoing communications, and it defines a trap-and-trace device as a surveillance tool that captures similar information for incoming communications.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Plaintiffs frequently allege that website tracking technologies, such as cookies and pixels, run afoul of the C<a><\/a>IPA because they permit companies to acquire identifying information about website visitors, such as their phone numbers and email addresses and other personal information. In the past few years, plaintiffs have filed hundreds if not thousands of cases attacking various types of widely used website technologies. While plaintiffs have filed many lawsuits alleging violations of the C<a><\/a>IPA, they have sent many more demand letters that resulted in arbitration or pre-lawsuit settlements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Inconsistency in the case law continues to fuel these claims. Taking a recent example, in <em>C<a><\/a>amplisson, et al. v. Adidas<\/em>, Case No. 25-CV-603 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2025), the plaintiff, a website visitor, claimed that the sportswear company used pixels on its website that collected private information from visiting consumers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The court denied the motion to dismiss. The court held that the plaintiff sufficiently alleged that the trackers on Adidas\u2019 website collected a \u201cbroad set\u201d of personal identifying and addressing information and thus alleged a concrete harm in the loss of control of their own information. The court also held that the plaintiff sufficiently alleged that such web-based trackers plausibly qualify as pen registers and that users did not effectively consent because the website did not make its terms conspicuous and did not provide a mechanism for affirmative assent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The ruling runs counter to other decisions and thus contributes to the patchwork quilt of rulings in this area. For instance, among other thing, the court distinguished the Ninth Circuit\u2019s ruling in <em>P<a><\/a>opa, et al. v. Microsoft Corp.<\/em>, 153 F.4th 784, 786, 791 (9th Cir. 2025), from earlier this year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It explained that <em>P<a><\/a>opa<\/em> addressed a claim concerning the defendant\u2019s use of session-replay technology, which collected information on what products the plaintiff browsed and where her mouse hovered while on the website, and thus concerned how the plaintiff interacted with the website rather than her personal, private information.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The ruling also failed to account for <em>P<a><\/a>rice, et al. v. Converse<\/em>, Case No. 24-CV-08091 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2025), where another district court considered similar allegations and reached a different conclusion. The plaintiff alleged that the TikTok pixel engages in \u201cdevice fingerprinting\u201d to collect data about visitors to the Converse website including browser information, geographic information, and referral tracking information. The court found the plaintiff\u2019s allegations insufficient to establish a \u201cconcrete injury\u201d as required for standing because the plaintiff failed to plead any kind of harm that is remotely like the \u2018highly offensive&#8217; interferences or disclosures that were actionable at common law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>On June 3, 2025, the California Senate unanimously passed S<a><\/a>enate Bill 690 (SB 690), which would have amended the C<a><\/a>IPA on a prospective basis by providing a \u201ccommercial business purpose\u201d exception. The bill defined \u201ccommercial business purpose\u201d as the processing of personal information either to further a business purpose, as defined in the C<a><\/a>CPA, or when the collection of personal information is subject to a consumer\u2019s opt-out rights under the C<a><\/a>CPA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The California Assembly, however, later placed SB 690 on hold, classifying it as a two-year bill, meaning that its earliest reconsideration would occur in 2026, if at all, and its future is uncertain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Thus, without a legislative response, the continued variation among courts in their approaches to these claims is likely to continue to fuel uncertainty and, as a result, both claims and settlements in this area. An expansive discussion of the vast and growing patchwork quilt of differing approaches to adtech claims appears in C<a><\/a>hapter 14 regarding Privacy Class Actions.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Jennifer A. Riley Duane Morris Takeaway: Continued settlements in the privacy space have inspired more members of the plaintiffs\u2019 bar to make privacy litigation the centerpiece of their business models. Although the landscape has shifted over the past five years, the recipe has remained similar &#8212; combine archaic statutory &hellip; <\/p>\n<p class=\"link-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2026\/01\/13\/video-dmcar-trend-4-the-landscape-of-privacy-class-actions-continued-to-shift\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;VIDEO \u2013 DMCAR Trend #4: The Landscape Of Privacy Class Actions Continued To Shift&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":575,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[151],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[7,9],"class_list":["post-2662","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-class-action-review-2026"],"authors":[{"term_id":7,"user_id":575,"is_guest":0,"slug":"gmaatman","display_name":"Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2022\/09\/maatmangerald-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""},{"term_id":9,"user_id":576,"is_guest":0,"slug":"jariley","display_name":"Jennifer A. Riley","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2023\/08\/rileyjennifer-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2662","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/575"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2662"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2662\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2662"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2662"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2662"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=2662"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}