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
The Coming State-Law Litigation Wave of 2026-27: “Subscription Trap” Class Actions
The subscription economy keeps growing—and so does the wave of class-action litigation targeting it. While the FTC’s regulatory efforts have drawn headlines, private class actions under state laws pose an even greater exposure risk.
Updates to Fees and Grace Periods for Nonimmigrant Visas
Starting September 9, 2026, the 9-11 Response Biometric Entry-Exit Fee will apply to H-1B and L-1 extension petitions filed by employers subject to the fee. Prior to the new rule, the fee was only required for (1) initial grant of status to a foreign national seeking H-1B or L-1 status and (2) a change of employer in the same status.
Third Circuit Decision Reshapes Creditor Standing in Successor Liability Disputes
The Third Circuit recently held that when determining whether a successor liability claim belongs to a bankruptcy estate, the key question is whether the claim seeks to remedy harm suffered by all creditors collectively or a unique injury suffered by a specific creditor. The fact that creditors may be permitted to bring the claim outside of bankruptcy is not, by itself, determinative.
CMS Proposes Sweeping Restrictions on Remote Patient Monitoring: The Outsourcing Ban, Reimbursement Revaluation and Potential Code Consolidation in the CY 2027 Physician Fee Schedule Proposed Rule
CMS’s CY 2027 Proposed Rule would significantly restrict Medicare reimbursement for Remote Patient Monitoring (RPM) and Remote Therapeutic Monitoring (RTM), including banning outsourced clinical staffing, adding new patient-relationship and initiating-visit requirements, reducing certain reimbursement rates, and exploring consolidation of existing billing codes.