In the prior Part 4 of this series, we explained how CCPA cybersecurity audits are likely to surface in CalPrivacy and California Attorney General enforcement actions, and how that regime impacts governance and executive responsibility.
On June 16, 2026, Vermont Governor Phil Scott (R) signed the Vermont Data Privacy and Online Surveillance Act into law, making Vermont the 23rd state to enact a comprehensive consumer data privacy law and the fourth state law to be enacted this year. Vermont’s law will go into effect on January 1, 2028.
We have now had a bit of time to work with clients on the new Colorado Automated Decision-Making Technology in Consequential Decisions Bill (SB 26-189) (ADMT law” — replacing the CO AI Act). The sausage making and behind-the-scenes political machinations were interesting to watch unfold. Ultimately, the ADMT law succeeds in narrowing or eliminating many of the more onerous requirements of the CO AI Act, including disparate impact risk assessment requirements, notification obligations to the Attorney General upon discovery of algorithmic discrimination (within 90 days), and the AI framework-compliance affirmative defense.
Key point: Three takeaways from May decisions: (1) cookie banners cut both ways for plaintiffs and defendants; (2) generic wiretapping “contents” allegations lose while transaction-specific ones survive; and (3) courts are splitting on whether a profit motive satisfies the crime-tort exception.
Welcome to our monthly update on how courts across the U.S. have handled privacy litigation involving website tools such as cookies, pixels, session replay, and similar technologies. In this post, we cover decisions from May 2026.
Key point: Two courts in 2026 have allowed CCPA claims to proceed based on adtech use without addressing whether adtech discloses “personal information” under the CCPA
According to plaintiffs’ interpretation of a May 2026 decision from the Northern District of California, if your company uses Google Analytics, Meta Pixel, or other third-party tracking technology on its website, you may be exposed to not only wiretapping or trap-and-trace claims under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) or federal law, but also claims under the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) even if you never experience a data breach.
Key point: Regulations proposed in June 2025 to implement the New Jersey Data Privacy Law expired on June 2, 2026, when the regulations were not adopted within a year of the proposal. The path forward for future rulemaking to implement the law is uncertain.
Key point: Louisiana becomes the 22nd state — and third this year — to enact a consumer data privacy law, adopting a law similar to Texas’ law.
On May 29, 2026, Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry signed the Louisiana Data Privacy Act (SB 386) into law. Louisiana is the 22nd state to pass a broad consumer data privacy law. It is the third state — following Oklahoma and Alabama — to pass a law this year.
The new law largely tracks Texas’ law but with some notable differences we identify below.
Tracking technology litigation continues to evolve and expand, driven by increasingly sophisticated data collection techniques, broader use of session replay, identity resolution, AI-driven profiling, and growing scrutiny from plaintiffs, regulators, and courts over whether companies are adequately disclosing, governing, and technically controlling how user data is collected, shared, and monetized.