State wiretapping laws written in the 1960s are now taking aim at targeting pixels used for standard ad measurement.
In a recent lawsuit that’s currently being heard by the Washington Supreme Court, Baker v. Seattle Children’s Hospital, the plaintiffs argue that the hospital’s use of the Meta Pixel for marketing purposes turned patients’ clicks and page views into illegally intercepted private communications, akin to spying on a phone call. The case has major implications for online advertising and user privacy.
If courts start treating browser-to-server calls as wiretaps, then ordinary web functions like analytics, attribution and fraud prevention could face a wave of copycat lawsuits and pressure to flip to an opt-in model, according to the IAB.
To unpack why the IAB filed an amicus brief in the Baker case, AdExchanger spoke with Michael Hahn, the IAB’s EVP and general counsel. Hahn explains why he thinks plaintiffs are stretching old, outdated laws for profit and why he believes modern privacy statutes should set the rules of the road instead.
AdExchanger: Why did the IAB decide to weigh in on Baker v. Seattle Children’s Hospital? What made this case different from other privacy cases where the IAB hasn’t gotten involved?
