After last year’s landmark ruling holding that the Massachusetts Wiretap Act does not prohibit businesses’ use of pixels to capture website browsing data, Massachusetts plaintiffs have shifted their focus to the federal Wiretap Act. The problem: unlike the Massachusetts Wiretap Act, its federal counterpart is a “one-party consent” law, meaning that a business’s consent to the use of the pixels is enough to preclude liability. Last month, a federal court held that a “crime-tort exception” to this consent exemption does not apply when website browsing data is collected for “commercial purposes or advantages.” Goulart v. Cape Cod Healthcare, Inc., 2025 WL 1745732 (D. Mass. June 24, 2025).Continue Reading Court Clarifies Federal Wiretap Act’s Crime-Tort Exception: “Commercial Purposes” Are “Not the Stuff of Which a Crime-Tort Is Made”
Austin Riddick
Austin Riddick is an associate in the firm’s Washington, DC office. He is a member of the Class Actions Practice Group where he represents clients in both state and federal courts. Austin represents companies in the technology, life science, consumer products, and financial services industries. He has experience obtaining positive outcomes for clients through multiple phases of litigation, including drafting dispositive motions, discovery, preparing witnesses for interviews with opposing counsel, appeals, and settlement negotiations.
Austin also maintains an active pro bono practice focused on criminal justice and civil rights issues. He has led negotiations with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia on behalf of a client with Brady claims that resulted in the client’s release from prison.