Photo of Kathryn Cahoy

Kathryn Cahoy

Kate Cahoy co-chairs the firm's Class Actions Litigation Practice Group and serves on the leadership committee for the firm’s Technology Industry Group. She defends clients in complex, high-stakes class action disputes and has achieved significant victories across various industries, including technology, entertainment, consumer products, and financial services. Kate has also played a key role in developing the firm’s mass arbitration defense practice. She regularly advises companies on the risks associated with mass arbitration and has a proven track record of successfully defending clients against these challenges.

Leveraging her success in class action litigation and arbitration, Kate helps clients develop strategic and innovative solutions to their most challenging legal issues. She has extensive experience litigating cases brought under California’s Section 17200 and other consumer protection, competition, and privacy laws, including the Sherman Act, California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), Wiretap Act, Stored Communications Act, Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), along with common law and constitutional rights of privacy, among others.

Recent Successes:

Represented Meta (formerly Facebook) in a putative nationwide advertiser class action alleging violations under the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL) related to charges from allegedly “fake” accounts. Successfully narrowed claims at the pleadings stage, defeated class certification, opposed a Rule 23(f) petition, won summary judgment, and defended the victory on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The Daily Journal selected Covington’s defense of Meta as one of its 2021 Top Verdicts, and Law.com recognized Kate as a Litigator of the Week Shoutout.
Defeated a landmark class action lawsuit against Microsoft and OpenAI contending that the defendants scraped data from the internet for training generative AI services and incorporated data from users’ prompts, allegedly in violation of CIPA, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), and other privacy and consumer protection laws.

Kate regularly contributes to the firm’s blog, Inside Class Actions, and was recently featured in a Litigation Daily interview titled “Where Privacy Laws and Litigation Trends Collide.” In recognition of her achievements in privacy and antitrust class action litigation, the Daily Journal named her as one of their Top Antitrust Lawyers (2024), Top Cyber Lawyers (2022), and Top Women Lawyers in California (2023). Additionally, she received the Women of Influence award from the Silicon Valley Business Journal and was recognized by Daily Journal as a Top Attorney Under 40.

Contact:Read more about Kathryn CahoyEmail

“Session replay” software is one of many website analytics tools targeted in wiretapping suits under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”).  Last month, a California federal court confirmed one of the many reasons why the use of this software does not violate CIPA section 631: A defendant cannot “read” (or attempt to read) session replay data “in transit,” as CIPA requires, because “events recorded by” this software “do not become readable content until after they are stored and reassembled into a session replay.”  Torres v. Prudential Financial, Inc., 2025 WL 1135088 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2025). Continue Reading Court Grants Summary Judgment: Website Vendor Cannot Read “Session Replay” Data “In Transit” Under CIPA

Does a plaintiff’s use of a website constitute consent to a privacy policy linked in the website’s footer?  A Pennsylvania federal court answered yes in Popa v. Harriet Carter Gifts, Inc., 2025 WL 896938 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 24, 2025), granting summary judgment in favor of an online retailer (Harriet Carter Gifts) and its marketing partner (NaviStone) accused of collecting data about plaintiff’s website visit in violation of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (“WESCA”).Continue Reading Implied Consent to Privacy Policy in Webpage Footer Forecloses Website Wiretapping Claim

Early this month, a Northern District of California judge dismissed, with prejudice, a putative class action complaint asserting five privacy-related causes of action, concluding the “issue of consent defeat[ed] all of Plaintiffs’ claims.”  Lakes v. Ubisoft, Inc., –F. Supp. 3d–, 2025 WL 1036639 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2025).  Specifically, the Court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims under the (1) Video Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA”); (2) Federal Wiretap Act; (3) California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”) § 631; (4) common law invasion of privacy; and (5) Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. Continue Reading California Court Holds Plaintiffs’ Consent Defeats Claims Involving Use of Website Pixel

A fan of celebrity LL Cool J filed a wiretapping suit against Community.com (“Community”), claiming that Community accessed her text message to LL Cool J in violation of the federal Wiretap Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”).  In an unpublished opinion highlighting that Section 632 of CIPA does not protect communications that are by nature a recorded medium, the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims. See Boulton v. Community.com, Inc., No. 23-3145, 2025 WL 314813 (9th Cir. Jan. 28, 2025).Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of CIPA and Wiretap Act Claims Against Celebrity Platform

Website analytics and advertising tools, such as pixels, are regularly targeted in lawsuits brought under various wiretap laws, including the federal Wiretap Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”).  We cover significant developments and trends in website wiretapping lawsuits on Inside Class Actions.  Over the last several months, we have featured posts discussing an important decision from Massachusetts’ highest court about the availability of website wiretap suits under Massachusetts law, an opinion from a California court about a new “pen register” theory under CIPA, and more.  These posts, and other highlights, include the following:Continue Reading Website Wiretapping Litigation: Recent Decisions and Developments

The New York Office of Attorney General (OAG) recently published guidance for website privacy controls. Although New York does not have a comprehensive privacy law, business’ privacy-related practices and statements may be subject to New York’s consumer protection laws, which generally prohibit businesses from engaging in deceptive acts and practices. Accordingly, the OAG noted that “statements about when and how website visitors are tracked should be accurate, and privacy controls should work as described.”Continue Reading New York AG Issues Guidance on Website Privacy Controls

An Illinois federal court has dismissed a proposed class action alleging X Corp. violated the state’s Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) through its use of PhotoDNA software to create “hashes” of images to scan for nudity and related content. The court held that Plaintiff failed to allege that the hashes identified photo subjects and therefore failed to allege that the hashes constituted biometric identifiers. Martell v. X Corp., 2024 WL 3011353, at *4 (N.D. Ill. June 13, 2024).Continue Reading Illinois Federal Court Dismisses BIPA Suit Against X, Holding “Biometric Identifiers” Must Identify Individuals

Likely spurred by plaintiffs’ recent successes in cases under Illinois’s Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), a new wave of class actions is emerging under Illinois’s Genetic Information Privacy Act (“GIPA”). While BIPA regulates the collection, use, and disclosure of biometric data, GIPA regulates that of genetic testing information. Each has a private right of action and provides for significant statutory damages, even potentially where plaintiffs allege a violation of the rule without actual damages.[1] From its 1998 enactment until last year, there were few GIPA cases, and they were largely focused on claims related to genetic testing companies.[2] More recently, plaintiffs have brought dozens of cases against employers alleging GIPA violations based on allegations of employers requesting family medical history through pre-employment physical exams. This article explores GIPA’s background, the current landscape and key issues, and considerations for employers.Continue Reading Employers Beware: New Wave of Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act Litigation

The Ninth Circuit recently held that the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, which gives the Federal Trade Commission  authority to regulate the online collection of personal information from children under the age of 13, does not preempt consistent state law, potentially increasing the risk of class action litigation based on…

Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Holds COPPA Does Not Preempt Consistent State Law Claims Premised on COPPA Violations

In a new post on the Inside Class Actions blog, our colleagues discuss a recent Third Circuit decision reinstating the putative class action Clemens v. ExecuPharm Inc., concluding there was sufficient risk of imminent harm after a data breach to confer standing on the named plaintiff when the…

Continue Reading Data Breach and the Dark Web: Third Circuit Allows Class Action Standing With Sufficient Risk of Harm