Flo Health, the owner and operator of the popular Flo Period & Ovulation Tracker app, was sued in federal court for allegedly sharing users’ personal health data with Meta (Facebook) and Google. Although Flo Health settled the class action lawsuit, the case still went to trial with Meta named as a defendant – and a jury issued a precedent-setting verdict against the social media parent company.
A high-profile trial about data privacy violations by Facebook parent company Meta concluded with a shocking verdict from the jury: Meta violated California’s consumer privacy laws. The lawsuit concerned allegations that Meta unlawfully collected the personal health data of users of the Flo Ovulation & Period Tracker app. Women who use the app are encouraged to enter private details about their health, including sexual activity, birth control, and menstrual cycles.
A California court recently ruled that a trap & trace CIPA claim against Peachybbies can proceed. The Plaintiff, a California consumer, alleged that Peachybbies violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) by installing TikTok Software on its website to track and intercept the personal information of website visitors without their consent. This data was then allegedly shared with TikTok, the Chinese-owned social media platform.
A federal court in California recently ruled on a trap and trace class action against HoMedics and FKA Distributing Co. – and the ruling was fantastic news for the consumer protection attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP. The plaintiff in the case is a California resident who visited the HoMedics website. According to the legal complaint, the website utilized TikTok software to unlawfully collect personal information from the plaintiff and other consumers who visited the site.
A number of recent lawsuits have been filed based on something known as “the pen register theory.” But what are pen registers? One of the surveillance tools commonly used by law enforcement to spy on suspects is the pen register, which allows police to capture phone numbers that were dialed on outgoing calls. Increasingly, these devices are being used by businesses to reveal the content of communications on websites, which poses a very real privacy concern for consumers.
Los Angeles law firm Tauler Smith LLP recently filed a trap and trace class action against United HealthCare. The national health insurance provider has been accused of collaborating with controversial social media company TikTok to unlawfully collect data from website visitors. These actions would constitute clear violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), which prohibits companies from using website tracking software to gather personal information about customers.
California’s trap and trace law protects consumers against the unauthorized tracking of their activity online. For law enforcement, securing a court order to intercept communications is difficult because there are strict limitations on this type of activity. Yet, for companies with websites, it has become far too easy to acquire customer data in the same invasive manner without any authorization or consent.
A CIPA lawsuit against the Tony Robbins Company was recently filed in a California superior court. The self-help business has been accused of secretly wiretapping the communications of website users in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, or CIPA.
A CIPA lawsuit was recently filed against Nationwide Mutual Insurance for illegal wiretapping and invasion of privacy, and now a federal judge in California has ruled that the case can proceed to trial. The U.S. District Court judge issued the ruling in response to a motion to dismiss the wiretapping claims under Section 631 of CIPA, or the California Invasion of Privacy Act.
It is important for consumers who interact with businesses online to have a solid understanding of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) and website wiretapping. When you have a conversation with someone on the phone or via the computer, there is usually a reasonable expectation that the conversation will remain between the two parties. But what happens when what you believed to be a private conversation was actually being wiretapped, surveilled, and/or recorded by the other party?