Dustin Taylor

Subscribe to Dustin Taylor's Posts

Dustin is a privacy litigator who helps clients navigate the rapidly evolving landscape of data privacy and security laws. His holistic approach helps clients achieve their objectives — whether that means winning in court or proactively avoiding litigation altogether.

Follow:Read more about Dustin TaylorDustin's Linkedin Profile
Privacy_1200x600_GettyImages-1347310666

Key point: In this post: (1) “Broken banner” claims proceed past pleading stage; (2) Courts continue to reject arguments that pen registers are limited to telephones but hope remains; (3) Offering movie trailers on websites does not transform movie theaters into “video tape service providers” under the VPPA; (4) “In transit” defense remains viable against wiretapping claims; (5) SDNY court suggests use of non-Meta social media pixel could impose VPPA liability.

Welcome to our monthly update on how courts across the nation have handled privacy litigation involving website tools such as cookies, pixels, session replay, and similar technologies. In this post, we cover decisions from December 2025.

Many courts are currently handling data privacy cases across the U.S. Although illustrative, this update is not intended to be exhaustive. If there is another area of data privacy litigation you would like to know more about, please reach out. The contents provided below are time-sensitive and subject to change. If you are not already subscribed to our blog, consider doing so to stay updated. If you are interested in tracking developments between blog posts, consider following us on LinkedIn.

Privacy_1200x600_GettyImages-1347310666

Key point: Courts are split over whether use of the Meta Pixel to share URLs of videos users watch qualifies as disclosure of PII under the VPPA, even when they apply the same “ordinary person” test to nearly identical allegations.

Earlier this year, the Second Circuit joined the Third and Ninth Circuits in adopting an “ordinary person” standard to determine whether a defendant’s disclosure of information constitutes disclosure of personally identifiable information (PII) prohibited by the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA). Although this standard initially appeared more restrictive — and thus more favorable to defendants — than the “reasonable foreseeability” standard the First Circuit adopted in 2016, recent decisions by courts within the Second and Ninth Circuits have instead revealed a split in how district courts apply this test to nearly identical allegations, resulting in different outcomes on motions to dismiss.

In this post: (1) Selection of law in a choice-of-law forum can defeat privacy claims; (2) The Arizona Court of Appeals shuts down “spy pixel” litigation; (3) Multiple decisions provide guidelines as to when claims are likely to be dismissed for lack of standing; (4) Consent rises and falls on implementation but plaintiffs cannot avoid the issue; and (5) Courts in the 3rd and 9th Circuit disagree whether simultaneous messages are intercepted while in transit.

Welcome to our monthly update on how courts across the nation have handled privacy litigation involving website tools such as cookies, pixels, session replay, and similar technologies. In this post, we cover decisions from October and November 2025.