Client Alerts & Insights
Beware of the Spy Pixel: Arizona Faces New Class Action Trend Under Privacy Law
May 28, 2024
Authored By:
A new genre of class action privacy litigation has landed in Arizona. Several class action lawsuits were recently filed alleging email tracking using “spy pixel” trackers, allegedly in violation of the Arizona Telephone Privacy Protection Act, A.R.S. § 44-1376 et seq. (“ATPPA”). “Spy pixel” is a term used to describe trackers that can be embedded in an email to collect information about the email transfer, such as when the recipient opens the email, the recipient’s location, how long the recipient views the email, and whether the email is forwarded or printed, among other information.
The ATPPA forbids procuring any “communication service record” without authorization of the customer to whom the record pertains, or by fraudulent, deceptive, or false means. So far, these lawsuits follow a similar framework. The plaintiff alleges the company used “spy pixels” in marketing emails to collect sensitive information from the email recipient without plaintiff’s knowledge or consent, and that each email containing a “spy pixel” constitutes a separate violation of the ATPPA. Among other potential remedies, a plaintiff may recover economic damages of at least $1,000. A.R.S. § 44-1376.04(A)(2). Thus, “spy pixel” class actions have the potential to be high exposure cases.
As the number of new “spy pixel” suits increase, it is important that companies ensure they are protected. Benesch continues to monitor these and other trends in the privacy space so our clients can be aware of risks.
For more information, contact a member of Benesch’s Litigation Practice Group.
Mark S. Eisen at meisen@beneschlaw.com or 312.212.4956.
Laura E. Kogan at lkogan@beneschlaw.com or 216.363.4518.
Caroline Hamilton at chamilton@beneschlaw.com or 216.363.6114.
Latest News
Passing the Baton: Checklist for In-House Lawyers Retaining New Trial Counsel on the Eve of Trial
Retaining new counsel on the cusp of trial is a momentous decision for any company that requires careful planning and coordination to ensure a smooth transition while maximizing the company’s chances of success in court.
Who Cares About the Wires: Texas Federal Court Rules that Certain Wire Fraud Charges Violate Due Process in Tax Case
A Texas federal court dismissed 13 wire fraud charges in a major tax shelter case, ruling that prosecutors cannot use the wire fraud statute to pursue conduct that should be charged under criminal tax laws, which require a higher standard of intent.
Texas Attorney General Targets Music Streaming “Payola”: What the Civil Investigative Demands Signal for Digital Platforms
On April 22, 2026, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced that he has issued Civil Investigative Demands (“CIDs”) to five major music streaming platforms—Spotify, Apple Music, Pandora, Amazon Music, and YouTube Music—launching an investigation into alleged “payola” schemes. According to the Attorney General’s office, the investigation “will examine whether streaming services have entered into undisclosed financial arrangements with record labels, promoters, or third parties to boost visibility, playlist placement, or recommendation rankings in violation of Texas law.”
One Battle After Another: Freight Brokers in a Post-Montgomery World
On May 14, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its anticipated decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, sending shockwaves across the transportation industry.