U.S. Privacy Litigation Update: August 2025 Decisions | Byte Back
In this post: (1) The 9th Circuit tightens what “harm” a plaintiff must suffer to have standing; (2) the D.C. Circuit adds to growing circuit split| Byte Back
Four federal courts issued decisions in August involving claims that healthcare companies violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) by deploying tracking technologies—such as the Meta Pixel and Google Analytics—on their websites.[1] The decisions highlight an emerging split on what it takes to invoke the ECPA’s “crime-tort exception,” and provide important guidance for healthcare organizations...Continue Reading…| Byte Back
In this post: (1) The 9th Circuit tightens what “harm” a plaintiff must suffer to have standing; (2) the D.C. Circuit adds to growing circuit split| Byte Back
In this post: (1) California courts split on personal jurisdiction post-Briskin; (2) District courts dismiss VPPA claims against movie theaters & online platforms; (3) ND Cal courts find “crime-tort” exception met in non-healthcare cases; (4) Jury returns verdict against Flo Health in privacy case; and (5) Privacy Plaintiffs find new theory in Colorado law. This is...Continue Reading…| Byte Back
In this post: (1) Website tracking litigation risk remains as SB 690 is designated “two-year bill”; (2) Second Circuit reinforces narrower interpretation of PII to “shut the door for Pixel-based VPPA claims”; (3) Courts require individualized harm to establish standing; (4) Dismissals increase where plaintiffs fail to provide detailed allegations; and (5) Courts split on whether commercial intent can defeat application of “crime-tort exception” under federal ECPA.| Byte Back
Keypoint: In this post: (1) Standing may depend on how specific plaintiffs’ complaint is; (2) the 2nd Circuit adopts the 3rd and 9th Circuit’s narrower| Byte Back
Keypoint: Courts have started to issue Pixel-based wiretapping decisions, the Seventh Circuit weighs in on when a manufacturer can be forced to pay| Byte Back
