Reading the Pixel: Technical Fluency for Privacy and Ad Tech Litigators

Matthew D. Pearson
Peter A. Devlin
Regina Gerhardt
Megan Mallonee
Matthew D. Pearson | Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz
Peter A. Devlin | Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz
Regina Gerhardt | Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz
Megan Mallonee | Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz

Live Video-Broadcast: September 16, 2026

2 hour CLE

Tuition: $195.00
Subscribe to Federal Bar Association CLE Pass...
Co-Sponsored by myLawCLE
Get this course, plus over 1,000+ of live webinars.
Learn More
Training 5 or more people?

Sign-up for a law firm subscription plan and each attorney in the firm receives free access to all CLE Programs

Program Summary

 

The pixel case is won in the network traffic, not the pleadings.

Pixel and ad tech litigation has moved past the pleadings. Courts now test wiretap, CIPA, and VPPA claims against the real mechanics of pixels, cookies, and session replay. Attorneys who cannot read the underlying data flows are arguing blind.

The stakes are concrete. Misread what a pixel transmits, and the interception element collapses. Treat form inputs as addressing data, and a content claim fails under CIPA and ECPA. After Popa, standing turns on the data type collected. Subpoenas to ad tech platforms like Meta and Google draw trade-secret and relevance objections.

This two-session program builds technical fluency first, then converts it into proof. Attendees learn to identify what a pixel transmits and map HAR files, packet captures, and server logs to statutory elements. They leave with authentication pathways under FRE 901 and 902 and a working forensic discovery and class certification framework.

Key topics to be discussed:

  • Tracking Mechanics
    How pixel architecture, data flows, and cookie syncing shape liability analysis.
  • Session Replay
    How replay tools capture user input as content and trigger wiretap claims.
  • Consent Failures
    How consent management platform gaps and pre-banner pixel fires create exposure.
  • Statutory Mapping
    How interception, content, and deanonymization evidence maps to CIPA elements.
  • Standing Strategy
    How to prove concrete harm after Popa and survive class certification scrutiny.
  • Evidence Authentication
    How to build forensic workflows and authenticate pixel evidence under FRE 901 and 902.

This course is co-sponsored with myLawCLE.

Date / Time: September 16, 2026

  • 1:00 pm – 3:10 pm Eastern
  • 12:00 pm – 2:10 pm Central
  • 11:00 am – 1:10 pm Mountain
  • 10:00 am – 12:10 pm Pacific

Closed-captioning available

Speakers

Matthew D. Pearson, Partner | Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz

Matthew D. Pearson defends companies nationwide in complex consumer and privacy class actions. His practice concentrates on privacy, data security, and advertising technology litigation, with particular depth in lawsuits arising from web-based tracking technologies, and he regularly advises clients on mitigating litigation risk while continuing to use data-driven marketing strategies.

  • Education & Credentials

Mr. Pearson earned his J.D. from the University of California, Davis School of Law in 2013, where he was elected to the Order of the Coif, and his B.A., magna cum laude, from Chapman University in 2009. He is admitted to practice in California state courts, before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the U.S. District Courts for the Central, Eastern, Northern, and Southern Districts of California, and the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan.

  • Recognition & Leadership

Mr. Pearson is recognized in Best Lawyers and named to Lawdragon’s 500 Leading Litigators in America. He is a widely consulted voice on privacy and advertising technology litigation, with commentary and analysis featured in outlets including the National Law Review and IPWatchdog.

  • Professional Involvement

Mr. Pearson speaks frequently on privacy and advertising technology litigation. His engagements include the webinar “U.S. Data Privacy Litigation: Assessing Risks and Navigating Uncertainty” hosted by the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP), an IAB panel discussing “Online Tracking Technology Governance and Insights,” the webinar “New Approaches to Tackle Wiretapping Litigation Risk” hosted by Didomi, and Frankfurt Kurnit’s 4th Annual Tech Law Summit in May 2026. Before joining Frankfurt Kurnit in February 2026, he was a business litigation partner at Womble Bond Dickinson and previously practiced privacy litigation as a partner at BakerHostetler.

  • Experience

Mr. Pearson defends companies across the media, retail, automotive, airline, healthcare, financial services, and technology industries, regularly handling claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law, the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the CCPA, the CMIA, CIPA, and analogous statutes nationwide. He has secured Ninth Circuit and California Court of Appeal rulings affirming dismissals in privacy and data-breach class actions, and defeated at the demurrer stage a novel theory claiming that a website operator’s collection of IP addresses and other information used an illegal pen register or trap and trace device. His class certification victories include decertification of a putative Telephone Consumer Protection Act class of nearly one million members, and he has favorably resolved more than 50 class actions in California alone and many more nationwide.

 

Peter A. Devlin, Attorney | Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz

Peter A. Devlin is an attorney in the Litigation and Data Strategy, Privacy & Security Groups at Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz in New York. He represents platforms, publishers, and brands in highstakes privacy, consumer protection, intellectual property, and commercial matters, focusing on class action and regulatory defense involving data privacy, unfair and deceptive acts and practices, false advertising, and emerging theories around video game design, AI, and internet tracking technologies.

  • Education & Credentials

Mr. Devlin graduated cum laude from New York University School of Law, where he was a Florence Allen Scholar and Managing Editor of the N.Y.U. Law Review, and earned his B.A., magna cum laude, from Cornell University. A Certified Information Privacy Professional (CIPP/US), he is admitted to practice in New York, the U.S. District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

  • Recognition & Leadership

Mr. Devlin was named a 2023 “Litigation Trailblazer” by the National Law Journal, and his litigation successes have been featured in The American Lawyer’s “Litigator of the Week.”

  • Professional Involvement

Mr. Devlin served as a law clerk to the Honorable Dennis Jacobs of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the Honorable Valerie Caproni of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. He presents regularly on privacy and class action topics, including the CLE webinar “Pixels, Pricing, and AI: Staying Ahead of Class Action Trends” in March 2026.

  • Experience

Mr. Devlin has represented a mobile gaming company in a California Privacy Protection Agency investigation alleging CCPA/CPRA violations and secured a favorable early settlement for a children’s app publisher in a consumer class action alleging dark patterns and deceptive design. Prior to joining Frankfurt Kurnit, he represented Facebook in a state attorney general enforcement action alleging state law privacy violations connected to Cambridge Analytica and advised a global media company on generative AI, scraping, and copyright issues. He also advises companies on product risks and on updating terms of service to address consumer protection and arbitration issues.

 

Regina Gerhardt, Associate | Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz

Regina Gerhardt is an associate in the Litigation and Data Strategy, Privacy & Security Groups at Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz in New York. Her practice centers on complex commercial disputes, with extensive experience in privacy, consumer class action, entertainment, and intellectual property litigation, and she advises large consumer-facing companies on issues at the intersection of technology and emerging legal risk, including artificial intelligence, website tracking technologies, and compliance with state and federal privacy laws.

  • Education & Credentials

Ms. Gerhardt earned her J.D., magna cum laude and Order of the Coif, from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in 2018, where she served as Managing Editor of the Cardozo Law Review, and her B.A. from the University of Rochester in 2012. She is admitted to practice in New York and the U.S. District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.

  • Recognition & Leadership

Ms. Gerhardt maintains a robust pro bono practice focused on civil rights and immigration matters.

  • Professional Involvement

Ms. Gerhardt presents on privacy and class action topics, including the CLE webinars “Pixels, Pricing, and AI: Staying Ahead of Class Action Trends” in March 2026 and “Protecting Your Company From A New Wave of Consumer Class Actions Under California’s ‘Yelp Law’” in May 2026.

  • Experience

Ms. Gerhardt defends companies in consumer class actions and mass arbitrations arising under CIPA, the Florida Security of Communications Act, and the Video Privacy Protection Act. She obtained dismissal with prejudice of breach of contract and fiduciary duty claims for a commercial bank client after arguing the motion in the Southern District of New York, and litigates false advertising, antitrust, trademark, and entertainment disputes in state and federal courts and international arbitration proceedings. Prior to joining Frankfurt Kurnit, she was a litigation associate at Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP.

 

Megan Mallonee, Associate | Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz

Megan Mallonee is an associate in the Litigation Group at Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz in Los Angeles. She advises companies and individuals in a wide range of disputes, including entertainment disputes, commercial litigation, and intellectual property matters, with extensive experience litigating in state and federal courts as well as arbitral forums.

  • Education & Credentials

Ms. Mallonee earned her J.D. from Duke University School of Law in 2021, where she was an editor on the Alaska Law Review, and her B.A. in Media and Journalism from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She is admitted to practice in California.

  • Recognition & Leadership

Ms. Mallonee’s article “Selective Justice: A Crisis of Missing and Murdered Alaska Native Women” was selected for publication in the Alaska Law Review.

  • Professional Involvement

While at Duke, Ms. Mallonee participated in the Wrongful Convictions Clinic, where she helped secure a client’s release after five years of wrongful incarceration.

  • Experience

Ms. Mallonee represents a variety of clients, including Fortune 500 companies, actors, producers, podcasters, and musicians. Prior to joining Frankfurt Kurnit, she was an associate at a litigation boutique in Los Angeles and at international firm Morrison Foerster LLP.

Agenda

SESSION 1 – How Website Tracking Technology Works: Pixels, Cookies, and Session Replay | 1:00pm – 2:00pm

This session builds the technical foundation privacy and ad tech litigators need to understand how tracking pixels, cookies, and session replay tools operate — from JavaScript execution and HTTP request headers to cookie syncing and consent management platforms. Attorneys will learn to read network traffic, distinguish first-party from third-party data flows, and map technical mechanics to the legal elements at stake in wiretap, CIPA, and VPPA claims. By the end of the session, attendees will be able to identify what data a pixel transmits, how session replay captures user input as content rather than metadata, and where consent management failures create liability exposure.

BREAK | 2:00pm – 2:10pm

SESSION 2 – From Data Flow to Legal Element: Discovery, Proof, and Authentication in Pixel and Ad Tech Litigation | 2:10pm – 3:10pm

This session teaches litigators how to translate pixel and ad tech data flows into admissible evidence and provable statutory elements. Attendees will learn how to map forensic artifacts—HAR files, packet captures, JavaScript source, server logs—to the interception, content, and standing elements of CIPA and federal wiretap claims, and how to authenticate electronic evidence under FRE 901 and 902. Attorneys leave with a working framework for forensic discovery workflows, class certification strategy, and the evidentiary standards courts are currently applying in live pixel litigation.

Credits

Alaska

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through Alaska’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity.
Alabama

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Arkansas

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Arizona

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

California

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Colorado

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Connecticut

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

District of Columbia

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Delaware

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Florida

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Georgia

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Hawaii

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Iowa

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Idaho

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Illinois

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Indiana

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Kansas

Pending CLE Approval
2 Substantive

Kentucky

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Louisiana

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Massachusetts

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Maryland

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Maine

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Michigan

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Minnesota

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Missouri

Approved for CLE Credits
2.4 General

Mississippi

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Montana

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

North Carolina

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

North Dakota

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through North Dakota’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity. Section 1, Policy 1.14
Nebraska

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

myLawCLE reports attendance to Nebraska on each attorney’s behalf for all programs. Please do not self-report.
New Hampshire

Approved for CLE Credits
120 General minutes

As of July 1, 2014, the NHMCLE Board no longer provides pre- or post-approval of courses. Attendees must self-determine whether a program is eligible for credit, and self-report their attendance online at www.nhbar.org, based on qualification provisions of Rule 53.
New Jersey

Approved for CLE Credits
2.4 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through New Jersey’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity, except for the courses required under BCLE Reg. 201:2
New Mexico

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Nevada

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

New York

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Our programs are CLE-eligible through New York’s Approved Jurisdiction Group “B”.
Ohio

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Oklahoma

Pending CLE Approval
2.5 General

Oregon

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Pennsylvania

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Rhode Island

Pending CLE Approval
2.5 General

South Carolina

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

South Dakota

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Tennessee

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Texas

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Utah

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

Virginia

Not Eligible
2 General Hours

Vermont

Approved for CLE Credits
2 General

Washington

Approved via Attorney Submission
2 Law & Legal Hours

Receive CLE credit in Washington via attorney submission.
Wisconsin

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

West Virginia

Pending CLE Approval
2.4 General

Wyoming

Pending CLE Approval
2 General

More CLE Webinars
Upcoming CLE Webinars