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
U.S. Trade Fraud Task Force Surpasses $1 Billion in Recoveries, Signaling Heightened Customs Enforcement
The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a new inter-agency Trade Fraud Task Force (“Task Force”), designed to “aggressively pursue enforcement actions against any parties who seek to evade tariffs and other duties” and those who attempt to import prohibited goods following the DOJ’s identification of trade and customs fraud as a priority for prosecution.
Major Shift in Federal Labor Board’s Position on Restrictive Covenants
Non-compete agreements are no longer considered presumptively illegal under federal labor law. On June 26, 2026, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) released advice memoranda signaling this dramatic change in how the federal government views non-compete agreements in the workplace. This is welcome news for employers who use non-competes and similar restrictive covenants to protect their businesses.
Course of Performance as Contract Amendment or Waiver: When Business Practices Overrides Paper Terms
Imagine you are a leading manufacturing company, and you purchase a critical widget from a supplier. You have a carefully negotiated contract in place—one that spells out specific pricing, delivery timelines, and product specifications for those widgets.
California AG’s Carbon Health Settlement Raises the Stakes for MSO-PC Structures and Continuity Planning in California
The California Attorney General’s June 2026 settlement with Carbon Health marks the first-of-its kind resolution of an enforcement action directly targeting an MSO-PC structure under California’s corporate practice of medicine (“CPOM”) doctrine.