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
Tariff Refund Litigation: A Primer on Common Plaintiff’s Theories of Recovery and Importer of Record Defenses
In February 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that President Trump did not have constitutional authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Trump Administration responded quickly, implementing a universal 10 percent surcharge under the authority of Section 122 of the U.S. Trade Act.
Supreme Court 2025: Key Free Speech Rulings
The Supreme Court’s 2025 decisions signaled a more regulator-friendly view of the internet—upholding laws on age verification and foreign-owned platforms under intermediate scrutiny, even where speech is burdened. These cases reaffirm that content-neutral rules that incidentally affect speech are likely to survive constitutional challenge.
Nobody—Not Even Einstein—Has Figured Out What Causes Gravity, but You Need to if You Are Facing a Putative Consumer Class Action in the 9th Circuit
The common argument made by plaintiffs that differences in alleged misrepresentations are transcended by the center of the gravity of the alleged fraud should not be addressed through the typical approach of just comparing the level of variance of the representations in the case at issue with that in the relevant precedent.
The Faster Labor Contracts Act Would Permit Federal Government to Impose Union Contract Terms on Employers
The federal government may soon be able to impose the terms of first collective bargaining agreements (“CBAs”) on private sector employers and unions.