Amy P. Lally

Oct 30, 2024 | datamatters.sidley.com | Amy P. Lally |Jack Pirozzolo |Ian Ross |Colleen Brown

For the past few years, hundreds of companies have been caught in a wave of privacy class actions relying on decades-old wiretapping laws to attack modern website technologies and business tools. Last week, Massachusetts’s highest court engaged in a thorough assessment of that state’s wiretap law and rejected plaintiff’s argument that commonly used website advertising and analytical tools intercepted “communications” in violation of the law.

Oct 29, 2024 | lexology.com | Amy P. Lally |Jack Pirozzolo |Ian Ross |Colleen Brown |Sheri Porath Rockwell |Kseniya K. Belysheva

For the past few years, hundreds of companies have been caught in a wave of privacy class actions relying on decades-old wiretapping laws to attack modern website technologies and business tools. Last week, Massachusetts’s highest court engaged in a thorough assessment of that state’s wiretap law and rejected plaintiff’s argument that commonly used website advertising and analytical tools intercepted “communications” in violation of the law.

Oct 17, 2024 | datamatters.sidley.com | Amy P. Lally |Ian Ross

Yesterday, in Salazar v. National Basketball Association, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court’s dismissal of a putative class action under the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), offering an interpretation of the VPPA’s definition of “consumer” that differs from how the majority of courts have used that term. The decision is the latest interpretation of a 1988 statute that, until recently, was relatively unknown and rarely used in consumer class actions.

Oct 17, 2024 | lexology.com | Amy P. Lally |Ian Ross

Yesterday, in Salazar v. National Basketball Association, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court’s dismissal of a putative class action under the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), offering an interpretation of the VPPA’s definition of “consumer” that differs from how the majority of courts have used that term. The decision is the latest interpretation of a 1988 statute that, until recently, was relatively unknown and rarely used in consumer class actions.

Jul 31, 2024 | law360.com | Alexandria Ruiz |Amy P. Lally

By Alexandria Ruiz and Amy Lally (July 31, 2024, 5:06 PM EDT) -- Just days before California's drip pricing ban, S.B. 478, went into effect on July 1, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed S.B. 1524 into law.[1] The bill came just in time to relieve California bars and restaurants from the pricing and fee advertising requirements of S.B. 478.[2]... Law360 is on it, so you are, too.