A host of recent federal court decisions about wiretapping allegations signals more headwinds for class-action claims filed under California’s Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA).

“These cases are the latest entries into the jurisprudence interpreting the reach of CIPA with respect to website chat features,” Michael S. Zullo, a partner with Duane Morris and member of the firm’s Website Accessibility and Privacy Compliance Litigation Team, told the Northern California Record by email.

“The decisions further clarify the distinction between a service provider acting as an extension of the company hosting the website and a true third party seeking to use customer data for its own purposes,” Zullo said. “One thing is clear, it is not enough for plaintiffs to allege, in a conclusory fashion, that the third party ‘used the data’ or ‘monetized the data.’ Future plaintiffs will have to provide a more robust factual foundation for such claims.”

[…]

There are three key messages in the federal court rulings, Zullo said.

“First, that the courts still recognize the party exception to CIPA can apply when a third-party vendor acts as an extension of the company.

"Second, that plaintiffs will need to plead specific factual examples of how third parties are using customer data gleaned from chats to overcome this defense.

"And, third, that the plain language of state penal code 632.7 only applies to communications between two telephone lines and does not apply to a website simply because a plaintiff used a smartphone to access the website chat feature.” […]

To read the full article, please visit the Northern California Record website.