EPIC Amicus Curiae Briefs
EPIC frequently files amicus curiae, or "friend of the court", briefs in federal and state appellate cases concerning emerging privacy and civil liberties issues.
We work closely with technical experts and legal scholars, members of the EPIC Advisory Board, on these briefs. EPIC's amicus briefs assist judges in their analyses of novel privacy issues, often involving new technology. Many of these cases are complex and technical. Judges often acknowledge EPIC's briefs in their opinions, and have expressed gratitude for EPIC's participation in important cases. EPIC's decision to participate as amicus in a particular case typically follows an extensive review of matters pending before federal and state courts.
Interested in potential amicus opportunities in pending privacy, civil liberties, and technology cases? Visit the EPIC Amicus Tracker.
Search results for: Consumer Privacy
Whether victims of a data breach have adequately alleged damages
Frank v. Gaos In re Google Referrer Header Litig., 869 F.3d 737Supreme Court | Consumer Privacy
Whether a settlement is “fair, reasonable, and adequate” in a consumer privacy case where there is no meaningful change in business practices and no monetary relief is given to class members.
Rosenbach v. Six Flags 123186Illinois Supreme Court | Consumer Privacy
Whether an individual whose biometric data has been unlawfully collected in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act has a cause of action
Whether Facebook violated the privacy rights of users by tracking their web browsing history even after they logged out of the platform
Herrick v. Grindr, LLC 18-396U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit | Consumer privacy
Whether § 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields Grindr, a dating app, from liability for failing to remove fake profiles that used the Plaintiff’s name and likeness and posed a danger to his personal safety
Campbell v. Facebook 17-16873U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | Consumer Privacy
Whether the lower court erred in approving a proposed class action settlement in the Google "cookie placement" litigation that did not provide direct relief to class members and would distribute funds to groups with prior connections to Google and class counsel.
hiQ Labs v. LinkedIn Corp. 17-16783U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | Consumer Privacy
Whether a court can compel a professional networking platform to provide access to users’ profile information to a third-party data mining company
Smith v. Facebook No. 17-16206U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | Consumer Privacy
Whether Facebook's tracking of users' visits to medical websites violates California and Federal privacy laws
Smith v. LexisNexis Screening Solutions 837 F.3d 604 (6th Cir. 2016)U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | Consumer Privacy
Concerning the Standard of Care for Data Brokers Providing Employment Background Checks
FTC v. Wyndham 799 F.3d 236 (3d Cir. 2015)U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit | Consumer Privacy
Whether the FTC can enforce data security standards under its Section 5 "unfairness" authority
Fraley v. Facebook 9th Cir. ___U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | Consumer Privacy
Whether Facebook's proposed settlement of privacy claims arising from "Sponsored Stories" advertisements is fair and sufficient for class members
NCTA v. FCC 555 F.3d 996 (D.C. Cir. 2009)U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit | Consumer Privacy
Concerning Privacy of Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI)
Paramount Pictures v. ReplayTV CV 01-09358 FMCCentral District of California | Consumer Privacy
Concerning Electronic Surveillance of TV Usage
- Fourth Amendment (23)
- Consumer Privacy (14)
- First Amendment (11)
- Standing (10)
- Freedom of Information Act (7)
- Electronic Communications Privacy Act (6)
- Drivers Privacy Protection Act (5)
- Informational Privacy (4)
- Video Privacy Protection Act (3)
- Wiretapping (3)
- Telephone Consumer Protection Act (3) View more »