Farst v. AutoZone, Inc. et al.

Published by Crandall Consulting · Informational litigation intelligence · Last substantive update: October 11, 2026

Docket / citation: 2024-00002 · Filed: 2024-01-01

Summary

The agreement addresses claims concerning session replay on AutoZone.com and provides $20 for each valid, timely claim, with approved-claim funding capped at $1,233,820. The settlement class comprises qualifying Pennsylvania residents who placed website orders while session replay was enabled and were not AutoZone Rewards members. Settlement remains subject to court approval, and defendants deny liability. ([classaction.org](https://www.classaction.org/media/farst-v-autozone-inc-et-al-settlement.pdf))

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

Settlement agreement awaiting the contemplated court-approval process. The complaint was filed January 1, 2024, and amended June 7, 2024, to add AutoZone.com, Inc. Final approval would include dismissal with prejudice. ([classaction.org](https://www.classaction.org/media/farst-v-autozone-inc-et-al-settlement.pdf))

Reported Holding

The parties agreed to settle disputed session-replay claims, subject to court approval; this document is not a judicial holding. ([classaction.org](https://www.classaction.org/media/farst-v-autozone-inc-et-al-settlement.pdf))

What the Court Decided

No court decision is documented; preliminary and final approval are contemplated future steps. ([classaction.org](https://www.classaction.org/media/farst-v-autozone-inc-et-al-settlement.pdf))

What the Court Did Not Decide

The agreement does not establish judicial determinations of liability, standing, damages, or contested class certification, and expressly disclaims admissions. ([classaction.org](https://www.classaction.org/media/farst-v-autozone-inc-et-al-settlement.pdf))

Significance

Generally viewed as plaintiff-favorable. 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

• session replay
• Session replay

Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: Tealeaf, Quantum Metric, Glassbox.

Statutes Invoked

• Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (WESCA), 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5701 et seq. — all-party consent · private right of action
• Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5701 et seq.

Claims Asserted

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

• Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (WESCA) claim
• statutory damages (claimed under WESCA)
• punitive damages (claimed)
• attorney's fees and costs (claimed)
• Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act claims arising from AutoZone's use of session replay technology

What This Matter May Mean for Website Operators

Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (WESCA) is an all-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 when session recording begins relative to consent and whether input masking covers every field. Our scanner tests these behaviors empirically.

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

• Farst v. AutoZone, Inc. et al. — Settlement Agreement — ClassAction.org (hosting settlement agreement) · Tier A (Primary authority)
• AutoZone Privacy Lawsuit Settlement: Who Qualifies — LegalClarity · Tier E (General web) · 2026-06-23

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.