Thursday, October 8, 2026
Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Putative Class Accuses Samsung of Breaching Privacy Laws by Spying on Smart TV Users
Pleading Is Filed in U.S. District Court Alleging That Electronics Giant Uses Devices to Capture Information About Viewers Twice Every Second Despite Promises Against Data Collection
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A putative class complaint has been filed in federal court accusing Samsung Electronics America Inc. of using its smart televisions to capture second-by-second details of users’ viewing history and then transmitting that information to advertisers in violation of state and federal law despite promises that it “neither collects any video footage nor any content displayed on” those devices.
California residents Danielle Tillery, Michael Walsh, and David Rosenberg filed the pleading against the electronics juggernaut on Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. They claimed that Samsung collected their “sensitive information” by way of their smart TVs and alleged:
“Roughly twice every second, Samsung Smart televisions…capture what is displayed on the screen—every program, every game, every home video, every connected device—reduce it to a digital fingerprint, and transmit it, together with persistent identifiers tied to the individual, the household, the device, and the home network, to servers that feed Samsung’s multi-billion-dollar advertising business.”
They asserted claims under the federal Wiretap Act, found at 18 U.S.C. §2510 et seq., and causes of action under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”), found at Penal Code §§630-638.55, as well as violations of the right to privacy afforded by the California Constitution and other laws.
California Statute
Sec. 631 of CIPA prohibits “[a]ny person” from, “willfully and without the consent of all parties to the communication,” “read[ing]…or…learn[ing] the contents or meaning of any message, report, or communication while the same is in transit or passing over any wire, line, or cable.”
The statutory scheme provides for criminal sanctions as well as a civil cause of action under which a plaintiff is authorized to recover the greater of $5,000 per violation or three times any actual damages incurred.
Tillery, Walsh, and Rosenberg claimed that consumers are asked to click a button indicating “I Agree to all” relating to a “bundle” of notices during the setup process for the TVs. In the disclosures, the company allegedly promises not to collect information “displayed” on the device while, at the same time, “actively conceal[ing] the…operation of the…data collection behind benign-sounding feature names and dense, multi-screen setup flows.”
Integrated-Surveillance System
According to the plaintiffs, the company’s Automatic Content Recognition (“ACR”) technology operates “as an integrated surveillance and advertising architecture designed to capture, identify, and monetize consumers’ in-home viewing activity.” They asserted:
“Defendant matches the ACR fingerprints captured from Samsung Smart TVs to identify the viewed content and associate that information with device- and household-level identifiers, including IP address, MAC address, and advertising identifier, transmitting the resulting viewing data to servers controlled by Defendant. On information and belief, downstream advertising…partners receive, in real time, the device’s advertising identifier, signed-in account activity, application telemetry, and household and device identifiers, which downstream identity-resolution partners associate with their identity graph.”
Characterizing the tracking activities as the same as those that underpinned a 2017 $2.2 million settlement by VIZIO Inc., in which the company paid to settle charges by the Federal Trade Commission and the New Jersey attorney general that it collected viewing histories on 11 million TVs, the plaintiffs claimed that the defendant was on notice of the illegality of the tracking and yet still “continues to operate…its own ACR data-collection program.”
Class Certification
They seek certification of a “Nationwide ACR Class,” consisting of “[a]ll natural persons…who…used a Samsung Smart TV on which ACR technology was enabled and that captured, analyzed, or transmitted information regarding audiovisual content displayed on the device” since 2013, a “Nationwide Identity Graph Class,” made up of those whose “viewing data was associated, matched, or combined…with…identity data,” and two California subclasses.
The complaint also alleges that the “[d]efendant’s ACR practices have already drawn law-enforcement action,” pointing to a 2025 enforcement action under Texas law that resulted in a permanent injunction requiring Samsung to disclose, and obtain express consent from users relating to, the use of ACR technology on its devices.
Tillery, Walsh, and Rosenberg seek injunctive relief as well as statutory, actual, and punitive damages.
The case is Tillery v. Samsung Electronics America Inc., 3:26-cv-11448.
Catherine E. Ybarra of the downtown Los Angeles office of Siri & Glimstad LLP is representing the plaintiffs.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company