PHILADELPHIA - A federal judge has approved another class action settlement over privacy concerns at The Philadelphia Inquirer.
Philadelphia judge John Younge on May 6 granted final approval of the settlement in a lawsuit that claimed the Inquirer violated the Video Privacy Protection Act when sending viewing information to Facebook.
The Inquirer is just one company that faced litigation over the Facebook Pixel, which lets Meta receive viewing information. One such company is the golf tournament The Masters.
The settlement creates a $1,125,000 fund which, after lawyers take their cut, would pay an estimated amount of $27.30 for almost 24,000 claims.
Class counsel in the case was the firm Spector Roseman & Kodoff, though other firms like Bursor & Fisher and Milberg Coleman were involved. John Macoretta of the Spector firm signed the 2023 amended complaint.
Milberg Coleman had its hands in another case against the Inquirer that recently settled for $525,000. That case was brought over a data breach.
Younge picked the Spector firm to lead the Pixel case after it and the other firms suffered a conflict in its early stages that left them "unable to cooperate in the initial phases of this litigation," he wrote.
"Approval of the settlement agreement makes sense under the circumstances because this litigation carries a high probability of high costs in both time and money if it is continued until final disposition on its merits," Younge wrote in approving the settlement.
"Given the complex technical nature of data privacy cases such as this one, and the fact that it involves unsettled questions of law related to the VPPA and PA Wiretap Act, any dispositive decision could potentially result in costly appellate litigation."
The lawsuit alleges subscribers to the Inquirer's online platform had their video-viewing information sent to Meta. It was filed in 2022.
The Inquirer moved to dismiss in April 2023, claiming under Third Circuit precedent that the type of digital cookie identifier can't be deemed "personally identifiable information" under the VPPA.
An ordinary person could not identify an individual from this type of info, the Inquirer argued.
"In addition, the VPPA claim also must be dismissed because the URL containing the name of a webpage that an Inquirer subscriber may have visited, does not constitute the disclosure of video viewing information to support a cognizable claim," the Inquirer wrote.
Younge denied the motion in November 2023, deciding more information would be needed to fully rule on the Inquirer's defense. The sides notified Younge of a settlement seven months later.