Amazon-owned Woot accused of secretly tracking shoppers, sharing data with Meta

SEATTLE (CN) — Amazon-owned e-commerce platform Woot.com secretly harvested and shared detailed user activity with third-party advertisers, a group of online shoppers claim in a class action complaint filed Wednesday.

Lead plaintiffs Austin Roth, Brandon Rose and Alexander Fonseca seek to represent a nationwide class and claim the discount retailer violated multiple federal and state privacy laws through its use of website tracking technologies.

At the center of the suit is Woot’s use of cookies, pixels and similar tools embedded in its website. According to the complaint, these trackers activate immediately when a user lands on the site, before any meaningful opportunity to opt out, and capture detailed data about browsing activity.

That information is then transmitted to third parties, including Facebook and Instagram parent Meta Platforms Inc., without proper notice or consent, the plaintiffs claim.

“At no point during or after the sign-up process, or anywhere on the website for that matter, does [the website] seek or obtain adequate consent for the sharing of users’ sensitive information,” the plaintiffs say in the complaint.

Some of the sensitive information collected includes specific URLs visited, products viewed or purchased, buttons clicked and the sequence of steps taken throughout a browsing session. The tools also gather technical data such as IP addresses, browser type, device characteristics and approximate location, the plaintiffs say.

The plaintiffs claim this information can be used to identify users, link them to personal Facebook accounts and build profiles for targeted advertising.

A central feature of the tracking system is the Meta Pixel, a piece of code that allows website operators to monitor user behavior and send that data back to Meta. The plaintiffs claim Woot implemented Meta’s tracking tools in a way that enabled the company to match activity with individual Facebook accounts.

The data-sharing arrangement enables highly targeted advertising through Meta’s “custom audiences,” which categorize users based on interests, behaviors and demographics, the plaintiffs say.

These practices are especially problematic given Woot’s sale of video games containing prerecorded audiovisual content, the plaintiffs claim, potentially bringing the company within the scope of the federal Video Privacy Protection Act. By tracking titles viewed or purchased and combining that data with personal identifiers such as Facebook IDs, Woot unlawfully disclosed protected viewing information, they say in the complaint.

Roth says he purchased products including the video game “Pokemon Scarlet” and later received targeted advertisements tied to his browsing activity. The other plaintiffs report similar experiences.

Other claims include violations of the federal Wiretap Act, where the plaintiffs say the tracking tools function as interception devices by capturing users’ electronic communications in real time. And the plaintiffs say Woot violates state laws, including the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the Florida Security of Communications Act, which prohibit the unauthorized interception of electronic communications without consent from all parties.

The plaintiffs contend Woot’s data-sharing practices amount to a significant invasion of privacy, since users have a reasonable expectation that their online activity would not be subject to undisclosed surveillance.

Quoting the California statute, the plaintiffs note advances in technology for the purpose of eavesdropping upon private communications have created “a serious threat to the free exercise of personal liberties and cannot be tolerated in a free and civilized society.”

In addition to class certification, the plaintiffs seek damages exceeding $5 million and an order requiring Woot to remove or modify its tracking technologies.

Kim D. Stephens and Rebecca L. Solomon of Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC represent the plaintiffs in the action, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

Neither party responded to a request for comment by press time.