Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 03 MARCH 2025

S.D.N.Y. Deals A Blow To Website Tracking Litigation

Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Contributor
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC

Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC

Founded more than 40 years ago as a boutique law firm servicing the entertainment and arts...

View firm profile
Explore more from Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC

The Southern District of New York is becoming a less favorable venue for serial plaintiffs asserting that website tracking technologies constitute illegal pen registers or trap and trace devices under Section 638.51 of the CIPA.

United StatesPrivacy

The Southern District of New York is becoming a less favorable venue for serial plaintiffs asserting that website tracking technologies constitute illegal pen registers or trap and trace devices under Section 638.51 of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"). We previously blogged about the surge of these class actions here and here. Notwithstanding that CIPA is a California statute, plaintiff firms have been filing these cases in New York federal courts—alleging jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). Last week, however, the S.D.N.Y. dealt a significant blow to these CIPA claims—holding that the collection of a plaintiff's IP addresses does not implicate a legally protected privacy interest sufficient to satisfy the injury in fact requirement of Article III standing. See Gabrielli v. Insider, Inc., 2025 WL 522515 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 2025).

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

www.fkks.com

This post first appeared in Frankfurt Kurnit's Focus on the Data blog (www.focusonthedata.com). It provides general coverage of its subject area. We provide it with the understanding that Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz is not engaged herein in rendering legal advice, and shall not be liable for any damages resulting from any error, inaccuracy, or omission. Our attorneys practice law only in jurisdictions in which they are properly authorized to do so. We do not seek to represent clients in other jurisdictions.

Originally published by the New York Legal Ethics Reporter

www.fkks.com

This alert provides general coverage of its subject area. We provide it with the understanding that Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz is not engaged herein in rendering legal advice, and shall not be liable for any damages resulting from any error, inaccuracy, or omission. Our attorneys practice law only in jurisdictions in which they are properly authorized to do so. We do not seek to represent clients in other jurisdictions.

www.fkks.com

This alert provides general coverage of its subject area. We provide it with the understanding that Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz is not engaged herein in rendering legal advice, and shall not be liable for any damages resulting from any error, inaccuracy, or omission. Our attorneys practice law only in jurisdictions in which they are properly authorized to do so. We do not seek to represent clients in other jurisdictions.

See more popular content from