Ian M. Ross is a Partner at Sidley Austin LLP and a Co-Leader of the firm's Consumer Class Actions practice, based in the firm's Miami and Chicago offices. Ian is an experienced trial lawyer who represents clients in business disputes, commercial and securities litigation, nationwide class actions, and government investigations.
Jacquelyn Fradette is a Partner at Sidley Austin LLP in Washington, D.C., and a trial lawyer who represents clients in all areas of litigation. She has tried cases through arbitration as well as in state and federal court, with experience spanning litigation strategy and pre-complaint analysis through trial, and a particular focus on hearings, depositions, and fact witness and expert testimony
Live Video-Broadcast: September 16, 2026
Sign-up for a law firm subscription plan and each attorney in the firm receives free access to all CLE Programs
A subject line that says “Ends Tonight,” a Meta pixel on a website, a chatbot that logs a conversation, an embedded video that shares viewing data — none of this used to draw litigation. All of it does now. After the Washington Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Brown v. Old Navy held that any false or misleading subject line violates the state’s anti-spam statute, more than a hundred class actions followed in a single year, and copycat filings spread to Maryland, Indiana, and — as of spring 2026 — Florida under its newly weaponized FEMCA. Running alongside it is a parallel wave of California CIPA pixel, session-replay, and pen-register theories, ECPA wiretap claims, and Video Privacy Protection Act suits — the last of which is now before the U.S. Supreme Court in Salazar v. Paramount Global, set for argument in the October 2026 Term.
The exposure reaches well beyond privacy specialists: any attorney whose clients send marketing emails, run a website, or use common ad-tech tools is now advising in a live litigation zone. The rules are also shifting underneath the cases. Washington’s June 2026 CEMA amendment cut per-message statutory damages and added a knowledge requirement going forward — reshaping the damages math on the very statute that started the wave and pushing plaintiffs toward the newer state and wiretap theories.
This program maps the plaintiffs’ bar playbook across these statutes and then turns to the defense side: the statutory and common-law defenses, the Article III standing arguments, and the marketing-stack audits, consent architecture, and vendor-contract terms that determine whether a claim survives a motion to dismiss. Taught by litigators who have argued these exact motions, it gives advising, in-house, and class-action counsel a practical framework for identifying which theory applies, evaluating the defenses that are working right now, and building the compliance and rapid-response posture that keeps a client out of the next filing wave.
What Will You Learn
Learn the plaintiffs' bar playbook across CEMA, FEMCA, CIPA, VPPA, and ECPA digital marketing class actions, and the defensive and preventive toolkit for advertising, privacy, class-action, and in-house counsel.
What Will You Gain
Gain practical command of statutory pixel defenses, common-law defenses, per-violation damages math, Article III standing considerations, consent architecture, vendor contract drafting, and rapid-response playbooks for AdTech class actions.
Key topics to be discussed:
This course is co-sponsored with myLawCLE.
Date / Time: September 16, 2026
Closed-captioning available
Ian M. Ross, Partner | Sidley Austin LLP
Ian M. Ross is a Partner at Sidley Austin LLP and a Co-Leader of the firm’s Consumer Class Actions practice, based in the firm’s Miami and Chicago offices. Ian is an experienced trial lawyer who represents clients in business disputes, commercial and securities litigation, nationwide class actions, and government investigations. He regularly handles high-stakes litigation matters across the country and is often asked to defend his clients in class actions involving novel privacy and statutory theories. In recent years, he has written and spoken extensively on emerging theories of liability under national and state privacy and consumer protection laws.
Ian earned his J.D., cum laude, from Duke University School of Law (2005), where he served as Executive Editor of the Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law, and his B.A. with honors in Political Science from Johns Hopkins University (2002). He is admitted to practice in Florida and Illinois, and to the U.S. District Courts for the Northern, Middle, and Southern Districts of Florida and the Northern District of Illinois.
Ian is ranked by Chambers USA for his Florida practice in Securities Litigation (Band 1; 2022–2026) and in General Commercial Litigation (2022–2026) and has been recognized in The American Lawyer’s “Litigator of the Week” publication three times in the last two years. He is ranked in The Best Lawyers in America for Litigation – Securities (2026), Florida Legal Elite (2023–2025), Florida Super Lawyers (2023–2026), and Legal 500 United States, and is AV-Preeminent-rated by Martindale-Hubbell (2025). He received the Daily Business Review’s Florida Legal Award for Social Impact (2021) for his pro bono representation of detainees and asylum seekers.
Ian serves as Vice-President/President Elect of the Americans for Immigrant Justice Board, is a member of the Florida Bar Association Cybersecurity and Privacy Law Committee and Business Law Committee and serves on the Regional Board of Read to a Child, South Florida. He serves on the editorial board of the Enhanced Scrutiny blog, where the Sidley team provides timely updates and analysis on M&A and corporate governance matters from the Delaware courts. His analysis has been featured in the Florida Bar Journal, the Journal of Health and Life Sciences Law, Law360, and the Daily Business Review.
Ian has served as lead counsel and represented national companies in more than 20 national class actions arising out of federal and state consumer protection statutes, including retail, telecommunications, online retailing, food and beverage, sports and fitness, and home appliances. His successes include defeating class certification in a national class action brought against a sports and fitness company, prevailing on motions to dismiss standing and jurisdictional issues, and winning summary judgment in TCPA class actions. He has also represented corporations, directors and officers, and accounting firms in federal securities class actions and SEC, DOJ, and FDIC investigations involving insider trading, misappropriation, fraud, internal control audits, and financial restatements.
Jacquelyn E. Fradette, Partner | Sidley Austin LLP
Jacquelyn Fradette is a Partner at Sidley Austin LLP in Washington, D.C., and a trial lawyer who represents clients in all areas of litigation. She has tried cases through arbitration as well as in state and federal court, with experience spanning litigation strategy and pre-complaint analysis through trial, and a particular focus on hearings, depositions, and fact witness and expert testimony. Her practice covers commercial litigation and class action litigation arising under the False Claims Act, the Lanham Act, state consumer protection laws, state common law false advertising, breach of contract, and business tort claims, as well as federal and state constitutional claims and civil actions against government entities.
Jacquelyn earned her J.D., magna cum laude, from Notre Dame Law School in 2014, where she served as a Development Editor of the Notre Dame Law Review, and her B.A. from St. John’s College in 2007. She is admitted to practice in the District of Columbia and Maryland and before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and the U.S. District Courts for the District of Colorado, the District of Columbia, and the District of Maryland.
Following law school, Jacquelyn was selected to serve as a law clerk to Judge Margaret A. Ryan of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (2014–2015).
Jacquelyn is a member of the American Bar Association, the Maryland State Bar Association, and the National Association of Women Lawyers.
Jacquelyn has litigated for, and counseled, clients across industries including pharmaceuticals and biologics, OTC drugs, cosmetics, dietary supplements, medical devices, genetic testing, energy and oil and gas, outdoor advertising and publishing, and electronic financial transactions. Her recent representations include successfully defending a global sunscreen brand in parallel federal class actions over its labeled SPF protection; winning a complete defense verdict for a global pharmaceutical company in a class action over the labeling of 20 dietary supplement products; obtaining summary judgment and full dismissal in a class action against a major electronics retailer over sales price practices; securing voluntary dismissal of a Lanham Act competitor suit against a dietary supplement brand’s flagship product; and serving on trial teams in a federal trademark dispute, a complex Integrated Resource Plan proceeding that achieved all requested relief, and Clear Channel Outdoor’s First Amendment challenge to a tax on billboard publishers.
SESSION 1 – Plaintiff-Side Digital Marketing Class Actions | 1:00pm – 2:00pm
Walk through the plaintiffs’ bar playbook across Washington CEMA post-Brown v. Old Navy, Florida FEMCA copycat filings, California CIPA wiretap and pen-register theories on Meta Pixel and session-replay tools, the VPPA circuit split, and per-violation damages math.
BREAK | 2:00pm – 2:10pm
SESSION 2 – Defending ECPA, CIPA, VPPA and Other AdTech Class Actions | 2:10pm – 3:10pm
Deploy the defensive and preventive toolkit for AdTech class actions, including statutory pixel defenses, common-law defenses, Article III standing considerations, marketing-stack audits, consent architecture, vendor contract drafting, and cross-functional compliance build and rapid-response playbooks.
Approved for CLE Credits
2 General
Approved for CLE Credits
2 General
Approved for CLE Credits
2 General
Approved for CLE Credits
2 General
Approved for CLE Credits
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Approved for CLE Credits
2 General
No MCLE Required
No MCLE Required
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Approved for CLE Credits
2.5 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Approved for CLE Credits
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Approved for Self-Study Credits
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 Substantive
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)
No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Approved for Self-Study Credits
2.4 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Approved for CLE Credits
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Approved for CLE Credits
120 General minutes
Approved for CLE Credits
2.4 General
Approved for Self-Study Credits
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Approved for CLE Credits
2 General
Approved for CLE Credits
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2.5 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Approved for Self-Study Credits
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2.5 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)
Approved for CLE Credits
2 General
Approved for CLE Credits
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Not Eligible
2 General Hours
Approved for CLE Credits
2 General
Approved via Attorney Submission
2 Law & Legal Hours
Pending CLE Approval
2 General
Pending CLE Approval
2.4 General
Pending CLE Approval
2 General