"UID 2.0 uses hashed and encrypted emails or phone numbers to create pseudonymous identifiers that advertisers can use to recognize and target people across devices and platforms without, ostensibly, exposing personal information and (also ostensibly) only with a user's explicit consent. The question of consent, or the lack thereof, is at the heart of these suits and others like them."
"Around three years ago, plaintiffs' attorneys started glomming onto older privacy laws - particularly the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) and the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) - as the basis for a wave of class-action lawsuits against digital platforms and publishers. The trend gave rise to so-called "pixel suits" claiming that companies like Meta and Google illegally tracked sensitive user data through website pixels without consent, especially on health care and financial sites."
Unified ID 2.0 uses hashed and encrypted emails or phone numbers to create pseudonymous identifiers for cross-device advertising, purportedly protecting personal information and relying on explicit consent. Plaintiffs allege the system secretly harvests and monetizes directly identifiable user data without knowledge or consent. The Trade Desk was hit with consolidated class-action lawsuits in California claiming UID 2.0 is a rebranding of old-school profiling with stronger math and weaker disclosures. Plaintiffs have repurposed older statutes such as the Video Privacy Protection Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act to sue digital platforms. Some pixel-tracking suits were dismissed, while others proceeded, producing mixed precedents and costly settlements.
Read at AdExchanger
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]