Meta Pixel Lawsuits: How to Avoid Litigation

California has witnessed a slew of class action lawsuits, with claims that marketing software like heat map analytics, advertising pixels, chatbots, and more violate consent guidelines.

The crux of the issue is that the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) is an old law which dates back to 1967. It specifically prohibits intentional wiretapping but it uses antiquated language to describe the practice which is hard to contextualize in the era of modern marketing solutions.

Some Californian judges appear to be taking a rigid stance on the application of the law while others are lenient. Regardless, many such cases have been settled out of court reportedly for millions of dollars.

Read on to learn more about four such cases and how you can prevent being sued. 

Greenley v. Kochava Inc.

In 2022, Swigart Law Group represented plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit against Kochava Inc., a data broker accused of using software to collect user data without consent. The lawsuit alleged that Kochava's software functioned similarly to a pen register, recording user interactions in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA). The court recognized that modern pen registers could be software-based, allowing such cases to proceed under CIPA.

👉 Read more about Swigart Meta Pixel lawsuits

Class-Action Lawsuits Involving Meta Pixel

The firm has been active in class-action lawsuits against companies using Meta Pixel without proper user consent. These lawsuits allege that companies violated privacy laws by sharing user data with Meta through the Pixel tool. For instance, nearly 50 proposed class-action lawsuits have been filed against various companies since February 2022, claiming that Meta's Pixel tracking tool shared video consumption data without consent, violating the VPPA.

Lucchese Inc

In another recent Meta pixel lawsuit, the Swigart Law Group filed a notice against Lucchese Inc based out of El Paso, TX.

The notice says Lucchese illegally used the Meta Pixel against claimant Andrea Saltmarsh. It adds that it shared the information with 5 other parties, claiming a total of $30,000 in expenses.

Looking for Meta Pixel Compliance? Get an instant, no-obligation quote👇🏻 

Is Meta Pixel Legal Under CIPA?

Swigart Law Group argues that meta pixel tracking constitutes a form of digital eavesdropping. The team maintains that it operates like a digital “wiretap,” recording private online interactions without proper disclosure. This interpretation of CIPA has opened the doors for new cases that explore how traditional wiretapping laws apply to internet-based technologies.

Swigart adds that “implied consent” doesn’t meet the bar set by CIPA for clear and active agreement. Companies using Meta Pixel often include vague language about tracking in their privacy policies, but these lawsuits have exposed how blanket statements fail to inform users about the specific nature of Meta Pixel tracking.

The new paradigm is that companies must explicitly disclose the extent of tracking and obtain user consent directly to meet CIPA’s requirements. This sets new precedents, requiring companies to re-evaluate how they communicate data-tracking practices.

How to Prevent Meta Pixel Lawsuits

Obtaining explicit user consent via consent management software is the obvious first step but not the only one.

Your privacy policy, terms and conditions, and other legal disclosures must be ironclad and compliant with both California and federal law. They should also be displayed prominently on your website and other marketing pages to make it clear to website visitors what they consent to. 

Enzuzo helps companies comply with CIPA and avoid meta pixel lawsuits with a bespoke solution tailored for each business. Talk to us today and learn how we can help👇🏻