California

Last month, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in an unpublished decision, undercut the latest attempt of the plaintiffs’ bar to penalize the common business practice of using tracking pixels on websites. These pixels are pieces of code created by third-party advertisers and analytics companies that can collect information about website visits such as a visitor’s IP address, when the visit occurred, and what links were clicked on within the site. Despite being used by most major U.S. businesses, tracking pixels have been increasingly targeted by plaintiffs for their alleged disclosure of certain information back to the company that operates them. Squire Patton Boggs’ Data Disputes team has significant experience defending these claims in litigation and arbitration (and obtaining dismissals for clients). 

Read on for more about the Third Circuit’s decision in this case.Continue Reading Third Circuit Strikes a Blow to Yet Another Attempt to Penalize the Use of Tracking Pixels

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

A Domino’s customer may proceed in her putative class action for violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) against ConverseNow for its provision of an AI virtual assistant that processes restaurant telephone orders. In Taylor v. ConverseNow Technologies, Inc., Case No. 25-cv-00990-SI, 2025 WL 2308483 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2025), the Court…

This fall, a federal court in California granted summary judgment in favor of a website operator for alleged violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA). In its decision, the Court emphasized that it was “virtually impossible” to apply CIPA to internet communications and urged the California legislature to “step up” and “speak clearly” about how internet activity should be treated under the statute in light of a deluge of claims that have been filed recently against website operators.Continue Reading California Federal Court Urges California Legislature to Clean Up “Total Mess” of State Wiretap Act, Dismisses Claim for Website Tracking

Over the past year, there has been an explosion of lawsuits targeting website analytics and tracking tools. One recent decision brought businesses another victory in challenging lawsuits alleging violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act’s (CIPA)’s prohibition against use of “pen registers” and “trap and trace devices.” Cal. Penal Code § 638.51. In a recent ruling, a federal judge in the Central District of California dismissed one such lawsuit, holding that the claim could not be asserted in federal court.Continue Reading Federal Court Dismisses “Trap and Trace” Lawsuit for Plaintiff’s Lack of Injury

The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) requires that privacy notices be updated annually, and that the detailed disclosures it proscribes be in those notices reflect the 12-month period prior to the effective (posting) date. Interestingly, failure to make annual updates was one of several alleged CCPA violations that resulted in a recent $1.35 Million administrative…

On July 24, the California Privacy Protection Agency Board unanimously voted to approve the May 9 draft of its proposed edits and additions to regulations under the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which we broke down in detail here.  There were 575 pages of comments from 70 commentators regarding that last set of changes, but staff concluded that no further changes were appropriate in response to these comments and the Board agreed.  So now, a final package will be prepared and presented to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) to confirm the regulations are consistent with the CCPA and administrative procedures.  That package will include more detailed explanation of why rejected comments were rejected, with the goal of providing guidance especially regarding interpretation issues.  Assuming OAL approval, key implementation dates will be:Continue Reading New California Privacy Regulations Passed by Board

In another settlement of a cookie-related state consumer privacy law enforcement action, California reinforces contract requirements for making personal information available and raises questions about the scope of purpose limitation requirements, especially where the nature of the data and/or its use could run counter to consumer expectations. 

On July 1, 2025, the California Office of the Attorney General (OAG) announced a settlement against Healthline, which included the largest CCPA settlement to date – $1.55 million – and many “firsts” for public CCPA enforcement: the first involving a publisher, the first health information-related enforcement action, and the first time the purpose limitation principle has been invoked by California’s (or any other state’s) regulators in a public regulatory enforcement context. This enforcement action came just a week before Connecticut’s attorney general announced an $85,000 settlement under the Connecticut state privacy law explored in more detail here.Continue Reading California AG Issues Highest Fine to Date for CCPA Violations

State consumer privacy enforcers have been turning up the heat on recalcitrant data controllers that have incomplete, inadequate or broken consumer privacy law (CPL) protection programs.  On July 8, the Office of the Attorney General of Connecticut (CT OAG) announced a settlement with TicketNetwork, Inc related to deficiencies in the company’s privacy notice and non-compliance with consumer rights requirements. This came just a week following California’s announcement of its largest consumer privacy law settlement to date — US $1.55 million, involving an online publisher known as Healthline. A post breaking that case down will follow shortly.  Today we look at the Connecticut case.Continue Reading Connecticut’s Recent Privacy Settlement Shows that Organizations Should Remain Cognizant of Privacy Law Obligations Outside of California

(Updated May 12, 2025)

Since January, the federal government has moved away from comprehensive legislation on artificial intelligence (AI) and adopted a more muted approach to federal privacy legislation (as compared to 2024’s tabled federal legislation). Meanwhile, state legislatures forge ahead – albeit more cautiously than in preceding years.

As we previously reported, the Colorado AI Act (COAIA) will go into effect on February 1, 2026. In signing the COAIA into law last year, Colorado Governor Jared Polis (D) issued a letter urging Congress to develop a “cohesive” national approach to AI regulation preempting the growing patchwork of state laws. Absent a federal AI law, Governor Polis encouraged the Colorado General Assembly to amend the COAIA to address his concerns that the COAIA’s complex regulatory regime may drive technology innovators away from Colorado. Eight months later, the Trump Administration announced its deregulatory approach to AI regulation making federal AI legislation unlikely. At that time, the Trump Administration seemed to consider existing laws – such as Title VI and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act which prohibit unlawful discrimination – as sufficient to protect against AI harms. Three months later, a March 28 Memorandum issued by the federal Office of Management and Budget directs federal agencies to implement risk management programs designed for “managing risks from the use of AI, especially for safety-impacting and rights impacting AI.”Continue Reading States Shifting Focus on AI and Automated Decision-Making