ESPN Caught Tracking Your Every Click, Disney Faces New Privacy Lawsuit Over Secret User Surveillance

Disney is being sued for allegedly using ESPN’s website to secretly track what you watch, where you browse, and even your location—all without asking permission first. The lawsuit claims ESPN embedded hidden trackers that send your personal data to advertising companies, violating California’s strict privacy laws.

You’re watching game highlights on ESPN.com, catching up on sports news between meetings. What you don’t see happening behind the scenes might shock you. According to a brand-new lawsuit filed just days ago, Disney’s ESPN website has allegedly been harvesting your browsing data, device information, and even your location through hidden tracking technologies—then selling that information to advertisers without your knowledge or consent.

What ESPN Is Accused of Doing

Picture this: Every time you visit ESPN.com, invisible trackers spring into action. They’re recording what device you’re using, your screen size, your operating system, and your approximate location based on your IP address. Then—and here’s where it gets concerning—those trackers allegedly send all that data to third-party advertising companies who build detailed profiles about you for targeted ads.

Saleha Abdullah, a California resident, filed the lawsuit on December 26, 2025, in federal court. She’s not alone in her concerns—she wants to represent all California residents who visited ESPN’s website during the relevant time period.

The problem? Abdullah and others claim they never consented to having these trackers installed on their devices. They didn’t expect their online behavior to be monitored, recorded, and monetized this way.

The Law Disney Allegedly Violated

California’s Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) isn’t some new tech regulation. It was enacted back in 1967—long before the internet existed—to stop people from eavesdropping on private phone conversations through wiretapping.

CIPA prohibits installing “pen registers” or “trap and trace devices” without consent. In plain English, that means you can’t secretly record what someone’s communicating or who they’re communicating with.

The lawsuit argues that ESPN’s tracking technologies function just like those old wiretapping devices—except instead of recording phone calls, they’re recording your digital footprints across the web.

This Isn’t Disney’s First Privacy Rodeo

Here’s what makes this story even more concerning: This is just the latest in a string of privacy lawsuits targeting ESPN.

Back in 2023, two other users—Amin James and David Sevesind—sued Disney over similar issues. Their lawsuit claimed ESPN hired Oracle America Inc. to use sophisticated pixel tracking technology that secretly recorded how users interacted with ESPN.com. Everything you typed. Everything you clicked. Everything you viewed.

A federal judge ruled that case could move forward, finding the claims serious enough to warrant a trial. Disney couldn’t get the lawsuit dismissed.

There’s also an entirely separate wave of lawsuits involving the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA)—a Reagan-era law passed after a newspaper published Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork’s video rental history. That 1988 law says streaming services can’t share information about what videos you watch without written consent.

Multiple consumers have claimed ESPN violated VPPA by sharing their video-watching habits with Facebook (Meta) and other tech companies. One law firm is currently gathering ESPN+ subscribers for mass arbitration claims, with potential compensation up to $2,500 per person.

The Legal Battle Gets Complicated

Here’s where the story gets messy. Courts across the country can’t agree on how these privacy laws should apply to modern websites.

Some ESPN privacy lawsuits have succeeded. Others have been dismissed. The difference often comes down to technical legal questions that seem designed to confuse anyone who’s not a lawyer.

For example, the Ninth Circuit Court ruled in one case that ESPN’s Roku device serial numbers don’t count as “personally identifiable information” under VPPA. But that same court said every disclosure of user data violates the privacy interests the law protects.

Recent 2025 rulings in the Second and Third Circuits have narrowed who counts as a “consumer” under VPPA and what information qualifies as personally identifiable. Courts are increasingly adopting an “ordinary person” standard—meaning the information shared must be something a regular person could use to identify you, not just a tech-savvy data analyst.

What This Means for You

If you’ve visited ESPN.com from California, you might be part of this lawsuit. Abdullah’s case seeks:

• Class certification (letting it represent all affected California users)
• Monetary damages
• Attorney fees and costs
• A jury trial

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:25-cv-10996).

But compensation isn’t the only issue here. This lawsuit raises bigger questions about what companies can do with your data when you visit their websites.

According to court filings and privacy experts, most people have no idea how extensively their online activity is tracked. Those cookie consent banners you click through? They often don’t meet the legal requirements for “informed consent” under laws like VPPA and CIPA.

The Broader Privacy Crisis

Disney isn’t alone in facing these lawsuits. The past few years have seen an explosion of privacy class actions targeting major media companies, streaming platforms, and news websites.

Recent settlements and cases include:

• Kaiser Permanente agreed to at least $46 million over data sharing allegations
• Sutter Health settled for $21.5 million over similar claims
• Google and Flo Health paid $56 million combined
• Pomona Valley Hospital settled for $600,000 over Facebook Pixel tracking

Meanwhile, Disney just agreed to pay the FTC $10 million over separate allegations involving children’s privacy violations on YouTube—showing federal regulators are watching these issues closely.

Courts Are Starting to Push Back

There’s a twist in this story. While privacy lawsuits are surging, courts are increasingly skeptical of some claims.

Recent California Superior Court decisions have rejected the idea that collecting IP addresses automatically violates CIPA. Judges are saying basic internet functions shouldn’t be treated as illegal wiretapping unless legislators clearly intend that.

California lawmakers even tried introducing a bill (SB690) that would exempt commercial data collection from CIPA liability, though it’s currently stalled in committee.

Some judges have also dismissed cases brought by “professional plaintiffs” who visit websites specifically looking for privacy violations to sue over.

What Happens Next

The Abdullah case is brand new—filed just days ago. It will likely take months or years to resolve.

Disney will probably file a motion to dismiss, arguing that:

• The information collected doesn’t count as “personally identifiable”
• Website tracking is standard business practice
• Users consented through terms of service
• CIPA doesn’t apply to internet communications

If the case survives dismissal, it could move toward class certification, where the judge decides if it can represent all affected users. Then comes discovery, where attorneys dig through ESPN’s data practices. Eventually, it might settle or go to trial.

Protecting Your Privacy Now

While these legal battles play out in courtrooms, here’s what you can do:

Review privacy policies carefully before using streaming services or websites. Look for sections about data sharing and tracking.

Use privacy-focused browsers or browser extensions that block trackers and third-party cookies.

Check arbitration clauses in subscription agreements. ESPN has argued its arbitration clause prevents class action lawsuits, forcing users into individual arbitration instead.

Monitor settlement databases at sites like TopClassActions.com if you want to track whether you’re eligible for any privacy settlements.

Report concerns to the FTC at ReportFraud.ftc.gov or your state attorney general if you believe a company violated your privacy rights.

The Bottom Line

The ESPN privacy lawsuit highlights a fundamental tension in our digital age: Companies want to track user behavior to improve services and sell targeted ads. Users want control over their personal information.

Laws written decades ago—like CIPA in 1967 and VPPA in 1988—are being stretched to cover technologies their authors never imagined. Courts are struggling to apply these old rules to modern realities.

What’s clear is that Disney and ESPN are facing serious scrutiny over their data practices. Whether this latest lawsuit succeeds or fails, it’s part of a larger reckoning over how much surveillance we’re willing to accept every time we browse the web.

If you visited ESPN.com from California, keep an eye on Case No. 3:25-cv-10996 in the Northern District of California. This case could determine whether your browsing history is private or just another commodity for sale.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Disney ESPN privacy lawsuit about? The lawsuit claims ESPN’s website uses hidden tracking technologies to collect user data—including device information, browsing behavior, and location—then shares it with advertising companies without user consent, violating California privacy law.

Which privacy law did ESPN allegedly violate? The December 2025 lawsuit alleges violations of California’s Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), which prohibits unauthorized wiretapping and surveillance. Earlier lawsuits have also claimed violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) and state wiretapping laws.

Who can join the ESPN class action lawsuit? The current lawsuit seeks to represent California residents who accessed ESPN.com during the relevant statute of limitations period. If you visited ESPN’s website from California, you may be part of the class if it gets certified.

How much compensation could I receive? The lawsuit seeks damages, but specific amounts haven’t been determined. VPPA claims can provide up to $2,500 per violation, plus potential punitive damages and attorney fees.

What data did ESPN allegedly collect? According to the lawsuit, ESPN’s trackers collected browser type, device type, screen resolution, operating system, geolocation based on IP addresses, and detailed browsing behavior across their website.

Has Disney responded to the lawsuit? The lawsuit was just filed on December 26, 2025. Disney hasn’t publicly responded yet but will likely file a motion to dismiss in the coming months.

Are there other ESPN privacy lawsuits? Yes. ESPN faces multiple privacy-related lawsuits, including 2023 cases alleging Oracle tracking pixel violations, VPPA claims over video-watching data shared with Meta, and mass arbitration demands from ESPN+ subscribers.

What should I do if I’m affected? Monitor the case status through court records (Case No. 3:25-cv-10996, Northern District of California) or class action settlement websites. You typically don’t need to take action unless the class is certified and you receive notice.

Can ESPN force me into arbitration instead of a class action? ESPN’s subscription agreement contains an arbitration clause, which is why some attorneys are pursuing mass arbitration rather than class actions. Courts will ultimately decide if the arbitration clause applies to website visitors.

What’s the status of the case? The lawsuit is in its earliest stages, having just been filed. It will take months before significant developments occur. Disney will likely file motions to dismiss, and the court will rule on whether the case can proceed.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult with a qualified attorney about your specific situation.

About the Author

Sarah Klein, JD, is a licensed attorney and legal content strategist with over 12 years of experience across civil, criminal, family, and regulatory law. At All About Lawyer, she covers a wide range of legal topics — from high-profile lawsuits and courtroom stories to state traffic laws and everyday legal questions — all with a focus on accuracy, clarity, and public understanding.
Her writing blends real legal insight with plain-English explanations, helping readers stay informed and legally aware.
Read more about Sarah