Pixels On Trial: Why The IAB Says A Recent Lawsuit Is A Threat To All Ad-Supported Media

Recorded: May 28, 2026, 6:02 a.m.

Original

Summarized

Pixels On Trial: Why The IAB Says A Recent Lawsuit Is A Threat To All Ad-Supported Media | AdExchanger

image/svg+xml:

Topics
Latest
Marketers
Agencies
Publishers
Technology
Platforms
Identity
Measurement
Data Privacy
Artificial Intelligence
CTV
Commerce
AdExplainer
Exclusive Report
Daily News Roundup

Opinion
All Columns
Data-Driven Thinking
On TV & Video
The Sell Sider
Content Studio
Comic
Contributor Guidelines

About Us
Advertise
Newsletter
AdExchanger Advisory Board
About Us
Contact Us

Events
Programmatic AI Las Vegas
Programmatic I/O 2026
AdExchanger Awards
Webinars
All Events
Network Events

Podcasts
AdExchanger Talks
The Big Story
Inside the Stack

Programmatic AI

Programmatic I/O

Become an AdHero

Topics
Latest
Marketers
Agencies
Publishers
Technology
Platforms
Identity
Measurement
Data Privacy
Artificial Intelligence
CTV
Commerce
AdExplainer
Exclusive Report
Daily News Roundup

Opinion
All Columns
Data-Driven Thinking
On TV & Video
The Sell Sider
Content Studio
Comic
Contributor Guidelines

Events & Awards
Programmatic AI Las Vegas
Programmatic I/O 2026
AdExchanger Awards
Webinars
All Events
Network Events

Podcasts
AdExchanger Talks
The Big Story
Inside the Stack

Subscribe Free
Sign Up

About Us
Advertise
Newsletter
AdExchanger Advisory Board
About Us
Contact Us

CONNECT

Home Privacy Pixels On Trial: Why The IAB Says A Recent Lawsuit Is A Threat To All Ad-Supported Media

Privacy
Pixels On Trial: Why The IAB Says A Recent Lawsuit Is A Threat To All Ad-Supported Media By Andrew Byrd

Thursday, May 28th, 2026 – 1:00 am
SHARE:

State wiretapping laws written in the 1960s are now taking aim at targeting pixels used for standard ad measurement.
In a recent lawsuit that’s currently being heard by the Washington Supreme Court, Baker v. Seattle Children’s Hospital, the plaintiffs argue that the hospital’s use of the Meta Pixel for marketing purposes turned patients’ clicks and page views into illegally intercepted private communications, akin to spying on a phone call. The case has major implications for online advertising and user privacy.
If courts start treating browser-to-server calls as wiretaps, then ordinary web functions like analytics, attribution and fraud prevention could face a wave of copycat lawsuits and pressure to flip to an opt-in model, according to the IAB.

To unpack why the IAB filed an amicus brief in the Baker case, AdExchanger spoke with Michael Hahn, the IAB’s EVP and general counsel. Hahn explains why he thinks plaintiffs are stretching old, outdated laws for profit and why he believes modern privacy statutes should set the rules of the road instead.
AdExchanger: Why did the IAB decide to weigh in on Baker v. Seattle Children’s Hospital? What made this case different from other privacy cases where the IAB hasn’t gotten involved?
MICHAEL HAHN: The lawmakers who designed these state wiretapping laws operated in a completely different era. They were written to address interception of telephone calls, where you have a very high expectation of privacy. Now they’re being applied to routine online data flows that everyone has come to expect when they use the internet.
We’re seeing plaintiffs’ lawyers use those laws to bring what I’d call spurious lawsuits. They generate settlement demands and payments, and it’s become a mini industry for them, without actually doing anything meaningful for privacy.
Most of these cases never reach a state supreme court. This one did. When a case like this gets to the Washington Supreme Court, its impact can go far beyond a single hospital or a single pixel implementation. That’s why we felt it was important for the IAB’s voice to be heard and to provide the court with a broader industry perspective.
What makes you say these suits are driven more by money than by privacy?
I think the primary driver here is money, not the public interest. A plaintiff’s firm came to one of our events, and when we interviewed him onstage, he essentially said, “Thank you for funding my kids’ college education.” That tells you a lot about what’s going on.
If these cases were really about vindicating public privacy, I’d expect to see state governments bringing enforcement actions under these same wiretapping laws. We don’t see that. We see private plaintiffs bringing large volumes of cases under state wiretap statutes, under the Video Privacy Protection Act and a few other theories. To me, that looks like an evolving plaintiffs’ business model, not a targeted effort to rein in genuinely harmful behavior.
Put this in practical terms for publishers. What everyday web functions become risky if pixels are treated like wiretaps?
If you accept the plaintiffs’ premise, the risk extends to a huge amount of ordinary web activity. Take ad measurement. Most websites and apps are ad-supported, and advertisers don’t pay unless they can measure the ads. They want to know if a person has seen an ad, if they clicked on it, how they engaged with it and whether it resulted in a sale.
To do that, data has to flow from the publisher’s site to third parties, often via pixels. Plaintiffs are arguing that those transmissions are essentially private communications, intercepted and shared without the user’s knowledge. If you label that wiretapping, you’re potentially pulling in measurement, analytics, fraud prevention and more.
Consumers understand that when they receive free content and services, their data will be used for advertising. That’s how the free content is financed. Treating that as equivalent to someone secretly tapping a phone call in 1970 doesn’t align with how people experience the web or with what the technology actually does.
How does this wiretapping theory collide with newer state privacy laws like California’s? Are we heading toward conflicting standards?
Legislatures have already decided how they want to balance privacy with the availability of content and services. That’s what state privacy laws are about. They’re supposed to be the rules of the road for online data practices.
If you look at California’s Consumer Privacy Rights Act, for example, the decision was to give consumers the right to opt out of certain uses of non-sensitive personal information, like targeted advertising. Most state privacy laws follow that same basic structure.
State wiretapping laws, by contrast, operate more like an opt-in regime. If courts start applying those wiretap statutes to the very same online activities that privacy laws already regulate, you end up with conflicting legal regimes. On one hand, the legislature says opt out. On the other hand, a court decision effectively says: opt in or risk wiretap liability.
My view is that, as applied to ubiquitous online activities like digital advertising, older wiretap theories shouldn’t be triggered at all. Or, to the extent they could be [applied], they have been superseded by more recent, targeted privacy laws in those states.
If the Washington Supreme Court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, what does that future look like for advertisers and the open web?
The case focuses on Meta Pixel, but any pixel that tracks browser activity could be implicated, as they all function similarly. In Baker, the allegation is that deploying the pixel led to interception and sharing of browsing activity, and that a user’s clicks and searches on the site are private communications.
If the court endorses that view, you could see a world where, as a practical matter, companies feel they have to get explicit consent everywhere just to have a defense under the wiretap statute. That would push everyone toward a consent regime that no state legislature has chosen for non-sensitive data, and it would sit in real tension with opt-out-based privacy laws.
In that scenario, you’d likely see a lot more consent banners and a lot of pressure on publishers to rethink business models that rely on standard analytics, measurement and other pixel-based tools. And the impact wouldn’t be limited to targeted advertising. It would reach a broad range of online functionality that depends on data transmission.
This interview has been edited and condensed.

Tagged in:

ad fraud

//
ad targeting

//
data privacy regulations

//
IAB

//
wiretapping

Next In Privacy

The FTC Bars Kochava From Selling Sensitive Data Without Consent

Must Read

CTV
Roku Revamps Its Home Screen To Appease Both Consumers And Advertisers

Roku unveiled its new home screen, which includes new features designed to further personalize the home screen experience for each viewer.

CTV
Why Critics Say Email-Based IDs Don’t Work For CTV

Email targeting in CTV has a credibility problem as buyers and sellers question whether one-to-one identity even fits a channel built for broader reach.

PODCAST: AdExchanger Talks
How ‘Wrapped’ Insights Become Audience Segments

How does Spotify translate quirky Wrapped labels, like “divorced dad hipster,” into ad audiences? And is AI-generated content safe for brands? Spotify’s Global Head of Ad Product Katie English weighs in.

Marketers
Pirated Sports Streams Are Warping TV’s Most Important Ratings

Although tides of ad revenue flow based on the ratings of certain tentpole TV events, a new crop of scammers now operate illicit sports livestreaming rings, and there’s almost nothing broadcasters can do about it.

CTV roundup
AI Is Redefining Premium Content – Which May Not Be A Good Thing

At AdExchanger’s Programmatic AI conference, media experts discussed how the rise of AI-generated content is changing the industry’s understanding of “premium” content.

PODCAST: The Big Story
Prog AI Live: AI’s Slippery Slop

Recorded live in Las Vegas at Prog AI, the AdExchanger team tackles a tricky question: As AI floods the feed with chaotic, addictive content and people engage with it, what does “premium” even mean anymore?

Popular

AdExplainer
The Programmatic Auction Is Changing In Real Time – Here’s How

Two decades after the first RTB auction, programmatic is more complex than ever – and that’s before you even consider generative AI.

Marketers
Pirated Sports Streams Are Warping TV’s Most Important Ratings

Publishers
Microsoft To Publishers: Don’t Block The AI Bots

Rather than fighting the rising tide of AI search engines and agentic tools, Microsoft AI’s Nikhil Kolar says publishers and retailers should license access to their sites and create content that speaks directly to AI crawlers.

AI
AI Needs Humans In The Lead, Not Just In The Loop, Says JPMorgan Chase Programmatic Lead

Automation has its place, but good marketing still needs “heart and science,” according to JPMorgan Chase’s Melissa Bonnick. Humans aren’t going anywhere.

CTV
Why Critics Say Email-Based IDs Don’t Work For CTV

Email targeting in CTV has a credibility problem as buyers and sellers question whether one-to-one identity even fits a channel built for broader reach.

Join the AdExchanger Community
Join Now

Your trusted source for in-depth programmatic news, views, education and events.
AdExchanger is where marketers, agencies, publishers and tech companies go for the latest information on the trends that are transforming digital media and marketing, from data, privacy, identity and AI to commerce, CTV, measurement and mobile.

NEXT EVENT
Programmatic AI
May 18-20, 2026Park MGM, Las Vegas
Learn More

ABOUT ADEXCHANGER
About Us
Advertise
Contact Us
Events
Subscribe
RSS
Cookie Settings
Privacy & Terms
Accessibility
Diversity, Equity, Inclusion & Belonging

CONNECT

State wiretapping laws enacted in the 1960s are now being applied to pixels used for standard ad measurement, setting up a confrontation between legacy privacy legislation and modern digital data flows. In the ongoing lawsuit Baker v. Seattle Children’s Hospital, the plaintiffs contend that the use of the Meta Pixel for marketing purposes converted patient clicks and page views into illegally intercepted private communications, analogous to wiretapping a telephone call. This legal challenge carries significant implications for the entire landscape of online advertising and user privacy if courts begin treating browser-to-server communications as wiretaps.

Michael Hahn, the IAB’s Executive Vice President and general counsel, explained the IAB’s decision to file an amicus brief in the Baker case, arguing that the original lawmakers designed these statutes for the interception of telephone calls, where privacy expectations are high, not for routine online data transmissions. Hahn suggested that plaintiffs' lawyers are leveraging these outdated laws to generate settlements and payments, viewing these cases as a profit-driven industry rather than a genuine pursuit of privacy protection. He further noted that this case reached the Washington Supreme Court, which amplifies the potential industry-wide impact beyond a single hospital or pixel implementation.

The core tension arises when considering what everyday web functions become risky if pixels are considered wiretaps. Since most websites and applications are ad-supported, advertisers rely on tracking to measure engagement, clicks, and conversions. Plaintiffs argue that these data transmissions, often facilitated by pixels flowing from the publisher to third parties, are private communications intercepted without user knowledge. If these transmissions are reclassified as wiretapping, it potentially implicates critical functions such as ad measurement, analytics, fraud prevention, and other data processing methods. Hahn posited that this reclassification does not align with the user experience or the actual technical functions of the web, which consumers expect regarding the financing of free content.

This legal theory also creates a potential conflict with newer state privacy laws, such as California's Consumer Privacy Rights Act. State privacy legislation is designed to establish the rules of the road for online data practices, typically favoring an opt-out model, giving consumers control over the use of non-sensitive personal information, such as targeted advertising. Conversely, state wiretapping laws operate more like an opt-in regime. If courts accept the plaintiffs' premise, recognizing online activities as wiretapping, the result could be conflicting legal regimes where state legislatures mandate an opt-out system while court decisions enforce an opt-in requirement for data transmission.

If the Washington Supreme Court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, the future for advertisers and the open web could involve a scenario where companies are compelled to implement explicit consent mechanisms for almost all data activities to maintain legal defense under wiretap statutes. This would push toward a consent regime not chosen by state legislatures and would create substantial tension with existing opt-out privacy laws. Such a scenario would likely lead to increased consent banners and pressure publishers to fundamentally rethink business models that depend on standard analytics and pixel-based tools. The impact would extend beyond targeted advertising to encompass a broad range of online functionalities reliant on data transmission, all under a framework potentially established by outdated legal precedents.