Greetings CIPAWorld!

Buckle up because this one’s a big deal. If you’ve been keeping an eye on data privacy litigation, you know courts have been drawing a hard line when it comes to proving harm. The Southern District of New York just handed Reuters a win in Zhizhi Xu v. Reuters News & Media Inc., No. 24 Civ. 2466 (PAE), 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26013 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 13, 2025), dismissing a lawsuit accusing the media giant of unlawfully collecting users’ IP addresses through web trackers. Here, the case centered around alleged violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”), which ultimately fell apart due to a lack of standing. The Court ruled that Plaintiff failed to show any concrete harm—essential for a lawsuit to survive in federal court. If there’s one thing federal courts don’t have time for, it’s speculative injury.

So, what’s the news flash? Plaintiff, a California resident, filed a putative class action against Reuters, alleging that the company embedded web trackers—Sharethrough, Oinnitag, and TripleLift—on its news website. According to Plaintiff, these trackers automatically install on users’ browsers, collect their IP addresses, and transmit that information to third parties for advertising and analytics purposes. Think of it like an invisible footprint—Plaintiff asserted that Reuters tracked him without his consent, leaving behind digital breadcrumbs that were quietly collected and shared. Plaintiff claimed this amounted to a violation of CIPA Section 638.51(a), which prohibits the installation of a “pen register or trap and trace device” without a court order. In response, Reuters quickly moved to dismiss the case, arguing that Plaintiff lacked standing because he had not suffered any tangible injury. The company maintained that collecting an IP address alone—without any evidence of targeted ads or misuse—did not meet the threshold for a privacy violation. In other words, if a tree falls in the digital forest and no one hears it, does it really make a sound? Well, it depends. Like any good law school exam answer, context is everything. Are we talking about mere data collection, or has someone actually suffered harm? Courts don’t deal in hypotheticals—they want to see real, measurable impact. Without proof that Reuters’ data collection led to some kind of concrete harm, the Court wasn’t willing to entertain a privacy violation claim based on mere technicalities.

As such, Judge Paul A. Engelmayer sided with Reuters and dismissed the lawsuit under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of Article III standing. The ruling echoes a growing trend in data privacy cases: collecting an IP address without more doesn’t trigger a legally recognizable harm. In TransUnion L.L.C. v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413, 424 (2021), the Court reaffirmed that a plaintiff must demonstrate a concrete injury to establish standing in federal court. The Court emphasized that IP addresses are not inherently sensitive or private information. It functions primarily as routing data rather than revealing the contents of a user’s communication. The Court relied on Heeger v. Facebook, Inc., 509 F. Supp. 3d 1182, 1188 (N.D. Cal. 2020), which held that collecting IP addresses alone does not constitute a privacy invasion. Plaintiff did not allege that he received targeted ads, suffered financial harm, or compromised his identity due to Reuters’ data collection.

Conversely, the Court noted cases like McClung v. AddShopper, Inc., No. 23-cv-01996-VC, 2024 WL 189006, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2024), where the defendant’s data collection led to unwanted marketing. That’s the key difference—Plaintiff’s data was allegedly collected, but nothing really happened as a result. Compare that to cases where companies have blasted users with personalized ads based on the data they grabbed. The Court found no historical or legal precedent equating collecting an IP address to a recognized harm like defamation, intrusion upon seclusion, or public disclosure of private facts, noting Liau v. Weed Inc., No. 23 Civ. 1177 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2024), which found that an IP address does not constitute “personal information” for privacy claims.

This ruling isn’t just a one-off—it’s part of a larger judicial pattern I’m seeing increasingly. The courts send a message: statutory violations alone won’t cut it in federal court. This aligns with decisions like Lightoller v. JetBlue Airways Corp., No.: 23-cv-00361-H-KSC, 2023 WL 3963823, at *3 (S.D. Cal. June 12, 2023), where the Court held that a mere statutory violation under CIPA does not establish standing without an actual, concrete harm. Plaintiff’s attempt to claim a privacy right over his IP address fell flat, as the Court reiterated that voluntarily conveyed addressing information does not trigger constitutional standing concerns. If plaintiffs want to bring CIPA or similar claims in federal court, they must show tangible harm—like unwanted targeted ads, identity theft, or direct financial consequences.

Law school lecture 101: Federal standing isn’t just some procedural hurdle—it’s the gatekeeper to the courtroom, and judges are making it clear that not all claims get past the front door. Just because a statute grants a right doesn’t mean plaintiffs automatically have standing in federal court. That’s the real kicker here. Courts are increasingly skeptical of claims that hinge on technical violations without real-world consequences. If the only harm is theoretical, don’t expect a federal judge to bite. This ruling doubles down on that message: if you want your case to survive, show the court some real, measurable damage. Otherwise, your complaint might as well be a hypothetical from law school.

What is more, this case aligns with other recent dismissals of privacy lawsuits that fail to show real harm. There’s a growing judicial skepticism of privacy claims that rest on bare statutory violations. Courts are signaling that mere technical violations of privacy statutes won’t cut it—plaintiffs must demonstrate how they were harmed. And this makes sense. Privacy is a big deal, but without actual damage, courts don’t want to police every instance of data collection. It’s the legal equivalent of “no harm, no foul.”

So, where do we go from here? The battle over what qualifies as ‘concrete injury’ in data privacy cases isn’t going away anytime soon. Expect more lawsuits, more motions to dismiss, and more courts refining the boundaries of what actually constitutes harm in data privacy.

As always,

Keep it legal, keep it smart, and stay ahead of the game.

Talk soon!