As we’ve been warning clients who inquire if they’re at risk if they are not using cookie consent software that is properly installed you are absolutely at risk,. Now the floodgates are opening up from numerous firms filing privacy lawsuits. Todays coverage is about Levi & Korsinsky, LLP is a leading plaintiff-side law firm known for its expertise in securities fraud, shareholder derivative actions, and consumer protection litigation, and now they are ramping up litigation for privacy related lawsuits. The firm pursues monetary recovery for investors and consumers harmed by corporate misconduct, such as data breaches, dark patterns, deceptive marketing, and violations of federal and state privacy laws. Their privacy lawsuits often take the form of class actions, targeting companies that fail to protect personal data or disclose tracking practices adequately.
Privacy Lawsuits and Consumer Protection Suits By Levi & Korsinsky
Levi & Korsinsky’s consumer protection practice includes holding corporations accountable for violations of privacy laws, such as the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) and state-specific data protection statutes. While archaic the VPPA was from the 1980s regarding video tape rentals if you have a video playing on your website and are not providing disclosure and consent options using a consent management tool then you are 100% at risk. These lawsuits typically arise when companies improperly collect, share, or disclose personal information without user consent, often through tracking technologies like Meta’s Facebook Pixel or Google’s analytics tools. The firm’s approach involves identifying systemic privacy violations, filing class actions on behalf of affected consumers, and seeking damages, injunctive relief, or policy changes that cost the defendants hundreds of thousands and in some cases millions of dollars along with a loss in trust in the institution.
Notable Privacy Litigation: College Team Websites
In 2023, Levi & Korsinsky filed a series of class action lawsuits against the official websites of four Division I college athletic programs University of Florida, University of Texas, University of Nebraska, and University of Southern California (USC) along with Learfield and its subsidiary Sidearm Sports, which manage these sites. These lawsuits, filed in federal courts, alleged violations of the VPPA due to the use of Meta’s Facebook Pixel, a JavaScript code snippet that tracks visitor activity. The complaints claimed that the defendants shared subscribers’ Facebook ID numbers and video-watching histories with Facebook without proper consent, potentially affecting millions of users.
- Case Details: The lawsuits argued that the college websites failed to disclose or obtain user consent for tracking tools engineered by Meta and Google, violating federal and state privacy laws. For USC, the complaint further alleged that the website’s search bar, powered by Google’s Programmable Search Engine, enabled Google to collect and share user search terms with third parties without user knowledge.
- Defendants’ Response: Spokespeople for Texas and Florida declined to comment, while Nebraska vowed to “vigorously” defend itself. USC emphasized its commitment to data privacy but stated it would defend against the allegations. Notably, after the Florida lawsuit was filed, the University of Florida’s website updated its terms of service to include a dispute resolution clause waiving rights to class action litigation, suggesting a reactive attempt to limit liability.
- Potential Impact: Each VPPA violation could result in up to $2,500 in liquidated damages per plaintiff, potentially leading to tens of millions in damages if the cases achieve class action status. Levi & Korsinsky’s investigatory work identified 173 Sidearm Sports collegiate sites using similar tracking tools, hinting at the possibility of additional lawsuits.
These cases are part of a broader wave of VPPA litigation targeting websites using Meta and Google tracking technologies, with Levi & Korsinsky also representing plaintiffs in a similar class action against the NFL in 2022.
Other Privacy-Related Actions
While the college website lawsuits are among the most prominent privacy cases, Levi & Korsinsky has pursued other consumer protection actions involving data breaches and deceptive practices:
- Huazhu Lawsuit (2018): The firm filed a class action against Huazhu Group, alleging the company lacked adequate security measures to protect customer information, increasing litigation risk and harming goodwill. The complaint claimed that defendants’ misleading statements about the company’s security practices violated federal securities laws, impacting investors.
- General Consumer Protection: Levi & Korsinsky’s consumer protection team targets companies for product defects, overcharging, deceptive marketing, and data breaches. These actions often overlap with privacy concerns, as seen in cases where companies fail to safeguard personal data or disclose data-sharing practices.
Class Action Litigation Against Defendants For Data Privacy Violations
Levi & Korsinsky is best known for its securities class action lawsuits, which often involve allegations of fraud, mismanagement, or misleading statements by publicly traded companies. While privacy lawsuits form a subset of their practice, their class action strategy is consistent across domains: identify widespread harm, file on behalf of a large class, and leverage their expertise to secure significant recoveries. Below are key aspects of their class action litigation, with examples of recent cases and outcomes.
Approach to Class Actions
- Plaintiff Representation: Levi & Korsinsky represents investors and consumers as class members or lead plaintiffs. Lead plaintiffs play an active role in litigation, such as approving settlement offers and providing discovery materials, and may receive additional awards for their efforts.
- No-Cost Participation: The firm emphasizes that class members can participate without out-of-pocket costs, as legal fees are typically contingency-based, paid from any recovery. This creates more incentive for the firm for a high dollar settlement to profit handsomely from these suits.
- Lead Counsel Appointments: The firm has been appointed lead counsel in numerous high-profile cases, such as the Xerox Holdings lawsuit (2025) and DZS Inc. consolidated securities fraud actions (2024), reflecting judicial confidence in their capabilities.
Recent Class Action Cases That are Are Not Privacy Related
Levi & Korsinsky has pursued numerous securities and consumer class actions, with several recent cases highlighting their litigation against corporate defendants. While not all are privacy-focused, they demonstrate the firm’s aggressive approach to holding defendants accountable and to take a suit with them as the law firm very seriously:
- Lilium N.V. (LILM, 2024): Filed on behalf of investors who purchased Lilium securities, the lawsuit alleged that defendants overstated fundraising progress and failed to disclose imminent insolvency risks, leading to misleading statements about the company’s prospects. The lead plaintiff deadline was January 6, 2025.
- iLearningEngines, Inc. (AILE, 2024): This class action claimed that iLearningEngines overstated revenue by using an undisclosed related party to report “largely fake” financials, misleading investors. The lead plaintiff deadline was December 6, 2024.
- Iris Energy Limited (IREN, 2024): The complaint alleged that Iris Energy overstated its data center and high-performance computing prospects due to deficiencies at its Childress County, Texas site, causing stock price declines. The lead plaintiff deadline was December 6, 2024.
- Cerevel Therapeutics Holdings, Inc. (ABBV, 2025): This lawsuit targeted investors who sold or held Cerevel stock during the period from October 11, 2023, to August 1, 2024, alleging misleading statements related to a merger with AbbVie Inc. Posts on X highlighted Levi & Korsinsky’s notifications to shareholders about this case.
- Viatris Inc. (2025): Filed after Viatris announced disappointing 2025 guidance due to a warning letter and import alert affecting its Indore facility, the lawsuit claimed defendants downplayed the issue as a “minor headwind,” leading to a 15.21% stock price drop on February 27, 2025.
- The Southern Company (SO, 2022): This class action targeted Deloitte & Touche, LLP, alleging misleading statements in audits of The Southern Company’s financials, particularly regarding its Kemper, Mississippi “clean coal” plant, from May 10, 2013, to February 20, 2020.
Settlements and Recoveries
Levi & Korsinsky has secured significant settlements, though specific privacy lawsuit outcomes are less detailed in available records:
- PureCycle Technologies, Inc. (2023): The firm announced a settlement in a stockholder derivative suit related to the company’s polypropylene recycling processes, demonstrating their success in derivative litigation.
- General Recovery: Over two decades, according to the website for Levi & Korsinsky has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders and consumers, with active cases and settlements amounting to substantial potential recoveries.
Defendants in Levi & Korsinsky Lawsuits
Defendants in Levi & Korsinsky’s lawsuits typically include publicly traded companies, their executives, and third-party service providers (e.g., auditors or website operators). In privacy lawsuits, defendants often encompass:
- Corporations: Companies like Learfield, Sidearm Sports, and universities (e.g., USC, Florida) for operating websites with improper tracking.
- Technology Providers: Indirectly implicated through their tools (e.g., Meta’s Facebook Pixel, Google’s Programmable Search Engine), though not always named as defendants.
- Executives and Officers: In securities cases, individual defendants are often senior officers who made misleading statements, as seen in cases like Align Technology (ALGN, 2018) and Transocean Ltd. (2023).
In the college website cases, defendants were primarily the universities and Learfield/Sidearm, highlighting Levi & Korsinsky’s strategy of targeting both primary operators and their service providers. In securities cases, defendants range from emerging companies (e.g., Lilium, iLearningEngines) to established firms (e.g., Xerox, Viatris), reflecting the firm’s broad scope.
Recent Results and Impact
- Privacy Lawsuits: The college website lawsuits remain ongoing, with no reported settlements as of our last check. Their potential to expand to other Sidearm Sports-managed sites suggests a significant future impact on collegiate athletics’ data practices.
- Securities Class Actions: Levi & Korsinsky’s recent filings (e.g., Lilium, Iris Energy, iLearningEngines) are in early stages, with lead plaintiff deadlines in late 2024 or early 2025. The firm’s appointment as lead counsel in cases like Xerox and DZS underscores its ongoing influence.
- Consumer Protection Precedents: The firm’s privacy lawsuits contribute to a growing body of VPPA and data privacy litigation, pressuring companies to enhance transparency and consent mechanisms.
What To Do If Levi & Korinsky Sues My Company For a Privacy Violation?
Levi & Korsinsky has as you just read above a very strong track record of challenging corporate misconduct and this has spilled over to data privacy and data governance. Their privacy lawsuits, particularly the 2023 college website cases, underscore their commitment to addressing data protection violations in the digital age. By leveraging their expertise in class actions, the firm continues to secure recoveries and drive corporate accountability, though outcomes in their most recent privacy cases are still pending. Investors and consumers affected by privacy breaches or securities fraud have an incentive to work with ZLK.com because there is no up front cost to them. There are other alternative privacy litigators that are making a name for themselves in the industry outside of Levi & Korinsky. So if you receive a lawsuit from any of these attorneys please be on high alert and book a demo with Captain Compliance to get protected. These law firms for privacy litigation are: Swigart Law, Pacific Trial Attorneys, Gutride Safier all out of California, and Almeida Law Group out of Chicago, Illinois.
