Latest news with #CaliforniaInvasionofPrivacyAct
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Truist bank settles lawsuit over secret website trackers
Truist, Charlotte's second largest bank, has reached a settlement over claims of embedding secret trackers on its website to collect user data. The lawsuit, filed by California resident John Tasker, accused Truist of embedding trackers into its website to collect users' behavioral data without their knowledge and relaying it to third-party advertising platforms. ALSO READ >> Truist to pay $4M in robocall settlement The complaint, filed on May 28, alleged that Truist violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act by using pixel trackers, JavaScript snippets, and cookies to gather data such as IP addresses, click paths, and device identifiers. These trackers were reportedly provided by companies including Adobe, Meta, Google, Microsoft, The Trade Desk, AdRoll, and Qualtrics. Tasker claimed that these tools operated without users' consent, functioning as surveillance devices that allowed Truist and its partners to build behavioral profiles and engage in targeted advertising. The Charlotte Business Journal reports that the details of the settlement are not known. Tasker's individual claims are expected to be dismissed, but the broader class-action claims may still proceed. VIDEO: Former Truist employee sues Bank, claims manager triggered PTSD with Chucky doll prank Solve the daily Crossword
Mint
a day ago
- Business
- Mint
Can Zuckerberg duck deposition in Meta privacy class action?
August 18 (Reuters) -Mark Zuckerberg has better things to do than sit for a deposition. Or so lawyers for Meta Platforms suggest in a pending petition to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, objecting to the billionaire CEO being forced to give testimony in a proposed privacy class action. The company invokes a controversial principle known as the apex doctrine to claim Zuckerberg should be spared the hot seat, arguing that he has no "unique" knowledge of the case, and plaintiffs' lawyers could get the same information from lower-level Meta employees. Plaintiffs want to question the CEO about allegations that Meta obtained private health information from millions of Facebook users without their knowledge or consent via its Pixel tracking tool. The claims echo those in a class action by users of fertility tracking app Flo Health, where a San Francisco jury on August 1 found Meta violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act. Damages are yet to be determined, but as I previously noted, the total could be huge. In June, U.S. District Judge William Orrick in San Francisco agreed with U.S. Magistrate Judge Virginia DeMarchi and gave the plaintiffs a green light to depose Zuckerberg. However, the judge limited the session to a maximum of three hours and narrowed the scope of allowable questions to center on a consent decree Meta entered into with the Federal Trade Commission involving the Flo app and Zuckerberg's role as a final decisionmaker on privacy-related matters. A Meta spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. The company in court papers has denied wrongdoing in both cases. Plaintiffs' lawyers from Gibbs Mura declined to comment for this column. Defense counsel from Latham & Watkins and Gibson Dunn & Crutcher in July asked the 9th Circuit for a writ of mandamus to nix the deposition, calling it 'a critically important issue of first impression' for the San Francisco-based court. Mandamus is a 'drastic and extraordinary' request, plaintiffs' lawyers say, arguing that the trial court judge in allowing the deposition committed no clear error to justify such relief. But defense counsel say there's a larger issue at stake than a one-off deposition. Multi-billion-dollar companies like Meta face scores of lawsuits, and their leaders have "uniquely crucial and demanding job duties, as well as limited time," they wrote. That makes being called to testify especially burdensome. District courts within the sprawling 9th Circuit are 'deeply divided' on exactly when and how to properly apply the apex doctrine, Meta lawyers said in asking for appellate guidance. Indeed, spats over deposing CEOs have arisen regularly in court within the 9th Circuit and beyond in cases involving companies including Microsoft, Tesla, Uber, and Alphabet. In some instances, execs were let off the hook, while others were compelled to sit for depositions. Such demands can be more about harassment than a legitimate need for information, the Meta lawyers claim, arguing that deposition testimony is only justified if the executive has unique, first-hand knowledge that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Here, they assert, the bid to depose Zuckerberg is 'a ploy to increase the burdens of this litigation and obtain perceived leverage." Plaintiffs' lawyers counter that state and federal procedural rules already allow subpoenaed witnesses to contest demands for their testimony. There should be 'no special dispensation from civil discovery for corporate executives simply because of their status as titans of industry,' wrote lawyers from Gibbs Mura; Simmons Hanly Conroy; Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll; Kiesel Law; and Terrell Marshall Law Group. The underlying litigation began in 2022, when plaintiffs alleged Meta violated a federal wiretap law and a California privacy law, as well as its own contractual promises governing user privacy on Facebook, my Reuters colleague Jonathan Stempel reported. According to the complaint, Meta Pixel -- an internet analytics tool that Meta makes available to website developers -- provided sensitive information about users' health to Meta when they logged into patient portals where it had been installed, enabling Meta to make money from targeted advertising. Meta in court papers has responded that it should not be held liable if certain healthcare providers allegedly misused Pixel, 'a publicly available tool that Meta did not implement or configure on the providers' websites.' Plaintiffs' lawyers, in justifying their request to question Zuckerberg, argue that from the start he's been implicated in the case. 'He had personal knowledge of Meta's intent to receive this information,' they allege, 'and he knew about and played a key role in Meta's collection of sensitive health data.' The appeals court has not indicated when it will rule on the petition, but Meta lawyers notified the district court that Zuckerberg's deposition may proceed this month in Palo Alto if the 9th Circuit denies its mandamus petition by August 21. (Reporting by Jenna Greene)
Time of India
a day ago
- Business
- Time of India
Can Mark Zuckerberg duck deposition in Meta privacy class action?
Mark Zuckerberg has better things to do than sit for a deposition. Or so lawyers for Meta Platforms suggest in a pending petition to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, objecting to the billionaire CEO being forced to give testimony in a proposed privacy class action. The company invokes a controversial principle known as the apex doctrine to claim Zuckerberg should be spared the hot seat, arguing that he has no "unique" knowledge of the case, and plaintiffs' lawyers could get the same information from lower-level Meta employees. Plaintiffs want to question the CEO about allegations that Meta obtained private health information from millions of Facebook users without their knowledge or consent via its Pixel tracking tool. The claims echo those in a class action by users of fertility tracking app Flo Health, where a San Francisco jury on August 1 found Meta violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act. Damages are yet to be determined, but as I previously noted, the total could be huge. In June, U.S. District Judge William Orrick in San Francisco agreed with U.S. Magistrate Judge Virginia DeMarchi and gave the plaintiffs a green light to depose Zuckerberg. However, the judge limited the session to a maximum of three hours and narrowed the scope of allowable questions to center on a consent decree Meta entered into with the Federal Trade Commission involving the Flo app and Zuckerberg's role as a final decisionmaker on privacy-related matters. Live Events A Meta spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. The company in court papers has denied wrongdoing in both cases. Plaintiffs' lawyers from Gibbs Mura declined to comment for this column. Defense counsel from Latham & Watkins and Gibson Dunn & Crutcher in July asked the 9th Circuit for a writ of mandamus to nix the deposition, calling it "a critically important issue of first impression" for the San Francisco-based court. Mandamus is a "drastic and extraordinary" request, plaintiffs' lawyers say, arguing that the trial court judge in allowing the deposition committed no clear error to justify such relief. But defense counsel say there's a larger issue at stake than a one-off deposition. Multi-billion-dollar companies like Meta face scores of lawsuits, and their leaders have "uniquely crucial and demanding job duties, as well as limited time," they wrote. That makes being called to testify especially burdensome. District courts within the sprawling 9th Circuit are "deeply divided" on exactly when and how to properly apply the apex doctrine, Meta lawyers said in asking for appellate guidance. Indeed, spats over deposing CEOs have arisen regularly in court within the 9th Circuit and beyond in cases involving companies including Microsoft, Tesla, Uber, and Alphabet. In some instances, execs were let off the hook, while others were compelled to sit for depositions. Such demands can be more about harassment than a legitimate need for information, the Meta lawyers claim, arguing that deposition testimony is only justified if the executive has unique, first-hand knowledge that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Here, they assert, the bid to depose Zuckerberg is "a ploy to increase the burdens of this litigation and obtain perceived leverage." Plaintiffs' lawyers counter that state and federal procedural rules already allow subpoenaed witnesses to contest demands for their testimony. There should be "no special dispensation from civil discovery for corporate executives simply because of their status as titans of industry," wrote lawyers from Gibbs Mura; Simmons Hanly Conroy; Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll; Kiesel Law; and Terrell Marshall Law Group. The underlying litigation began in 2022, when plaintiffs alleged Meta violated a federal wiretap law and a California privacy law, as well as its own contractual promises governing user privacy on Facebook, my Reuters colleague Jonathan Stempel reported. According to the complaint, Meta Pixel -- an internet analytics tool that Meta makes available to website developers -- provided sensitive information about users' health to Meta when they logged into patient portals where it had been installed, enabling Meta to make money from targeted advertising. Meta in court papers has responded that it should not be held liable if certain healthcare providers allegedly misused Pixel, "a publicly available tool that Meta did not implement or configure on the providers' websites." Plaintiffs' lawyers, in justifying their request to question Zuckerberg, argue that from the start he's been implicated in the case. "He had personal knowledge of Meta's intent to receive this information," they allege, "and he knew about and played a key role in Meta's collection of sensitive health data." The appeals court has not indicated when it will rule on the petition, but Meta lawyers notified the district court that Zuckerberg's deposition may proceed this month in Palo Alto if the 9th Circuit denies its mandamus petition by August 21.
CNBC
07-08-2025
- Business
- CNBC
California jury rules Meta violated privacy law in case involving period-tracking app
A California jury ruled against Meta in a privacy-related lawsuit involving the alleged collection of sensitive data from Flo, a period-tracking app. The jury ruled that the plaintiffs proved that Meta violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act, according to a verdict form filed Friday in the U.S. District Court for Northern District of California. The ruling stems from a class-action lawsuit dating back to 2021 against the health-tech company Flo Health and other businesses like Meta, Google-parent Alphabet and smaller data analytics firms. Flo Health told users that "their sensitive reproductive health information" and survey questions would not be disclosed, but that personal data ended up being shared with companies like Meta and Google via their respective online ad-related tools known as software-development kits, according to a separate court filing. Google and one of the analytics firms agreed to settle their claims prior to a jury trial that began in July, while Flo Health settled the day before the trial's conclusion on Aug 1. Meta chose to take the case to court and lost. The social media company is expected to appeal the verdict. "This verdict sends a clear message about the protection of digital health data and the responsibilities of Big Tech," said lead trial lawyers Michael Canty and Carol Villegas of Labaton Keller Sucharow in a shared statement. "Companies like Meta that covertly profit from users' most intimate information must be held accountable." A Meta spokesperson said the company disagreed with the ruling. "The plaintiffs' claims against Meta are simply false," the Meta spokesperson said in a statement. "User privacy is important to Meta, which is why we do not want health or other sensitive information and why our terms prohibit developers from sending any."
Malaysian Reserve
16-07-2025
- Politics
- Malaysian Reserve
Human Rights Expert Testifies Before California Legislature, Urges Lawmakers to Reject SB 690 Over Digital Privacy Concerns
SACRAMENTO, Calif., July 16, 2025 /PRNewswire/ — Senate Bill 690 (SB 690) received blistering criticism today as human rights attorney J.R. Howell delivered testimony to the California State Assembly Committee on Public Safety against the bill, which is a proposed amendment to the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA). In his testimony, Howell called the bill 'unconstitutional, unethical, and a direct attack on women, children, workers, immigrants, LGBTQ+ communities, and other vulnerable groups.' If enacted, SB 690 would eliminate the requirement for consent in electronic surveillance, allowing private companies—including major tech corporations and government contractors—to lawfully intercept, analyze, and distribute personal data without user permission. 'SB 690 opens the door to corporate surveillance at a scale the public is not prepared for,' Howell said. 'Private companies would be empowered to record calls, track users' movements, and sell or share sensitive data—including health and reproductive information—with no legal recourse for those affected.' In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022), Howell warned that SB 690 would make it easier for law enforcement and private actors to criminalize reproductive health decisions. Referencing real-world examples, he noted that Facebook has already turned over private user messages to prosecute women and minors seeking abortion care—a scenario that could become far more common under the new legislation. 'We are already witnessing a dangerous convergence of Big Tech and law enforcement,' Howell added. 'SB 690 would give private companies a blank check to cooperate with an increasingly authoritarian federal government in ways that directly violate Californians' rights under our state Constitution.' Howell's testimony also detailed how SB 690 could harm: Children by exposing minors to behavioral tracking and loss of confidentiality in healthcare and education; Workers by enabling employer surveillance that suppresses whistleblowing and union activity; LGBTQ+ individuals by dismantling privacy around gender-affirming care and crisis counseling; Immigrants and communities of color by facilitating warrantless surveillance and discriminatory profiling. The bill, Howell argues, violates Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution, which guarantees every person the inalienable right to privacy. It also fails the legal standard set in Hill v. NCAA (1994), which requires that any serious invasion of privacy be narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest. 'This bill is not just poorly written—it is unconstitutional on its face,' Howell said. 'Consent is not a bureaucratic obstacle; it is a cornerstone of democracy.' Howell's testimony follows a series of high-profile legal efforts to defend digital privacy and human rights. He recently led a multi-million-dollar class action lawsuit against a major global corporation for data misuse and continues to represent communities targeted by surveillance and exploitation. He is currently producing a documentary about state and corporate overreach into Indigenous communities in Canada. For media inquiries or a copy of Howell's full written testimony, please contact: Jase Lucas, The Excellence AgencyJase@ (323) 897-8656 ABOUT J.R. HOWELL:J.R. Howell is a distinguished US attorney with an international practice specializing in human rights and social justice litigation across the US, Canada, and Europe. As principal attorney at The Law Office of J.R. Howell, he is dedicated to advocating for marginalized communities while embodying integrity and professionalism. With a robust educational background from institutions like The George Washington University and American University's Washington College of Law, J.R. has significant experience both in the US and abroad. His recent multi-million dollar class action lawsuit victories underscore his commitment to justice, while an upcoming case defending reproductive freedoms highlights his advocacy. J.R. actively addresses injustices faced by Indigenous peoples in Canada, focusing on truth and reconciliation regarding residential schools and missing and murdered women and girls. Currently producing a documentary on the MMIWG2s+ movement, he aims to raise awareness through first-person interviews with families of victims. Driven by a passion for justice, J.R. fights to amplify marginalized voices both in the courtroom and through film.
