If you feel like you need an explanation of the headline, you are not alone. But BCLP explains the concept and court decisions:
It has now become commonplace for Plaintiffs’ attorneys to bring claims alleging that routine marketing techniques, including the deployment of behavioral advertising cookies and pixels, constitute wiretaps in violation of state and federal wiretap laws passed before the internet came into existence. Adjudication of these claims, especially at the motion to dismiss stage, has been inconsistent at best, but what has been consistent to date is that claims against the website publisher under the Federal Wiretap Act are doomed to fail because the publisher cannot “intercept” their own communications with the website user (i.e., the plaintiff). See 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d). Plaintiffs attempt to plea around this defense by claiming that the website publisher “aided and abetted” the interception by another third party (usually the pixel/cookie provider). This claim is especially prevalent in two party consent states, like California.
But there is another exception under the Wiretap Act. A party to a conversation can be held liable for an unlawful interception if the interception occurs for the purpose of committing a crime or a tort.
Read more at JDSupra.