Standing, ECPA, Preemption, Torts
Disclosure of online user data sufficiently particular & concrete for Article III standing.
One-party consent under the wiretap act & corresponding state statute has no implicit age restriction.
PCs are not protected computing facilities under SCA
.
State statute requires something beyond access to data - must establish use.
Search engine not covered by video privacy statute; that statute requires something more than an identifying number, since an observer must be able to associate a person with specific content. This holding cannot be reduced to a single sentence.
As claim derives from the expectation of privacy on the website, state intrusion on privacy tort not preempted by federal data statute.
Third party cookies on site don't present a cause of action under the tort, but standard tracking might, if duplicitous.
In Re: Nickleodeon Consumer Pr
