AARP Video Privacy Protection Act Violations Investigation
- > Work
- > Investigations
- > AARP Video Privacy Protection Act Violations Investigation
Girard Sharp has filed a class action complaint against AARP for potential violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA”). AARP may be improperly disclosing subscribers’ personally identifiable information and video-viewing preferences to Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Meta”) without proper consent.
If you have an account with AARP and have watched video content on AARP.com, you may be entitled to relief for the improper disclosure of your personal information. Speak with an attorney by filling out the form below or calling Girard Sharp toll-free at (866) 981-4800.
Speak to a Lawyer
More Information on VPPA Violations
Federal law prohibits video-service providers, such as AARP.com, from disclosing personally identifiable information (“PII”) relating to viewers’ consumption of videos. PII includes information that directly identifies an individual and may include their name, address, social security number or other identifying number or code, telephone number, and email address.
When a user watches a video on a company’s website or app, the company has the ability to collect and share the user’s personal data with third parties. This data sharing can occur even without the user’s knowledge or consent, in which case their rights under the VPPA may have been violated.
Consumer attorneys at Girard Sharp are investigating such potential violations in relation to AARP.com. If you have watched any videos on AARP.com, speak to an attorney about protecting your digital privacy rights.
Our Commitment to Excellence
Girard Sharp has earned national Tier 1 rankings for Mass Tort and Class Action Litigation and has been named to the U.S. News – Best Lawyers “Best Law Firms” list each year since 2013. Read about some of our results.
Our firm is a nationally recognized leader in class action litigation and arbitration of claims brought by consumers alleging privacy invasions, manufacturing defects, and false advertising. We are committed to advancing and protecting the rights of every citizen to control their own personal information and be free of hidden or undisclosed tracking.
In previous cases, we have successfully applied privacy laws on behalf of our clients to lead litigation that held websites and other companies accountable for alleged privacy violations. For example, in the Lenovo spyware litigation, Girard Sharp and its co-lead counsel negotiated a favorable settlement after the court certified a nationwide class of computer purchasers whose online activities were surreptitiously monitored by pre-installed software that degraded the computers’ performance, operating continuously in the background as it analyzed browsing activity and injected ads into visited webpages.
As lead counsel in the OPM data breach litigation, we obtained a reversal of the dismissal of claims brought on behalf of 22 million federal employees and job applicants whose highly personal facts were hacked and stolen. We then negotiated a settlement that, pending court approval, will provide for minimum $700 payments to class members with compensable loss. Similarly, in Corona v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, we represented Sony employees in the wake of a cyberattack attributed to North Korea as retaliation for the parody film The Interview. Girard Sharp and its co-lead counsel secured a settlement that fully reimbursed class members’ actual losses and provided extended credit monitoring—a structure adopted in many subsequent data breach settlements.
We also represented non-Yahoo subscribers whose emails with Yahoo email subscribers were illegally intercepted and scanned by Yahoo. As a result of our litigation efforts, Yahoo restructured its email delivery architecture so that incoming and outgoing email traffic is no longer intercepted while in transit—bringing its scanning practices into compliance with federal law—and fairly disclosed its email scanning practices. The Honorable Lucy H. Koh noted that “Class Counsel achieved these benefits” after prosecuting the case for the affected individuals “in an effective and cost-efficient manner.” 2016 WL 4474612 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2016).