In re: Zillow Group, Inc. Session Replay Software Litigation

Published by Crandall Consulting · Informational litigation intelligence · Last substantive update: October 12, 2026

Docket / citation: 2:22-cv-01282 · Filed: 2022-09-12

Summary

Law360 reports that a Washington federal judge threw out a proposed class action alleging Zillow used Microsoft browser tracking software that shared users' website activity with third parties. The excerpt identifies the case and its September 12, 2022 filing date, but does not disclose the dismissal grounds or appeal status.

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

Reported dismissal of a proposed class action; the truncated excerpt does not establish whether dismissal was procedural or on the merits.

Reported Holding

Law360 reports that a Washington federal judge threw out the proposed class action; the excerpt does not disclose the grounds for dismissal.

What the Court Decided

The court threw out the proposed class action concerning Zillow's alleged use of Microsoft browser tracking software.

What the Court Did Not Decide

The court did not reach the merits of claims dismissed for lack of standing or stricken as unauthorized amendments. ([law.justia.com](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/washington/wawdce/2%3A2022cv01282/313924/119/))

Significance

Generally viewed as defense-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
• Microsoft Clarity
• Facebook Pixel
• Form-input tracking
• Cookies
• Device fingerprinting
• Cross-site profiling
• session replay
• browser tracking software
• form tracking
• cross-site profiling
• session replay software
• Microsoft browser tracking software

Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: Microsoft, FullStory, Google, Meta, TikTok, Snapchat, Yahoo, LiveRamp, Trade Desk, Xandr, PubMatic, Teads, Reddit, Pinterest, Clicktail.

Statutes Invoked

• RCW 9.73.030; 18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq.; ch. 19.86 RCW; 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5701 et seq.; 720 ILCS § 5/14-1 et seq.; 815 ILCS § 505/1 et seq.; 720 ILCS § 5/17-51; Cal. Penal Code § 631 — one-party consent · private right of action
• 18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq.; RCW 9.73.030; ch. 19.86 RCW; 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5701 et seq.; 720 ILCS § 5/14-1 et seq.; 815 ILCS § 505/1 et seq.; 720 ILCS § 5/17-51; Cal. Penal Code § 631 — one-party consent · private right of action

Claims Asserted

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

• Federal Wiretap Act
• Washington Privacy Act
• Washington Consumer Protection Act
• Washington intrusion upon seclusion
• Pennsylvania WESCA
• Pennsylvania intrusion upon seclusion
• Illinois Eavesdropping Act
• Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act
• Illinois intrusion upon seclusion
• Illinois Computer Tampering Act
• California Invasion of Privacy Act
• Allegations that Zillow used Microsoft browser tracking software that shared users' website activity with third parties
• Illinois consumer fraud
• Illinois computer tampering
• CIPA
• Intrusion upon seclusion
• Previously withdrawn Missouri claims
• Alleged sharing of users' website activity with third parties through browser tracking software

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 when session recording begins relative to consent and whether input masking covers every field; whether advertising pixels transmit page URLs or hashed form data before a consent choice. Our scanner tests these behaviors empirically.

The reported outcome direction at the pleading stage reflects how tracked sources characterize the ruling; such rulings are often narrow, posture-specific, and fact-bound rather than broad statements of law.

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

• In Re: Zillow Group, Inc. Session Replay Software Litigation — Document 119 — U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (via Justia) · Tier A (Primary authority) · 2026-09-30
• In Re: Zillow Group, Inc. Session Replay Software Litigation — Document 119 — U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, via Justia · Tier A (Primary authority) · 2026-09-30
• Zillow Users Can't Sue Over Microsoft Session Replay Tech — Law360 · Tier B (Authoritative secondary) · 2026-10-01
• Zillow Users Can't Sue Over Microsoft Session Replay Tech — Law360 · Tier B (Authoritative secondary) · 2026-10-01

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.