What's Happening?
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that ordinary web-tracking practices, such as session-replay scripts and pixels, are not sufficiently harmful or 'highly offensive' to support statutory or tort-based claims. This decision was made in the case of Popa v. Microsoft Corporation, where the court determined that the mere collection of website-interaction data does not establish the 'concrete harm' needed for Article III standing. The court likened this data collection to a store clerk observing shoppers, indicating that routine tracking does not meet the threshold for claims like intrusion-upon-seclusion or public disclosure of private facts.
Why It's Important?
This ruling is significant for businesses that use web-tracking technologies, as it provides a defense against privacy violation claims. Companies can now argue for dismissal of claims based solely on passive data collection, potentially reducing the threat of costly discovery and nuisance-value settlements. The decision narrows the scope of viable claims for plaintiffs, impacting the strategy of using privacy litigation as a tool for quick settlements. This could lead to fewer lawsuits and reduced legal costs for businesses employing these technologies.
What's Next?
Businesses may begin to adjust their legal strategies in response to this ruling, potentially leading to fewer settlements and more dismissals of privacy claims at the pleading stage. Companies might also review their web-tracking practices to ensure compliance with privacy standards, while plaintiffs may need to find new grounds for litigation beyond routine data collection.
Beyond the Headlines
The ruling may influence broader discussions on privacy and data collection, prompting legislative bodies to consider new regulations or standards for web-tracking practices. It could also affect consumer perceptions of privacy and data security, leading to increased demand for transparency from companies regarding their data collection methods.
