Dawson v. The University of Phoenix, Inc.

Published by Crandall Consulting · Informational litigation intelligence · Last substantive update: August 23, 2026

Docket / citation: 1:25-cv-03497

Summary

The district court granted in part and denied in part the University of Phoenix’s motion to dismiss in a putative class action alleging disclosure of students’ video-watching behavior via third-party tracking technologies. The decision allows many privacy-related claims to proceed (ECPA and Illinois Eavesdropping Act claims and some VPPA theories) while dismissing certain VPPA theories tied to specific vendors, and it addresses constitutionality and pleading-stage damages issues under the VPPA.

Litigation Status

Status, direction, and weight describe how tracked public sources characterize this matter as of our last review — they are informational classifications, not legal assessments.

Procedural Posture

Defendant moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); the court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, keeping several claims alive and dismissing some VPPA theories as to certain third-parties.

Reported Holding

The district court granted in part and denied in part Defendant University of Phoenix’s motion to dismiss. The court found Plaintiff plausibly pleaded that the University is a video tape service provider and that plaintiff is a consumer, and rejected the defendant’s arguments that the VPPA is unconstitutional and that statutory damages require proof of actual damages. The court dismissed VPPA claims to the extent premised on disclosures to Google, LinkedIn, TikTok, Microsoft, and Amazon, allowed other claims to proceed (Counts II and III) as to Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, TikTok, Microsoft, and Amazon, and dismissed certain allegations that the University directed third-parties to illegally intercept communications.

What the Court Decided

On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion the court: (1) concluded Plaintiff plausibly alleged the University is a video tape service provider and that Plaintiff is a consumer under the VPPA; (2) concluded the VPPA’s statutory damages provision does not require proof of actual damages at the pleading stage; (3) rejected Defendant’s First Amendment challenge to the VPPA under intermediate scrutiny; (4) dismissed VPPA claims predicated on disclosures to Google, LinkedIn, TikTok, Microsoft, and Amazon but left VPPA-related claims (as to Facebook) intact; (5) denied dismissal of ECPA and Illinois Eavesdropping Act claims in substantial part, allowing Counts II and III to proceed as to Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, TikTok, Microsoft, and Amazon; and (6) dismissed allegations that the University directed third-parties to illegally intercept communications. The court also lifted the stay on discovery and ordered an updated joint initial status report by 2026-01-27.

What the Court Did Not Decide

The court did not resolve the factual merits of whether the University actually disclosed protected information to third-parties, did not adjudicate liability or damages on the merits, and did not resolve at summary judgment or trial whether any particular vendor unlawfully intercepted communications. It likewise did not enter final judgment on any claim.

Significance

Neutral / mixed significance. Characterizations of significance describe how the matter has generally been discussed in tracked public sources; individual holdings are often narrow, procedural, or fact-specific, and this page does not state or imply broader holdings than the sources support.

What This Page Does and Does Not Say

This page reports what our tracked public sources say about this matter — including, where identified, the procedural posture (for example, a ruling on a motion to dismiss is not a final merits decision). It does not report legal conclusions beyond those sources, does not predict outcomes, and does not constitute legal advice.

Technologies at Issue

• Facebook Tracking Pixel
• cookies (e.g., c_user cookie)
• browser fingerprinting
• IP addresses
• unique device identifiers
• machine unique identifiers
• third-party tracking pixels and scripts
• cookies
• third-party tracking technologies (Meta/Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, TikTok, Microsoft, Amazon)

Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: Meta Platforms, Inc. (Facebook), Google LLC, LinkedIn Corporation, ByteDance (TikTok), Microsoft Corporation, Amazon.com, Inc., Meta / Facebook (Facebook).

Statutes Invoked

• 18 U.S.C. § 2710; 18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq.; 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/14-1 et seq. — one-party consent · private right of action
• Video Privacy Protection Act (18 U.S.C. § 2710); Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq.); Illinois Eavesdropping Act (720 ILCS 5/14-1 et seq.) — one-party consent · private right of action

Claims Asserted

Claims identified in tracked public sources; pleadings may include additional or amended claims.

• Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) — 18 U.S.C. § 2710
• Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) — 18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq.
• Illinois Eavesdropping Act — 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/14-1 et seq.
• Video Privacy Protection Act (18 U.S.C. § 2710)
• Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq.)
• Illinois Eavesdropping Act (720 ILCS 5/14-1 et seq.)

What This Matter May Mean for Website Operators

Federal Wiretap Act (ECPA Title I) is a one-party consent statute with a private right of action. Consent standard and private enforceability are the structural features that most shape where website tracking claims are filed and how they are valued.

For operators using similar technologies, the recurring factual questions in matters like this one are whether advertising pixels transmit page URLs or hashed form data before a consent choice; what page URLs and query strings analytics tools share with third parties. Our scanner tests these behaviors empirically.

Because this matter is pending, anything reported here is procedural — allegations and interim rulings, not final determinations.

Detection of a similar technology on a website is an informational risk indicator, not a legal conclusion, and nothing in this section is legal advice.

Related Intelligence

Sources

• Dawson v. The University of Phoenix, Inc., No. 1:2025cv03497 - Document 52 (N.D. Ill. 2026) — Justia (federal docket/opinion) · Tier A (Primary authority) · 2026-01-13
• Dawson v. The University of Phoenix, Inc., No. 1:2025cv03497 - Document 52 (N.D. Ill. 2026) — Justia (court document) · Tier B (Authoritative secondary) · 2026-01-13

About This Page

Publisher: Inspection-Ready Institute, Inc. (DBA Crandall Consulting), an independent website compliance and risk consultancy. We are not a law firm and nothing on this page is legal advice.

How this content is produced: Facts are extracted from publicly available sources — court and government materials, recognized legal press, professional analysis, and industry reports — by our litigation intelligence engine, stored with full source provenance, and rendered from the database. Risk guidelines are computed by a deterministic formula, never by an AI model directly. See the full methodology.

Limitations: Counts labeled "Tracked" reflect matters identified in our source set and are not official court statistics. We report what courts decided and did not decide; we do not predict outcomes.

Corrections: If you believe anything on this page is inaccurate, contact us via the contact page and we will review the underlying sources promptly.