Arbitration

For years, one of the most frequently litigated privacy laws has been the Video Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA”), 18 U.S.C. § 2710, a federal statute enacted in 1988 in response to the disclosure of then-Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork’s videotape rental history by a video store to a reporter, who published the list.  Despite its analogue origins, this decades-old statute has been used by the plaintiff’s bar (incentivized by the VPPA’s $2,500 per violation liquidated damages provision) in putative class action litigation brought against any business whose website contains playable videos and third-party cookies.

This past year, there were several significant court rulings in litigation under the VPPA.  These decisions addressed hotly contested VPPA elements while also laying the foundation for a potential circuit split.  Squire Patton Boggs’ globally ranked “Elite” Data Disputes team is well experienced defending businesses and their data practices, including in the realm of VPPA litigation and (mass) arbitration.  In this article, informed by our practical experience litigating and arbitrating VPPA cases, we: (I) provide a brief primer on VPPA elements and litigation theories, (II) cover a Second Circuit decision, and other district court decisions, on the definition of personally identifiable information under the VPPA (III) address decisions from the Sixth, Seventh, and D.C. Circuits on the scope of persons who can bring VPPA claims, and (V) give an update on a recent Eighth Circuit decision regarding which businesses are subject to the VPPA.  These areas are all likely to bear upon VPPA claims and ongoing litigation in 2026, making this a must read for in-house counsel and practitioners in this space.Continue Reading 2025 Video Privacy Protection Act Litigation Year in Review

One of the most significantly litigated areas of privacy law is biometric privacy. Tools that collect biometric information and biometric identifiers—including facial geometries, fingerprint scans, and voiceprints—are increasingly common for businesses across industries. Unfortunately, such tools in recent years have become focuses of the plaintiffs’ bar.

2025 saw continued developments in litigation under Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), one of the first and most important biometric privacy laws in the country, as well as other, lesser-litigated biometric laws. Squire Patton Boggs’ globally ranked “Elite” Data Disputes team is well experienced defending businesses and their data practices, including in the realm of biometric privacy, in both litigation and arbitration, including mass arbitration. See also https://www. privacyworld.blog/2025/12/2025-mass-arbitration-year-in-review/

In this article, informed by our practical experience litigating and arbitrating biometric cases, we: (I) provide a brief primer on BIPA and then take a look at some highlights of the 2025 biometric privacy litigation space, including (II) class action and mass arbitration activity under BIPA, (III) key questions regarding defenses to BIPA claims on appeal at the Seventh Circuit, (IV) a decision contrasting BIPA with New York City’s biometric regime, (V) developments under other biometric laws enforced by attorneys general, and (VI) the intersection of AI and biometric privacy laws.Continue Reading 2025 Year-In-Review: Biometric Privacy Litigation

Mass arbitrations—where a plaintiffs’ firm brings dozens, hundreds, or thousands of identical claims against a business—is a mechanism increasingly relied upon by the plaintiffs’ bar in the past few years.  This is because mass arbitrations enable a plaintiffs’ firm to create settlement pressure by leveraging unavoidable arbitration fees borne by a business regardless of the merits of the claims filed.  Further powered by litigation funding, plaintiffs’ firms have used the mass arbitration device to bring vexatious claims and escape review of the merits or any downside risk.Continue Reading 2025 Mass Arbitration Year in Review

Earlier this fall, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit undermined a strategy often used by the plaintiff’s bar in privacy claims: the threat of mass arbitration fees.  In a decision reversing the district court, the Second Circuit held that the petitioners cannot use the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) to compel arbitration…

In case you missed it, below are recent posts from Privacy World covering the latest developments on data privacy, security and innovation. Please reach out to the authors if you are interested in additional information.

Singapore Publishes Generative AI Model Governance Framework | Privacy World

FCC Chair Proposes Investigation of Potential Disclosure Requirements for AI-Generated…

Earlier this month, arbitration services provider JAMS announced that it created a new set of Mass Arbitration Procedures and Guidelines (“Mass Procedures”) for use in mass arbitrations.  Like competitor American Arbitration Association’s (“AAA”) update to its mass arbitration supplementary rules (“AAA Supplementary Rules”) earlier this year, JAMS’s new procedures include some features that may mitigate some of the more abusive practices common to mass arbitrations, but do not fully eliminate the risks posed by mass arbitrations.  Read on for an overview of these new procedures and the accompanying fee schedule.Continue Reading Arbitration Provider JAMS Creates New Mass Arbitration Procedures

On January 15, 2024, the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) introduced updates to its Mass Arbitration Supplementary Rules and its fee schedules, including for consumer mass arbitrations (collectively referred to as the “Updates”). The Updates consist of a flat initiation fee to lower the cost of initiating arbitrations, the new requirement of counsel to affirm that…

In case you missed it, below are recent posts from Privacy World covering the latest developments on data privacy, security and innovation. Please reach out to the authors if you are interested in additional information.

South Korea Consults on Draft Decree to Personal Information Protection Act | Privacy World

Bilingual Draft of China’s Standard Contract…

A putative federal class action brought on behalf of delivery drivers asserting invasion of privacy and wiretapping claims against a global e-commerce company survived an interlocutory appeal last week.  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a decision from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California that allows plaintiff’s claims to proceed.…

2022 was another year of high activity and significant developments in the realm of artificial intelligence (“AI”) and biometric privacy related matters, including in regard to issues arising under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) and others.  This continues to be one of the most frequently litigated areas of privacy law, with several notable rulings and emerging patterns of new activity by the plaintiffs’ bar.  Following up on Privacy World’s Q2 and Q3 2022 Artificial Intelligence & Biometric Privacy Quarterly Newsletters, be sure to read on for a recap of key developments and insight as to where 2023 may be headed.
Continue Reading Privacy World 2022 Year in Review: Biometrics and AI