Note: This article is written for general informational and SEO publishing purposes. It discusses litigation trends, not legal advice. Businesses facing class action exposure should consult qualified counsel before making decisions based on any case trend, statistic, or court ruling.
Introduction: Q2 2024 Was Not a Quiet Quarter
The second quarter of 2024 gave class action lawyers in the First Circuit plenty to read, argue about, and quietly forward to clients with the subject line: “We should talk.” Covering federal and state courts in Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Puerto Rico, the First Circuit region saw class action activity accelerate in ways that felt less like a seasonal bump and more like someone leaned on the litigation gas pedal.
The headline number tells the story. In the first half of 2024, plaintiffs filed 220 class actions across state and federal courts within the First Circuit region. The second quarter alone produced 136 new class action filings, making it the busiest quarter in recent memory. If you are a company collecting consumer data, sending marketing messages, running a website, operating in health care, handling financial information, or simply existing with a login page, Q2 2024 was the kind of quarter that deserved attention.
The most important trend was the continued rise of privacy and data security class actions. Nearly half of federal class actions filed in the First Circuit during the first half of 2024 involved data security or privacy issues. That included traditional data breach claims, Telephone Consumer Protection Act claims, Video Privacy Protection Act claims, and newer website-tracking theories involving analytics tools, pixels, session replay code, and alleged digital surveillance. In plain English: plaintiffs were not just suing over hacked databases; they were suing over what websites quietly collect while users click around.
At the appellate level, the First Circuit’s decision in Rosenthal v. Bloomingdales.com, LLC became one of the most important Q2 developments. The case did not decide whether session replay technology violates the Massachusetts Wiretap Act. Instead, it answered a threshold question: could a Massachusetts plaintiff haul an out-of-state retailer into Massachusetts court simply because the retailer’s national website used session replay code while the plaintiff browsed from Massachusetts? The First Circuit said no, at least on the facts alleged. That ruling gave defendants a jurisdictional tool, while leaving the larger privacy fight very much alive.
The Big Picture: Filing Volume Reached Record Territory
Class action filings in the First Circuit region were already heating up before Q2 began, but the April-through-June period confirmed that 2024 was developing into a record-level year. The 136 new filings in Q2 were especially notable because they arrived across a mix of courts and industries. Massachusetts remained the central hub, as it often does, but Maine and Rhode Island also saw elevated activity in federal court. New Hampshire’s filings leaned more heavily toward state court during the same period.
This matters because venue affects everything: motion practice, removal strategy, arbitration enforcement, standing arguments, discovery pressure, and settlement posture. A case filed in the District of Massachusetts may move differently from one filed in Maine Superior Court or Rhode Island federal court. For class action defendants, Q2 reinforced the need to analyze not only the claims but also the forum. The courthouse can be as strategically important as the complaint.
Why the First Circuit Became a Hot Zone
Several forces converged. First, New England is dense with health care systems, universities, technology vendors, financial services companies, professional firms, and consumer-facing businesses. Those sectors hold sensitive personal information and operate digital platforms, making them attractive targets for privacy and cybersecurity claims.
Second, plaintiffs’ lawyers continued testing older statutes against newer technology. Statutes written for video rental stores, telephone calls, or wire communications are now being invoked in cases involving mobile apps, website analytics, tracking pixels, and embedded JavaScript. It is the legal equivalent of asking a rotary phone to regulate TikTok. Sometimes courts are receptive. Sometimes they are not. But the uncertainty creates enough oxygen for lawsuits to spread.
Third, data breach standing doctrine remained plaintiff-friendly enough to encourage filings. After the First Circuit’s 2023 decision in Webb v. Injured Workers Pharmacy, plaintiffs gained useful language for arguing that exposure of sensitive personal information, material risk of future misuse, and time spent responding to that risk can support Article III standing. Q2 2024 showed how that reasoning continued to shape district court litigation.
Privacy and Data Security: The Main Event
The dominant story of Q2 2024 was privacy. Data security and privacy cases accounted for 49% of federal class actions filed in the First Circuit during the first half of the year. Roughly three-quarters of those privacy and data security filings involved alleged data breach incidents, where plaintiffs claimed defendants failed to safeguard personally identifiable information, allowing hackers or unauthorized actors to access it.
But not all privacy cases followed the classic “company got hacked” script. A growing share involved alleged unauthorized collection, disclosure, or use of consumer information through digital tools. Plaintiffs targeted technologies such as website trackers, session replay software, analytics pixels, and app-based video viewing disclosures. These cases often combined statutory claims with common law theories like negligence, unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, and state consumer protection violations.
Data Breach Claims: Standing Remained the Front Door
In data breach class actions, standing continued to be the first major battlefield. Defendants argued that speculative future harm should not be enough to keep a lawsuit alive. Plaintiffs countered that exposure of sensitive information creates real risk, real anxiety, and real mitigation costs. Courts in the District of Massachusetts showed a willingness to let some claims proceed past dismissal when plaintiffs alleged exposure of sensitive information, time spent mitigating harm, or plausible risk of future misuse.
The practical lesson is straightforward: at the pleading stage, defendants cannot rely only on the argument that no identity theft has yet occurred. If the alleged information includes Social Security numbers, health information, insurance data, financial identifiers, or other sensitive details, plaintiffs may have enough to survive early dismissal. That does not mean certification is inevitable. It means the case may live long enough to become expensive, which is often the class action plot twist nobody wanted.
Website Tracking Claims: Old Laws Meet New Code
Website tracking litigation also gained momentum. Plaintiffs alleged that businesses used analytics tools, pixels, or session replay software to collect user activity and transmit it to third parties without consent. These lawsuits raised difficult questions: Is browsing a website a protected communication? Is analytics software an interception device? Does a company “eavesdrop” when it uses ordinary commercial tracking tools? And does a privacy policy fix the problem, or merely decorate it?
In Massachusetts, these questions became especially important because plaintiffs invoked the Massachusetts Wiretap Act, a statute with potentially severe damages. The legal theory was powerful because it did not require plaintiffs to show a traditional data breach. Instead, plaintiffs alleged that the website’s normal operation was itself unlawful surveillance. That theory created obvious concern for businesses, especially health care providers and consumer-facing companies using common web tools.
Rosenthal v. Bloomingdales.com: The Q2 Appellate Case to Know
The most important First Circuit appellate decision of Q2 2024 was Rosenthal v. Bloomingdales.com, LLC, decided on May 9, 2024. The plaintiff, a Massachusetts resident, filed a putative class action alleging that Bloomingdales.com unlawfully intercepted and used information about his activity on its website through session replay code. He asserted claims under the Massachusetts Wiretap Act and the Massachusetts Invasion of Privacy Statute.
The First Circuit affirmed dismissal for lack of specific personal jurisdiction. The court focused on whether Bloomingdales purposefully targeted Massachusetts through its use of session replay technology. The plaintiff alleged that the website was accessible in Massachusetts and that the code ran while he browsed from Massachusetts. But the court held that this was not enough. The plaintiff failed to provide affirmative proof that Bloomingdales intentionally deployed the code to target Massachusetts users specifically.
That distinction is crucial. The First Circuit did not say session replay claims can never proceed. It did not bless every use of session replay code. It did not decide the full scope of the Massachusetts Wiretap Act. Instead, it said that a national website plus a Massachusetts user does not automatically create personal jurisdiction in Massachusetts.
Why Rosenthal Matters for Class Action Defense
Rosenthal gave defendants a meaningful threshold argument in website-tracking class actions. If a company operates a nationally accessible website but lacks specific Massachusetts targeting tied to the challenged conduct, it may be able to contest personal jurisdiction. This can be especially valuable for out-of-state retailers, media companies, technology vendors, and e-commerce platforms sued in Massachusetts based on routine website access.
For plaintiffs, the decision offered a roadmap too. Future complaints may try to allege more forum-specific facts: Massachusetts-directed advertising, localized website features, in-state customer programs, geolocation-based targeting, Massachusetts-specific tracking, or other facts designed to show purposeful availment. In other words, Rosenthal did not end the fight. It made everyone’s pleadings more careful.
VPPA Claims: The Video Privacy Statute Gets a Streaming-Era Makeover
The Video Privacy Protection Act continued to appear in First Circuit privacy litigation. Originally enacted after a famous video rental privacy controversy, the VPPA has become a popular tool in lawsuits involving websites, apps, embedded videos, pixels, and alleged disclosure of video viewing activity to third parties.
In the District of Massachusetts, Saunders v. Hearst Television, Inc. illustrated the trend. Plaintiffs alleged that Hearst disclosed app users’ personally identifiable information and video viewing history to third parties without proper consent. The court declined to dismiss the VPPA claim at the pleading stage, rejecting a narrow reading of who can qualify as a video tape service provider in a modern digital environment.
The case showed why VPPA litigation remained attractive in Q2 2024. Many companies publish video content online without thinking of themselves as video businesses. News apps, health sites, retailers, education platforms, and lifestyle publishers may embed video as part of ordinary content strategy. Plaintiffs, however, may argue that once a company provides video materials and shares viewing data with analytics or advertising partners, the VPPA enters the chat wearing a vintage Blockbuster jacket.
TCPA Claims: Marketing Messages Still Bring Class Risk
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act remained another recurring source of class action exposure. In the First Circuit’s 2024 filing landscape, TCPA claims were part of the broader data security and privacy wave. These cases typically involve allegedly unsolicited calls, text messages, prerecorded messages, or marketing outreach sent without proper consent.
TCPA litigation is attractive to plaintiffs because statutory damages can scale quickly in a class setting. A single disputed call may seem small. Thousands of calls or texts can become a serious exposure event. Businesses using lead generators, affiliate marketers, automated outreach tools, or customer reactivation campaigns should treat consent records like crown jewels. “We thought they opted in” is not a compliance program. It is a sentence that makes defense lawyers reach for coffee.
Arbitration Developments: Supreme Court Decisions Changed the Background Music
Although not limited to the First Circuit, several Q2 2024 U.S. Supreme Court arbitration decisions mattered for class action strategy nationwide, including in New England. Arbitration provisions are often the first line of defense against consumer, employment, and gig-economy class actions. During Q2, the Court clarified important rules that will influence how defendants draft agreements and litigate motions to compel arbitration.
In Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC, the Supreme Court held that a worker does not need to work in the transportation industry to fall within the Federal Arbitration Act’s transportation worker exemption. The focus is on what the worker does, not simply the industry label attached to the employer. That matters for delivery workers, distributors, drivers, and logistics-adjacent roles.
In Smith v. Spizzirri, the Court held that when a court compels arbitration and a party requests a stay, the court must stay the lawsuit rather than dismiss it. This affects case management, appeal posture, and settlement leverage. A stayed case remains on the court’s docket; it does not disappear into arbitration fog.
In Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski, the Court addressed what happens when parties agree to one contract sending arbitrability questions to arbitration and another contract sending disputes to court. The Court held that a court must decide which contract controls. For companies running promotions, sweepstakes, subscriptions, apps, or online account systems, the message was clear: do not let your terms of use and promotional rules fight each other in public.
Industries Most Exposed in Q2 2024
The First Circuit’s Q2 class action activity showed that privacy risk is no longer limited to technology companies. The filings targeted health care organizations, technology companies, financial institutions, professional services firms, legal services providers, educational institutions, retailers, and consumer product businesses.
Health Care
Health care defendants faced particular scrutiny because they handle sensitive patient data and often use digital tools for appointment scheduling, provider searches, patient education, and online advertising. A tracking pixel on a shoe store website is one thing. A tracking pixel on a hospital webpage about medical conditions can look very different to plaintiffs, regulators, and judges.
Financial and Professional Services
Financial institutions and professional services firms also became more visible targets. These organizations may not think of themselves as “data companies,” but they often hold highly sensitive client information. A breach involving names, Social Security numbers, financial data, legal records, or insurance information can generate strong standing allegations and emotionally compelling complaints.
Retail, Media, and Technology
Retailers, publishers, and technology companies faced claims tied to session replay, video tracking, targeted advertising, and consumer data sharing. These cases reflect a broader reality: digital marketing tools can create litigation risk even when there is no hack, no ransomware, and no dramatic system failure. Sometimes the lawsuit begins with ordinary code doing ordinary code things.
What Defendants Learned in Q2
For defendants, Q2 2024 delivered several practical lessons. First, challenge personal jurisdiction early when the defendant’s forum contacts are weak. Rosenthal showed that jurisdiction can be a powerful defense in website-tracking cases, especially where the alleged conduct is not specifically aimed at the forum.
Second, update privacy disclosures and consent flows. Courts and plaintiffs are paying attention to what companies disclose about tracking, analytics, advertising pixels, video data, and third-party sharing. A privacy policy buried in the footer may not be enough if the alleged data practices involve sensitive information or unexpected disclosures.
Third, preserve data mapping records. Companies should know what information they collect, where it goes, which vendors receive it, and whether the information can identify a consumer, patient, subscriber, or app user. In privacy litigation, “We are not sure what the tool collects” is not a great look.
Fourth, review arbitration agreements. After the Supreme Court’s Q2 arbitration decisions, companies should check for conflicting terms across user agreements, promotional rules, employment contracts, and app-specific policies. Contract harmony may not sound exciting, but neither does litigating arbitrability for two years.
What Plaintiffs Learned in Q2
Plaintiffs also received lessons. To survive jurisdictional challenges after Rosenthal, they may need more than allegations that a website was accessible in the forum. They may need facts showing intentional targeting, forum-specific conduct, or a closer nexus between the defendant’s contacts and the claims.
Plaintiffs also learned that data breach standing remains viable when complaints allege sensitive information, plausible misuse risk, or mitigation costs. However, surviving a motion to dismiss is different from winning class certification. Rule 23 still requires plaintiffs to show commonality, predominance, ascertainability where applicable, and a workable damages theory.
Finally, plaintiffs learned that older statutes can still produce modern leverage. The VPPA, TCPA, state wiretap laws, and consumer protection statutes remain flexible tools. Whether courts ultimately accept each theory is another matter, but Q2 showed that plaintiffs are willing to keep testing them.
Experiences and Practical Reflections from the Q2 2024 First Circuit Class Action Landscape
One practical experience from reviewing the First Circuit class action environment in Q2 2024 is that class action risk often begins long before anyone files a complaint. It starts in product meetings, marketing campaigns, vendor onboarding calls, and privacy-policy edits that nobody reads closely because the font is small and everyone wants to go home. A company may install analytics software to improve user experience, add session replay to diagnose abandoned carts, or use a third-party video tool to understand engagement. None of that feels like litigation strategy at the time. Yet those ordinary business choices can become the factual foundation for a putative class action.
The second experience is that privacy plaintiffs are becoming increasingly sophisticated. Complaints are no longer limited to broad accusations that a company “failed to protect data.” Many pleadings now describe specific technologies, vendor relationships, data fields, transmission events, website functions, and statutory theories. Plaintiffs’ lawyers understand the difference between a cookie, a pixel, a software development kit, a session replay script, and a video viewing disclosure. Defendants who treat these cases as generic nuisance suits may find themselves outpaced early.
The third experience is that courts are separating emotional appeal from legal architecture. A data breach involving sensitive information can sound alarming, and often is. A hospital tracking claim can feel invasive, especially when health-related webpages are involved. But courts still ask doctrinal questions: Was there standing? Was there personal jurisdiction? Did the statute actually cover the technology? Was consent obtained? Are common issues suitable for class treatment? Q2 2024 showed that plaintiffs can win some early pleading battles, while defendants can still prevail on threshold issues like jurisdiction.
The fourth experience is that class action defense has become highly interdisciplinary. Legal teams need input from cybersecurity, marketing, engineering, compliance, product, vendor management, and customer support. In a website-tracking case, the key witness may not be the general counsel. It may be the developer who knows which script fires on which page. In a TCPA case, the key record may be a consent timestamp stored by a lead vendor. In a data breach case, the decisive fact may be whether the compromised information was encrypted, segmented, or actually accessed.
The fifth experience is that prevention is cheaper than explanation. Companies operating in the First Circuit should conduct privacy and data security audits before litigation forces them to do so under a discovery deadline. That means reviewing vendor contracts, updating incident response plans, documenting consent, minimizing unnecessary data collection, and checking whether website tools transmit sensitive information. It also means aligning public statements with actual practices. Courts and plaintiffs dislike surprises, especially surprises involving personal data.
Finally, Q2 2024 reminds businesses that class action trends move quickly. A theory that looked experimental in 2022 became mainstream by 2024. A statute written decades ago can suddenly become the centerpiece of modern digital litigation. A routine website feature can become a jurisdictional test case. The best response is not panic. It is disciplined compliance, careful documentation, and early legal review. In class action litigation, boring preparation is often the most exciting thing a defendant can have.
Conclusion: Q2 2024 Set the Tone for a Bigger Year
The First Circuit’s second quarter of 2024 was a turning point for class action activity in New England. Filing volume surged, privacy and data security claims dominated, and courts continued wrestling with how older legal frameworks apply to modern digital conduct. The quarter confirmed that Massachusetts remains the region’s class action center of gravity, but Maine, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire cannot be ignored.
The key takeaway is not simply that more class actions were filed. It is that the theories became more varied, more technical, and more closely tied to everyday business operations. Data breaches, website tracking, video privacy, unsolicited marketing, arbitration agreements, and personal jurisdiction all played important roles. For plaintiffs, Q2 offered opportunities to push creative theories. For defendants, it offered useful defenses but also a warning: privacy compliance and class action readiness are now core business issues, not back-office chores.
If 2024 had a class action theme in the First Circuit, Q2 made it obvious: digital conduct creates real litigation exposure. The companies that understand their data, contracts, consent flows, and forum risks will be better positioned. The companies that do not may end up learning through discovery, which is a very expensive classroom with terrible snacks.