Tracking technologies, such as advertising pixels, session replay tools and AI-powered chat widgets, are now the centerpiece of a wave of privacy class action lawsuits carrying statutory damages of thousands of dollars per violation, often without proof of actual harm. This program gives counsel a practical understanding of how these technologies work, why they generate legal exposure, and how to defend against the claims they attract.
The presenters will cover the technologies plaintiffs target most and map them to the legal theories driving current litigation, including CIPA, VPPA, and state wiretap analogs. The program also addresses FTC and HHS enforcement, the state privacy law landscape, and a practical defense playbook covering litigation strategy, consent architecture, and compliance triage.
- Overview of the Tech Plaintiffs Target
- How modern web tracking technologies work and why they generate legal exposure
- Advertising pixels: Meta Pixel, LinkedIn Insight Tag, TikTok Pixel — what they capture and where the data goes
- Session replay tools (FullStory, Hotjar, Microsoft Clarity) — recording clicks, keystrokes, and form inputs in real time
- Chat widgets and AI assistants — how customer conversations are routed through third-party vendors
- How data brokers use identity matching to link anonymous browsing to real consumer profiles
- Litigation Theories & Trends
- Current privacy class action landscape: volume, targets, and plaintiff strategies
- Mapping technology to claims
- CIPA §631 — California wiretap theories applied to pixels and session replay
- Pen register and trap-and-trace claims — pixels as digital surveillance devices
- VPPA revival — video pixels, newsletter subscribers, and the “consumer” expansion
- WESCA and state wiretap analogs
- High-risk sectors: healthcare (HIPAA/HHS/OCR pixel guidance and FTC overlap) and financial services
- The plaintiff’s pipeline: automated scanning, demand letters, and arbitration or class action filing
- How statutory damages ($5,000/violation under CIPA) create leverage without requiring proof of harm
- Regulators & Rules
- FTC enforcement priorities: GoodRx, BetterHelp, and the focus on sensitive data sharing with ad networks
- State privacy law landscape: CPRA, Colorado Privacy Act, Texas Data Privacy Act, and emerging legislation
- Universal opt-out signals and Global Privacy Control (GPC) compliance obligations
- California Delete Act and the data broker registry framework
- CPPA and state AG enforcement trends
- Defense Playbook & Compliance Strategy
- Core litigation defenses
- Party exception — when does the website operator qualify as a party to the communication?
- “No interception” arguments — contemporaneous transmission vs. stored data
- Vendor-as-agent theory and defeating third-party claims
- Class certification challenges — consent differences and individualized exposure issues
- First 72 hours after a complaint: preserving HAR files, configurations, and vendor contracts
- Settlement strategy: when to resolve early and how to assess leverage
- Building a defensible compliance program
- Consent management platforms — blocking tracking before consent is given
- Vendor governance: data processing agreements, audit rights, and indemnification
- Data minimization: excluding sensitive URLs and limiting form field capture
- Questions & Answers (As Time Permits)
Free Justia Connect Memberships are available to lawyers, other legal professionals, students, and all law enthusiasts.
Log In NowNot a Member? Get Connected for Free
* CLE credit is only available to Justia Connect Pro members.
Duane Morris LLP
J. Colin Knisely concentrates his practice in the areas of commercial litigation, including class action litigation arising out of state and federal privacy laws, and regularly counsels clients in the complex areas of privacy, cybersecurity, ransomware attacks and data breach response. Mr. Knisely also represents clients on claims concerning accessibility of their public facing websites, and frequently consultants with clients regarding compliance with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and various state and local accessibility laws and regulations. Read More ›
Duane Morris LLP
Michael S. Zullo serves as a team lead for the firm's Banking and Finance industry group. Mr. Zullo has been representing banks and other financial institutions in all manner of litigation for almost 20 years. He has appeared before federal and state courts nationwide and has a proven track record of success in the courtroom. He has also resolved hundreds of matters outside of the courtroom, employing a practical, problem-solving approach that puts client goals first. Mr. Zullo draws on his years of experience working closely with both the former general counsel and head of litigation of a large publicly traded bank to manage client risks and present pragmatic and business-minded solutions. Read More ›
*CLE credit is only available to Justia Connect Pros. Not a Pro? Upgrade today>>
Status: Approved
Credits: 1.00 General
Status: Approved
Credits: 1.00 General
Status: Approved
Credits: 1.00 General
Status: Approved
Credits: 1.00 General
Status: Approved
Credits: 1.20 General
Status: Approved
Credits: 1.00 General
Status: Approved
Credits: 1.20 General
Status: Approved
Credits: 1.00 General
Status: Approved
Credits: 1.00 General
Status: Approved
Credits: 1.00 Substantive Law, Practice, and Procedure
Status: Approved
Credits: 1.00 General
Status: Approved
Credits: 1.00 General
Status: Approved
Credits: 1.20 General
This presentation is approved for one hour of General CLE credit in Alaska, one hour of General CLE credit in California, one hour of General CLE credit in Hawaii, one hour of General CLE credit in Illinois, one hour of General CLE credit in Missouri, one hour of General CLE credit in Nevada, one hour of General CLE credit in North Carolina, one hour of General CLE credit in Ohio, one hour of Substantive Law, Practice, and Procedure CLE credit in Pennsylvania, one hour of General CLE credit in Vermont, and one hour of General CLE credit in West Virginia. This program has been approved by the Board on Continuing Legal Education of the Supreme Court of New Jersey for 1.20 hours of total CLE credit. This course has been approved for Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of Texas Committee on MCLE in the amount of 1.00 credit hours.
Justia only reports attendance in jurisdictions in which a particular Justia CLE Webinar is officially accredited. Lawyers may need to self-submit their certificates for CLE credit in jurisdictions not listed above.
Note that CLE credit, including partial credit, cannot be earned outside of the relevant accreditation period. To earn credit for a course, a lawyer must watch the entire course within the relevant accreditation period. Lawyers who have viewed a presentation multiple times may not be able to claim credit in their jurisdiction more than once. Justia reserves the right, at its discretion, to grant an attendee partial or no credit, in accordance with viewing duration and other methods of verifying course completion.
At this time, Justia only offers CLE courses officially accredited in certain states. Lawyers may generate a generic attendance certificate to self-submit credit in their own jurisdiction, but Justia does not guarantee that lawyers will receive their desired CLE credit through the self-submission or reciprocity process.