In recent years, legal disputes (often collecting lawsuits) are based on the use of technology such as products to repeat sessions, weaving, pixels and cookies. Typical theories include plaintiffs that claim that data from their interactions have been collected or recorded with websites and were shared to third parties, in some cases allegedly to create a consumer profile that can be monetized. The possible effects of these complaints are complex and extensive. For example, the plaintiffs' legal chamber has previously targeted products with which companies comply with laws such as the telephone consumer protection act under the guise that these products allegedly violate laws such as the California Invasion of Privacy Act. In a recent decision, Jones v. Bloomingdales.com, llcThe eighth circle has gained doubts about the advantages of these lawsuits at the federal level.
The case arose when the plaintiff allegedly learned that two websites she visited allowed third parties to record their interactions using session technology:
Jones claims that they visited the companies of the companies and they used their knowledge of “session replay” technology that enabled them to record things like their “mouse movements, clicks, keyboard attacks (e.g. text field), search terms, URLs of the Visited websites as well. . . What [she] Search for what [she] Take a look at the information [she] entered, and what [she] Click on. “She says that this technology is compiling what is essentially a video of [her] Whole visit ”. . . .[1]
Based on these allegations, the plaintiff brought several claims, including due to intervention in seclusion and in the context of the law on electronic communication, the law on saving communication and the law on computer fraud and abuse.[2] Their claims were rejected at the level of the district court, which the eighth circle based on a failure to claim a concrete injury that supports Article III III.
The plaintiff's theory, which was based on a “damage to her privacy”, was not enough because it was based on the presumed record of not sensitive information. The plaintiff, for example, “does not claim that meeting technology has recorded its input and then personal information such as its social security number, medical history, bank account numbers or credit card information.”[3] In addition to the statement that the allegations did not include sensitive information, the consent also supported the court's participation, since the plaintiff voluntarily transmitted the information she says to the accused “.[4] Instead of an invasion of privacy, the “situation of everyday use of a surveillance camera in a stationary shop is to record customers during purchasing”.[5]
While Jones Does not tolerate the rest of the increase in legal disputes that are bound to consumer interactions with websites. The Common Sense result offers the continued use of sessions by companies and similar technologies comfort. Companies with online presence should not only be kept step by this legal area, but also understand which technology is used on your website (s), how it is used and take measures to ward off legal disputes (e.g. coupled with arbitration clauses ).
Subscribe to viewpoints