直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Article

Litigation Landscape for Cookie and Tracking Technology Claims Brought Under Federal Privacy Statutes

January 21, 2026

Cybersecurity Law Report

By Lynn Parker Dupree; Victor M. Palace

Lynn Parker Dupree and Victor Palace provide a comprehensive overview of how federal courts are applying major privacy laws to modern cookie and tracking technologies and how these decisions affect compliance and litigation. They review the Wiretap Act, Stored Communications Act, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and Video Privacy Protection Act, analyze how differing interpretations and statutory limits influence online‑tracking claims, and offer practical insights to help businesses and legal teams understand risk, strengthen governance practices, and navigate the evolving regulatory environment surrounding digital tracking tools.

 

Click here to read more. 

Related Practices

Diligence, Licensing, and Opinions

Privacy

Global IP Enforcement, Litigation, and Trials

Trademark Litigation and Trials

Patent Litigation and Trials

Related Industries

AI, Electronics, and Information Technology

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML)

Communications

Media

Consumer Goods and Services

Related Offices

Washington, DC

Related Professionals

Lynn Parker Dupree
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4462
Email
Victor M. Palace
Associate
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4117
Email

Originally printed in Cybersecurity Law Report on January 21, 2026. This article is for informational purposes, is not intended to constitute legal advice, and may be considered advertising under applicable state laws. This article is only the opinion of the authors and is not attributable to Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, or the firm’s client.

Related Insights

Conference

4th Global Patent Litigation FORUM

October 29, 2026

Munich

Webinar

Early Motions in Trade Secret Litigation – Offensive and Defensive Insights

July 15, 2026

Webinar

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Vacates and Remands Infringement and Damages Judgment After Erroneous Verdict Form and Eligibility Analysis

July 8, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

“2” Does Not Provide Written Description Support for “1”: Federal Circuit Affirms District Court’s Invalidation of Patent

July 8, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Federal Circuit PTAB Appeal Statistics for March–May 2026

July 2, 2026

Articles

Article_D.-Mass-Patent-Litigation-Update-October-2024

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: May 2026

June 30, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Affirms Noninfringement Ruling in Hatch-Waxman Litigation Based on Claim Construction, Prosecution History Estoppel, and the Disclosure-Dedication Rule

June 26, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Redesigns Done Right at the ITC: Federal Circuit Affirms ITC Determination of Noninfringement of Redesigned Products

June 26, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Mere Invalidity of Asserted Claims Does Not Render Patent Infringement Case Exceptional or Warrant Sanctions

June 26, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP