Emerging Trends in Case Law: Tech and Privacy Issues

Emerging Trends in Case Law: Tech and Privacy Issues

Estimated reading time: 9 minutes

In an era where technology pervades every aspect of life, recent legal cases have brought digital rights and data protection laws to the forefront of public discourse. These cases highlight the complex balance between innovation and individual privacy, addressing issues such as data breaches, government surveillance, and the ethical use of consumer data. This analysis explores the significance of these rulings and their implications for the future of digital privacy.

Patel v. Facebook, Inc. (2019)

Illinois Facebook users alleged that the company violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by using facial recognition technology to collect and store biometric data without obtaining explicit consent. The plaintiffs claimed Facebook’s practices infringed on their statutory rights by creating and retaining face templates without following BIPA’s procedural safeguards, such as informing users in writing and obtaining a written release.

The Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiffs had standing under Article III, as the alleged violations of BIPA constituted a concrete injury to their privacy rights. The court determined that BIPA was designed to protect concrete privacy interests, not just procedural rights, and that the unauthorized collection and storage of biometric data without consent harmed these interests. The court also upheld the district court’s certification of a class action, finding common issues predominated over individual ones. This decision meant that the plaintiffs could pursue their claims collectively, enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of the legal proceedings. The ruling reinforced that privacy laws like BIPA aim to safeguard individual autonomy and dignity by regulating the commercial use of sensitive biometric data.

Significance

This case underscores the importance of obtaining explicit consent before collecting biometric data. It affirms that privacy violations involving biometric data are not merely procedural issues but tangible harms to individual privacy rights. The ruling emphasizes the legal obligations of tech companies to adhere to state privacy laws, like BIPA, which could influence similar legislation in other states, including California. It highlights the necessity for companies to develop transparent and respectful practices concerning the handling of biometric data. The decision highlights the growing legal recognition of biometric privacy as a critical component of digital rights and sets a precedent for holding companies accountable for privacy breaches in the digital age. This case may encourage other states to enact or strengthen their biometric privacy laws, compelling tech companies to adopt more robust privacy measures nationwide. 

Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc. (2023)

Epic Games, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Apple Inc., claiming that Apple’s App Store policies violated antitrust laws. Epic argued that Apple’s requirement for developers to use its App Store and payment processing system created a monopoly, stifling competition and innovation. Epic’s popular game Fortnite was removed from the App Store after implementing a direct payment system, bypassing Apple’s in-app purchase mechanism and violating its Developer Program Licensing Agreement (DPLA).

The Northern District of California ruled against Epic Games on most claims, finding that Apple’s control over the App Store did not constitute a monopoly under the Sherman Act. The court did, however, find Apple’s anti-steering provisions, which prevented developers from directing users to alternative payment methods, violated California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The court issued an injunction preventing Apple from prohibiting developers from including in-app links to external payment options. The decision was appealed by both parties, and the Ninth Circuit largely upheld the district court’s decision, except for the ruling regarding attorney fees.

Significance

This case highlights the tension between platform control and developer rights. The ruling reinforced the importance of fair competition in digital marketplaces, challenging Apple’s strict control over its ecosystem. The decision against Apple’s anti-steering provision sets a precedent for app developers’ rights to inform users of alternative payment methods, potentially influencing future regulatory actions and legislation regarding digital platform monopolies. It underscores the need for transparency and fairness in digital commerce, impacting how tech giants manage app stores and user data, while emphasizing consumer choice and competition.

In re: Google Inc. Street View Electronic Communications Litigation (2020)

Plaintiffs alleged that Google, through its Street View vehicles, intentionally intercepted and stored electronic communications transmitted over unencrypted wireless networks without their consent between 2007 and 2010. They further claimed that Google’s actions violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) and constituted an invasion of privacy. The data collection included personal information transmitted over Wi-Fi networks, raising significant privacy concerns.

The Northern District of California approved a settlement that included injunctive relief and a $13 million Settlement Fund. The settlement fund was designated for Court-approved cy pres awards to organizations addressing consumer privacy issues, as direct compensation to the class members was deemed impractical due to the vast number of affected individuals and minimal individual damages. The court found that Google’s interception of electronic communications violated the ECPA, affirming that plaintiffs had standing based on the concrete injury to privacy interests as defined by the statute.

Significance

This case underscores the critical importance of privacy protection in the digital age and the legal boundaries of data collection practices by technology companies. The ruling emphasizes that unauthorized interception of electronic communications is a violation of privacy rights, reinforcing the need for tech companies to adhere strictly to privacy laws such as the ECPA. The decision also highlights the challenges of enforcing privacy rights in the context of mass data collection and the use of cy pres settlements in class action cases where individual compensation is impractical. It serves as a precedent for future cases involving digital privacy and data protection, emphasizing the need for transparency and consent in data collection practices.

HiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp. (2022)

HiQ Labs is a data analytics company; LinkedIn, a professional networking site. HiQ scraped publicly available LinkedIn profiles to provide “people analytics” services, predicting employee behavior. LinkedIn sent a cease-and-desist letter, alleging that hiQ’s actions violated LinkedIn’s terms of use and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). HiQ sought a preliminary injunction to prevent LinkedIn from blocking its access to the public data, arguing that LinkedIn’s actions were anti-competitive and unjustified.

The Ninth Circuit upheld the district court’s preliminary injunction, allowing hiQ to continue accessing LinkedIn’s public profiles. The court concluded that hiQ raised serious questions about the merits of its claims, including potential interference with contractual relationships and unfair competition. The court found that the CFAA did not apply because LinkedIn profiles were publicly accessible, and thus, access was not “without authorization.” The court emphasized that LinkedIn could not rely on the CFAA to protect information that was intentionally shared with the public. Furthermore, the court acknowledged the importance of protecting innovation and competition in the tech industry, highlighting concerns over LinkedIn’s potential abuse of power to stifle competition and innovation by restricting access to publicly available information.

Significance 

This ruling suggests that scraping publicly available data may not violate federal anti-hacking laws like the CFAA, emphasizing the distinction between private and public data access. The decision has broad implications for data analytics and digital rights, impacting how companies control access to publicly shared information. It highlights the importance of considering user consent and privacy settings, reinforcing the notion that data made publicly accessible may not be subject to the same legal protections as private data. As the digital landscape evolves, this ruling will likely influence future cases involving data access, competition, and privacy, shaping the regulatory environment for online information use.

NetChoice, LLC v. Bonta (2023)

NetChoice, LLC challenged the enforceability of the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (CAADCA), aimed at protecting children online. The Act imposes requirements on businesses offering online services likely to be accessed by children, mandating data protection impact assessments and various privacy measures. NetChoice, representing major tech companies like Google and Meta, argued that the CAADCA violates the First Amendment, the dormant Commerce Clause, and is preempted by federal laws such as COPPA and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. They claimed that the Act’s mandates are overly burdensome and could stifle innovation by imposing vague and far-reaching obligations on tech companies. These include assessing and mitigating risks to children’s privacy and well-being, which may lead to excessive censorship or limitation of content that could otherwise be beneficial to minors.

The Northern District of California granted NetChoice’s motion for a preliminary injunction, blocking the enforcement of the CAADCA. The court found that NetChoice is likely to succeed on the merits of its claims that the Act violates the First Amendment. The court ruled that the CAADCA imposes content-based restrictions on speech by requiring businesses to make content assessments related to children’s safety, thereby failing to meet the necessary strict scrutiny standards for regulating protected expression. The ruling also questioned the Act’s ability to effectively protect minors while still respecting the rights of businesses to communicate freely without undue interference. Furthermore, the court highlighted the potential for overreach, as the CAADCA could inadvertently affect content not directly related to child safety, thus broadening its impact in unintended ways.

Significance

This case underscores the tension between state efforts to regulate online child safety and constitutional free speech protections. The ruling emphasizes that while protecting children online is a compelling interest, regulations must be narrowly tailored to avoid infringing on First Amendment rights. The case also highlights the challenges in balancing privacy and protection in the digital age, influencing how future legislation is crafted to address online safety while respecting constitutional boundaries. It serves as a precedent in evaluating similar laws across different jurisdictions, shaping the ongoing debate over digital rights and privacy. Moreover, the decision reflects a broader conversation about the role of government regulation in technology, questioning how laws can be designed to address rapidly evolving digital environments without stifling freedom of expression or economic progress. This case will likely influence policymakers, legal experts, and technology companies as they navigate the complexities of digital safety, privacy, and constitutional rights.

Stay up to date on future tech law developments with Continuing Education of the Bar (CEB)

CEB provides a range of online services designed to enhance legal practice, including Practitioner, CEB’s all-in-one legal research solution with authoritative practice guides. Practitioner is meticulously crafted by California lawyers for California lawyers, providing comprehensive insights and resources tailored to your specific needs. All practice guides seamlessly integrate with CEB’s primary law research tool, empowering you to delve into California, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and U.S. Supreme Court case law, alongside California statutes and the California Constitution. As part of the Practitioner subscription, you gain access to DailyNews, ensuring you stay updated on any critical new cases or developments in your field. And don’t forget, Practitioner also includes TrueCite®, CEB’s powerful case law citator, enhancing your research efficiency and accuracy.

Our tools offer unparalleled support through case law research tools, legal analyses, and relevant news updates. By choosing CEB, you gain access to a wealth of knowledge, enabling you to navigate complex legal landscapes with confidence and precision.