Andrew Hillman

Hillman v. Ringleader Digital, Inc., No. 1:10-cv-08315 (S.D.N.Y., Judge Denise L. Cote). I was a named class representative in a federal class action against Ringleader Digital and, by consolidation and addition, a roster of large internet properties using the same covert mobile tracking, including GO2 Media, Inc., Surfline, WhitePages.com, The Travel Channel, CNN Money, Merriam-Webster's online dictionary, and Fox News, among others. The case alleged that the defendants had used HTML5 device-identifier "respawning", a successor to Flash-cookie respawning, to track mobile users' online activity without consent, including the activity of children and other users who had not been disclosed to or consented to the collection, in violation of federal computer-fraud and privacy laws. The case was consolidated with the related Aughenbaugh action on March 21, 2011.

The Court approved a class-wide settlement under which Ringleader Digital agreed to work with the Mobile Marketing Association on industry tracking standards, delete data collected from users who had opted out, improve opt-out disclosures, and pay thirty thousand dollars to the named plaintiffs and six hundred seventy thousand dollars in class counsel fees. The case is cited in the privacy bar alongside In re Clearspring Flash Cookie Litigation and In re Quantcast Advertising Cookie Litigation as one of the early class settlements that drove industry-side change on covert mobile-device tracking.

For broader context on the federal video-privacy and consumer-privacy litigation landscape this case sits within, Covington and Burling's Inside Privacy analysis of the Netflix Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) settlement, "Netflix to Settle Video Privacy Suit" (May 2012), discusses Hillman v. Ringleader Digital among comparable consumer-privacy settlements. Andrew Hillman was not a party to the Netflix matter. It is referenced here only to illustrate the broader VPPA and privacy class-action landscape.

In a 2011 post-mortem in Digiday, Ringleader Digital's chief executive Bob Walczak attributed the company's June 2011 shutdown in significant part to the class action, telling the publication: “The suit just took our lights out. There were a number of factors that contributed, but that was the straw that broke the camel's back.”

Docket: CourtListener, Hillman v. Ringleader Digital. Primary settlement document hosted by Covington & Burling's privacy practice: Ringleader Proposed Settlement (PDF, June 2013). The executed settlement agreement is also hosted there: Ringleader Settlement Agreement (PDF). Contemporaneous coverage: Wired, Privacy.org / EPIC, Marketing Dive (Mobile Marketer), and the Digiday post-mortem.

The Ringleader case is now used as teaching material in continuing legal education. It is included in the American Inns of Court December 2014 program, Selected Materials on Cyber Security (Part I), a CLE curriculum used by federal judges, magistrate judges, and practicing trial lawyers. The class action sits in the broader academic discussion of digital-privacy doctrine, including The Conversation, “The legal implications of digital privacy”, and academic legal scholarship in the Cornell Law Review on digital privacy and online tracking.

Levine et al. v. Google, Inc., No. 4:11-cv-02157 (N.D. Cal.), filed May 2, 2011. A federal class-action privacy lawsuit I organized and filed on behalf of two named family member plaintiffs against Google, Inc. and related defendants in the Northern District of California. The case sat in the same wave of consumer-privacy class actions that produced settlements and behavioral changes from the largest internet platforms during the 2011 to 2014 period. Filing the case in family members' names rather than my own was deliberate: privacy abuses against ordinary users, including older adults and family members who were not technology professionals, were the harm the case was built around. The named plaintiff was Beverly Levine. The action was brought with attorney Joe Malley, the same counsel who handled Hillman v. Ringleader Digital. I organized and filed the case. I was not the named plaintiff.

The lawsuit, together with the Ringleader matter, reflects a consistent thread, a willingness to use the federal courts on the consumer side against large institutional counterparties when covert tracking, device-identifier respawning, or other privacy violations harm ordinary people, including minors and family members who never consented to the collection.

Reference: GovInfo, USCOURTS-cand-4_11-cv-02157.

In re Google Cellular Data Transfer Litigation, N.D. Cal., before Hon. Virginia DeMarchi. I am a class member in a federal class action alleging that Google passively transferred Android device data over user cellular data without consent, between November 12, 2017 and the date of final order. A $135 million class settlement received preliminary approval in March 2026. The final-approval hearing is set for June 23, 2026. The class is approximately 100 million U.S. Android device owners.

Primary docket: N.D. Cal. PACER record. Class administration is being handled through the court-appointed settlement administrator.

In re Google Assistant Privacy Litigation. I am a class member in a federal class action alleging that Google Assistant recorded and transcribed user audio without the user-uttered “OK Google” or “Hey Google” trigger word, in violation of federal and state wiretap and privacy laws. Claim administration is being handled at the dedicated court-supervised settlement portal.

Settlement portal: googleassistantprivacylitigation.com. Claim form: googleassistantprivacylitigation.com/file.

Andrew Hillman et al. v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, No. DC-22-12159 (193rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas), filed September 13, 2022. A Texas state-court property-tax matter in which I am a plaintiff, brought against the Dallas Central Appraisal District. The case is docketed as a tax appraisal action, the form of suit used under the Texas Tax Code to seek judicial review of a county appraisal district determination. The current status and disposition are on file with the Dallas County District Clerk and are not independently verified here.

Record: Dallas County Courts Portal, official case and document search. Reference: Trellis, Andrew Hillman et al. v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, No. DC-22-12159.

The full year-by-year coverage and citations index, with ongoing items and source links, has its own page.

Open the coverage and citations index →