Understanding the Confusing Bits of U.S. Privacy Litigation: January 2025
Navigating – rather let’s say, working through – the tangled issues of privacy lawsuits in the United States can be a nerve-racking exercise. And for those who aren’t legal experts, the twists and turns of U.S. privacy litigation trends can seem overwhelming. As any legal professional or privacy law enthusiast knows, the topic is full of problems and loaded with tension. Let’s take a closer look at the major outcomes of privacy litigation in January 2025 and the tricky parts of these legal battles.
Constructive Consent in Privacy Policies
Determining valid consent is critical in privacy litigation. January 2025 saw two court rulings suggesting that a plaintiff may have provided consent to alleged wiretapping through a website privacy policy, given that the defendant can demonstrate sufficient constructive consent. These two different courts showed an openness to this argument. It remains a fine shade to strike between giving users control over their privacy and maintaining a smooth user experience.
Third-Party Vendors & The Party Exception in Wiretapping Claims
The little details in the small distinctions between different courts influence how rules on wiretapping claims are applied, especially concerning third-party vendors. We see courts inconsistently consider third-party vendor statements when determining whether these vendors qualify for the party exception in wiretapping allegations. Court rulings suggest that third-party vendors could potentially use intercepted information for their own benefits, which would then remove their entitlement to the party exemption. This subtle part of the law could have significant implications for website operators and third-party vendors alike.
Surviving the Nitty-Gritty: Tap & Trace/Pen Registry Claims
The Pen Registry claims continue to stand firm in the face of dismissal motions. These lawsuits often discuss a website operator’s supposed violation of “two-party” or “all-party” consent states wiretapping laws when using chat services or other means to log or record communications. Courts are, however, remaining keen on these theories, demonstrating how crucial these small distinctions can be when it comes to privacy lawsuits.
Broad Interpretation of the Video Privacy Protection Act
The subtle parts of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) interpretation have been critical for many lawsuits. Courts have leaned on the Salazar decision to back a wider application of the VPPA. However, there is still a boundary drawn at the point of selling tickets for in-person viewings, falling short of violating the VPPA. This emphasis on the super important fine shades of interpretation of the VPPA illustrates the importance of the act in modern privacy litigation.
Failed Launch of Spy Pixel Cases
In a tricky twist, suits based on Arizona’s “spy pixel” law have been failing to get off the ground, despite some plaintiffs’ best efforts. It seems that the courts deem these alleged violations as not having caused enough harm to warrant standing, despite some statutory violation claims. Cases such as these underscore the courts’ stance that a concrete, quantifiable harm must have been suffered for a case to proceed.
Looking Forward: Embracing the Complicated Pieces
Navigating the ever-changing landscape of privacy litigation necessitates a deep understanding of the evolving legislation and court interpretations surrounding it. It’s the nitty-gritty of legal precedent, and the ever-changing landscape of technology and digital privacy norms, that make this field such a fascinating one. The key is in the hand of the professionals who can figure out a path through the labyrinth of cases, statutes, and the fine points of legal procedures involved.
Originally Post From https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/u-s-privacy-litigation-update-january-5218524/
