Photo of Jason Stiehl

Balance and comprehension are Jason Stiehl’s strengths. Splitting his practice between class action defense and trade secret protection, Jason immerses himself in the business of his clients. With a depth of understanding and appreciation for the risks and growth strategies in his clients’ markets, he defends the assets and brands most valuable to his clients before trouble strikes.

Jason is a partner in Crowell & Moring’s Chicago office, where he is a member of the firm’s Litigation and Technology and Brand Protection groups. Jason is an experienced trial lawyer with a nationwide practice in federal and state courts focusing on complex litigation, consumer class actions, and advertising disputes. He serves clients in the retail, food and beverage, pharmaceutical and medical equipment, advertising, and technology sectors defending allegations related to consumer fraud, false labeling and deceptive practices, and Lanham Act violations. As a leading consumer class action defense lawyer, Jason also defends clients in matters involving the regulatory alphabet soup. His experience includes defense and counseling regarding the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and navigating the myriad varying state consumer protection statutes, including California’s Legal Remedies Act and the California Consumer Privacy Act.

Jason, Jacob, and Jaz have prepared four brief posts on the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), an old law now applied to new technology. With damages of $5,000 per violation or treble damages, CIPA lawsuits cannot be ignored. If you have a website and want to protect your company from litigation costs, check out these posts and contact us with any questions.

The California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) was enacted in 1967 to “protect the right of privacy by, among other things, requiring that all parties consent to a recording of their conversation.” Whether intentional or not, from these modest origins CIPA has become a giant—create substantial liability risk for thousands of companies every year.Continue Reading Mini-Series on CIPA – Part 4: How Big is the Risk?

Jason, Jacob, and Jaz have prepared four brief posts on the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), an old law now applied to new technology. With damages of $5,000 per violation or treble damages, CIPA lawsuits cannot be ignored. If you have a website and want to protect your company from litigation costs, check out these posts and contact us with any questions.

The California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) penalizes those “who willfully and without the consent of all parties to the communication . . . read, or attempt to read, or to learn the contents or meaning of any message, report, or communication.” Cal. Penal Code § 631 (cleaned up).

This rule seems sensible when applied to someone surreptitiously eavesdropping on a phone conversation. The law was passed in the 1960s to protect phone conversations from wiretaps, and if I am secretly listening in on your phone call, then my conduct may fall under the law.Continue Reading Mini-Series on CIPA – Part 3: Can I Eavesdrop on My Own Conversation?

Jason, Jacob, and Jaz have prepared four brief posts on the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), an old law now applied to new technology. With damages of $5,000 per violation or treble damages, CIPA lawsuits cannot be ignored. If you have a website and want to protect your company from litigation costs, check out these posts and contact us with any questions.

The California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) penalizes unauthorized eavesdropping on communications “carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio. . .” Cal. Penal Code § 632.7(a). Recently, plaintiffs have pressed courts to include internet-enabled communications on smartphones within the auspice of § 632.7(a). But is a smartphone communication over the internet a phone under this section of CIPA?Continue Reading Mini-Series on CIPA Part 2: What is a ‘Phone’?

Jason, Jacob, and Jaz have prepared four brief posts on the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), an old law now applied to new technology. With damages of $5,000 per violation or treble damages, CIPA lawsuits cannot be ignored. If you have a website and want to protect your company from litigation costs, check out these posts and contact us with any questions.

Companies have websites to reach customers, share products and services, and communicate brands. But websites can also create legal risks. Recently, litigation has surged against website owners for violating the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA). This 1960s phone-wiretapping law is now used against websites that collect and share visitor data with third-party vendors. The legal theory, in part, is that when a user visits a website and their information is processed, the third-party vendor listens in on this communication without notice or consent from the website user.Continue Reading Mini-Series on CIPA – Part 1: What is a ‘Communication’ Anyway?

On February 17, 2023, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that violations of the Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) (the country’s first biometric privacy legislation) accrue for each incident of capture or dissemination of biometric information, and not only once for each data subject. Cothron v. White Castle Systems found based on the plain language

Earlier this month, two courts, one in California and one in Massachusetts under two different scenarios, opined on the enforceability of browsewrap and hybridwrap agreements, providing important warnings for companies relying on such agreements to obtain legally required consent for activities such as telemarketing or to otherwise impose terms and conditions on website users. Many

Key Takeaways

  1. A Potential Increase in Claims, Costs, and Damages
  2. Reduce Liability Through Transparency

On February 2, 2023, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that all Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) claims are uniformly subject to a five-year statute of limitations, expanding liability for businesses collecting biometric information.[1] In Tims v. Black Horse Carriers, Inc.