Photo of Hannah Yozzo

Hannah Yozzo

Subscribe to Hannah Yozzo's Posts
Contact:Read more about Hannah Yozzo
Computer security

What was intended as a safeguard against abusive telemarketing is being twisted into a potentially far more sweeping restriction, raising serious First Amendment concerns for corporate communicators of people’s contact information. Colorado’s Prevention of Telemarketing Fraud Act’s (“PTFA”) listing provision (“Listing Provision”) threatens corporate sharing of cell phone numbers, regardless of whether these cellular phone numbers are already in the public domain. In just the past year, plaintiffs’ attorneys have filed almost 30 PTFA putative class actions, claiming that Coloradans’ cell phone numbers are presumptively private no matter how widely disseminated. In these shakedown suits, plaintiffs’ attorneys target companies for alleged knowing listing of “a cellular telephone number in a directory for a commercial purpose unless the person whose number has been listed has given affirmative consent[.]” Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 6-1-304(4).Continue Reading Beware Plaintiffs Threatening the First Amendment – Colorado PTFA Listing Provision Litigation Seeks to Muzzle Freedom of Speech

Faced with waves of consumer lawsuits targeting common website tools like browser cookies, tracking pixels, and live chat features, businesses are often frustrated by the outsized exposure posed by seemingly “no-injury” claims. (See, for example, last week’s post about CIPA claims.) The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently provided some comfort by clarifying what a plaintiff must allege to show “concrete injury” as required for Article III standing. The court’s decision in Popa v. Microsoft Corp., No. 24-14, 2025 WL 2448824 (9th Cir. Aug. 26, 2025), strengthens defenses to online privacy claims—with broad application to other types of consumer claims as well—holding that standing requires more than just an alleged statutory violation.Continue Reading Popa v. Microsoft Corporation, et al.: Ninth Circuit Clarifies Article III Standing Requirements and Strengthens Defenses to Internet Privacy and Other Consumer Claims

Courthouse

On May 29, 2025, the New Jersey Court of Appeals reversed dismissal in Satz v. Starr, No. A-2785-23, 2025 WL 1522032 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. May 29, 2025), holding that the plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of his claims did not preclude the defendants from seeking counsel fees and costs under New Jersey’s anti-SLAPP law, the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA), N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-49. While precedent in New Jersey, this decision can be looked to as persuasive authority in other UPEPA jurisdictions that a plaintiff cannot avoid liability under UPEPA simply by voluntarily dismissing the complaint.Continue Reading New Jersey SLAPPs Back: New Jersey Court of Appeals Eradicates Anti-SLAPP Loophole