“Facebook’s advertising capabilities are built on its surveillance of user activity both on and off its platform,” Jolly argued. “The tracking pixel allows Facebook to gain detailed insights into user behavior, which Lawline then reportedly facilitated.”
CLE Data Sharing Suit : Historical Context and Legal Implications
Although the VPPA was enacted in the 1980s, Jolly maintains that its core concerns about privacy remain relevant today. She referenced historical comments from Senators Paul Simon and Patrick Leahy, who were alarmed by the potential for video records to offer an intimate glimpse into individuals’ preferences and habits.
In a 2012 Senate testimony, Leahy emphasized that technological advancements do not diminish the fundamental right to privacy, which he believes is violated by Lawline’s actions. Jolly claims that Lawline systematically disclosed personal viewing information without proper notice or consent, thus infringing on privacy rights.
Legal Demands and Class Action Proposal
Jolly’s lawsuit demands that Lawline be held accountable for at least $2,500 in liquidated damages per affected plaintiff, plus attorney fees and costs. She argues that the case is best handled as a class action to address the widespread nature of the alleged violations.
