
A U.S. District Judge in San Diego has rejected Sony Electronics’ request to move a class action alleging privacy violations by its smart TVs to private arbitration. The case, filed in federal court, can now proceed before a judge.
The plaintiffs say Sony’s smart televisions use automatic content recognition (ACR) technology to capture snippets of audio and video, create digital fingerprints, and share viewing data with advertisers such as Samba TV and Google. They argue the company never gave clear notice of this tracking or the related arbitration clause hidden in a limited‑warranty document.
Judge Marilyn Huff found that the arbitration clause was buried in a one‑page warranty and not prominently disclosed. She wrote that a reasonable consumer would not have seen the binding terms, noting the bold heading was surrounded by other bold headings and small print. Citing a similar Samsung case, she concluded the warranty did not give fair notice of the arbitration requirement.
Source: Courthouse News Service
The court declined to dismiss the plaintiffs’ invasion‑of‑privacy claims under the California Constitution, finding the allegations sufficient to proceed. It also allowed claims that Sony disclosed private facts by passing data to third parties.
However, the judge dismissed twelve other claims, including those under the Video Privacy Protection Act, because the complaint did not show how an ordinary person could identify the plaintiffs from the data. Injunctive‑relief claims were also thrown out for lack of a credible threat of future harm.
Consumers who own Sony smart TVs should know the lawsuit remains active in court, not arbitration. This means any settlement or judgment will be public and may affect future product disclosures. There is no immediate deadline for owners, but staying informed about the case’s progress could be important if a settlement is offered.
People who suspect their viewing habits are being tracked should review the privacy settings on their devices and consider opting out of data‑sharing features where possible.
If you believe your Sony TV has collected personal viewing data without proper notice, or if you receive a settlement offer, consulting a lawyer experienced in privacy and consumer‑class actions can help you understand your rights and options.
By refusing arbitration, the lawsuit will stay in open court, giving consumers a chance to see any rulings or settlements.
The ruling highlights that hidden arbitration clauses may be unenforceable, prompting companies to be clearer in disclosures.
Several claims were dismissed, meaning only a subset of the privacy allegations will be litigated.
If Sony is held liable, other manufacturers could face similar lawsuits over ACR tracking.
Review and adjust data‑sharing options on your smart TV while the case proceeds.
| Claim Type | Outcome |
|---|---|
| Invasion of privacy (California Constitution) | Allowed to proceed |
| Public disclosure of private facts | Allowed to proceed |
| Video Privacy Protection Act | Dismissed |
| Injunctive relief | Dismissed |
| Other 12 claims | Dismissed with leave to amend |
Source: Courthouse News Service
Federal rules apply nationwide, but your options depend on your state and situation. Browse attorneys by practice area, then pick your state.
This article is general information based on Courthouse News Service and court or agency records available at publication time. It is not legal advice; laws and deadlines differ by state and by case. Published November 4, 2026.
Source: Courthouse News Service
The SEC alleges BG Wealth Sharing Ltd and DSJ Exchange Pty Ltd used false Form ADV and Form D filings to lure investors in 40+ states, raising over $130 million.
General Motors will pay $220 million to resolve a multistate suit accusing the automaker of selling location and driving‑behavior data collected through its Smart Driver program without driver consent.
A U.S. District Judge ruled that plaintiffs lacked proof of non‑consent in their claims that Google recorded Home Depot calls for AI training, sending some claims to arbitration.
The en banc Sixth Circuit examined whether the FCC can require internet providers to report personal data breaches, a dispute centered on the Congressional Review Act.
The Supreme Court heard arguments on whether a 1988 video privacy law applies to online subscribers whose viewing data is sent to Facebook for targeted ads.