Smart glasses with AI capabilities have evolved from futuristic concept to everyday reality. The market exploded in 2024, with global smart glasses shipments surging 210% year-over-year, driven primarily by Meta’s Ray-Ban smart glasses. From the consumer-focused Meta Ray-Ban Display (featuring a built-in heads-up display announced in September 2025) to Meta’s partnership with Oakley for
The rapid adoption of AI notetaking and transcription tools has transformed how organizations (and individuals) capture, analyze, and share meeting and other content. But as these technologies expand, so too do the legal and compliance risks. A recent putative class action lawsuit filed in federal court in California against Otter.ai, a leading provider of AI
Online retailer Harriet Carter Gifts recently obtained summary judgment from the district court in a class action under Pennsylvania wiretap law. At the heart of this case is the interpretation and application of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act of 1978 (WESCA), a statute designed to regulate the interception of electronic communications. The
Massachusetts’ highest court recently issued an opinion that delves into the complex intersection of privacy law and modern technology. The case centers around whether the collection and transmission of users’ web browsing activities to third parties without their consent constitutes a violation of the Massachusetts Wiretap Act.
However, the claim is not unique to Massachusetts.
When Colorado enacted the Colorado Privacy Act (CPA), it included “biometric data that may be processed for the purpose of uniquely identifying an individual.” However, the CPA as originally drafted did not cover the personal data of individuals acting in a commercial or employment context. Last week, Colorado amended the CPA to broaden the protections
California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) has become a focal point in recent legal battles, particularly within the retail industry. As retailers increasingly adopt technologies like session replay and chatbots to enhance customer experiences, they inadvertently tread into murky legal waters. These technologies, while valuable for optimizing websites and addressing customer inquiries, have faced a barrage of lawsuits and threats.
On October 21 and 22, the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) Board will meet to discuss possible action regarding the proposed regulations for the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA).
Previously, in June 2022, the Board met to discuss revising the regulations previously released by the California Attorney General.
On January 13, House Delegate Sara Love Introduced the “Biometric Identifiers and Biometric Information Privacy Act” (the “Act”) substantially modeled after the Biometric Information Privacy Act in Illinois, 740 ILCS 14 et seq. (the “BIPA”). Enacted in 2008, the Illinois BIPA only recently triggered an avalanche of class actions in Illinois, spurring other
Dubbed the “Biometric Privacy Act,” New York Assembly Bill 27 (“BPA”) is virtually identical to the Biometric Information Privacy Act in Illinois, 740 ILCS 14 et seq. (BIPA). Enacted in 2008, BIPA only recently triggered thousands of class actions in Illinois. If the BPA is enacted in New York, it likely will not take as