ecpa

California healthcare provider TrueCare was sued for sharing user health data without consent. Now, a federal court has ruled that the class action lawsuit can proceed. TrueCare operates a website, https://truecare.org/, that patients visit to get information and schedule appointments. When patients fill out forms on the website, they expect that their personal data will remain confidential. However, the company allegedly used pixel-tracking software to collect user data.

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) is a federal law enacted in the mid-1980s just as cell phones, the internet, and other digital technologies were becoming prevalent throughout the United States. Many Americans began to use email, prompting lawmakers to put stringent privacy protections in place for those types of communications. Today, data privacy concerns remain a major concern in industries where customer records shared online typically involve sensitive material, including the financial and healthcare industries.

The explosion of e-commerce websites, internet marketing, and AI technology has raised serious concerns about the privacy of consumers online. Increasingly, courts in California and elsewhere are relying on the Federal Wiretap Act to ensure that consumers’ sensitive personal information remains confidential. What is the Federal Wiretap Act? The federal data privacy law broadly protects consumer data by placing clear limits on how the government and private businesses can go about collecting information about website visitors.

LiveRamp, one of the largest data brokers in the world, was sued for invading the privacy of consumers – and now a federal court has ruled that the case can move forward. The invasion of privacy lawsuit against LiveRamp, Riganian v. LiveRamp Holdings, Inc., was filed as a class action in the U.S. District Court for the California Northern District. The plaintiffs are California consumers who accused LiveRamp of unlawfully collecting consumer information both online and offline and then selling that information to third parties for marketing purposes.

A federal court in California recently issued a key ruling in an important, potentially precedent-setting case, and court observers and legal experts are now asking: Did Rack Room Shoes violate federal wiretap law? The pre-trial ruling, issued by the U.S. District Court for the California Northern District, might have implications for the future of consumer privacy laws nationwide. The case, Smith v.

Invasion of privacy has become a major concern for consumers who frequent websites and make purchases online. That’s because many companies are now using pen registers and trap devices, which may include website cookies, web beacons, script, software code, and other types of software to track user data. While both federal and California law provide strong protections for consumers in these situations, pen registers vs. trap and trace devices is still a distinction that needs to be understood before speaking to a consumer fraud lawyer.

The California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) is a consumer protection law that was approved by California voters in 2020. The CPRA placed significant restrictions on how companies may collect, store, use and share consumer data. In addition to protecting consumers, the CPRA also established a number of data privacy rights for employees of companies that operate in California. Employee privacy rights under the CPRA are robust: workers whose personal data is collected by their employers can take legal action when that data is misused.