HeyJaredOlga Koroleva
- Indexed articles, last 90 days
- 5
- Latest publication
- Sep 25, 2026
- Outlet visibility, for Mondaq
- Top 500K sites
- Earliest in this view
- Aug 18, 2026
Latest articles
FROM CALIFORNIA TO NEW JERSEY: Northern District of California Sends CIPA Website Tracking Class Action to New Jersey (opens the original)
Read excerpt
Riddle me this: the plaintiffs all live in California, the proposed class is California only, and the claims arise under California statutes. So why is the case now pending in New Jersey? In Brown v. WebMD LLC, No. 26-cv-02920-AMO, 2026 WL 2678210 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2026), the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted WebMD’s motion to transfer venue and sent a website tracking class action to the District of New Jersey. The Court declined to rule on WebMD’s
HOW TO PLEAD CONSENT: Court Says “Plaintiffs Must Do More Than Merely Assert That They Did Not Consent To The Tracking Devices.” (opens the original)
Read excerpt
In In re Adobe Data Tracking Litigation, No. 25-cv-03032-NW, 2026 WL 2606992 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2026), the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed all nine claims in a putative privacy class action against Adobe. The Court held that a plaintiff cannot plead that he did not give consent by simply saying that he never gave it. Consent is an element of a CIPA claim and a complete defense to the common law privacy, California constitutional, and CDAFA claims,
VISIBLE IS NOT BINDING: Court Dismisses Retailer’s Indemnification Counterclaim Against TCPA Class Plaintiff Because Website Terms Alone Do Not Establish Assent (opens the original)
Read excerpt
Can a visitor form a binding contract just by typing her phone number into your website? Let’s find out! In King v. Bon Charge, No. 25-cv-00105-SB, 2026 WL 2569331 (D. Del. Aug. 31, 2026), the District of Delaware dismissed a defendant’s breach-of-contract and indemnification counterclaims because the company alleged only that its terms and conditions were “visible” to visitors before they subscribed. The Court explained that alleging the terms were visible does not establish notice, which is re
CONSENT OR NO CONSENT?: Court Holds Ulta’s Privacy Policy Alone Is Not Enough For CIPA Consent (opens the original)
Read excerpt
In Arny Asercion v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied a motion for judgment on the pleadings on California Invasion of Privacy Act claims. The Court rejected the defendant’s argument that its website privacy policy gave the plaintiff consent to install tracking technology. Arny Asercion v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc., No. 26-CV-02442-RFL, 2026 WL 2453175 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2026). For businesses tha
INVITED PARTICIPANT OR THIRD-PARTY EAVESDROPPER?: Court Holds That Otter.ai Is A Third-Party Eavesdropper Because It Uses The Recordings For Its Own Benefit (opens the original)
Read excerpt
Ever wondered how CIPA applies to the AI Notetakers that now show up uninvited in all the meetings on your calendar? In In Re Otter.AI Priv. Litig., No. 25-CV-06911-EKL, 2026 WL 2351237 (N.D. Cal. Aug.13,2026) United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part Otter’s motion to dismiss. The CIPA, ECPA BIPA, unjust enrichment, the UCL claims survived in full. The CFAA, CDAFA, and the Washington Privacy Act claims were dismissed, as well as the
Publishing over time
Last 90 days. Choose a month to open its work.
Recurring subjects
Named in the text we hold. One piece can cover several.
Audience
Top 500K sites
For Mondaq, the outlet · Measured Aug 1, 2026
Website popularity band, not a count of readers or article views.
About this data
Counts cover the work we have indexed. Tone needs enough text and a confident classification. Excerpts and episode notes are not full articles or transcripts.
Identity or attribution wrong? Suggest a correction.