Is Skims enabling Meta to 'spy' on its users?

Many consumers are unaware of the extent to which their online activities are being tracked or monitored without their knowledge or consent. E-commerce websites are eager to track user activity and browsing behavior to boost their sales. While some tracking, like storing cookies, is legal when consent is given, other forms of monitoring are not. With growing scrutiny and regulation around consumer data privacy and online tracking practices, brands are having to navigate how to respectfully target consumers and use insights to improve their marketing activities.

A case in point is Skims, which for the second time this year is being sued for "spying" on its users. In a complaint filed in California this week, two users allege Skims is "aiding, agreeing with, employing, procuring, or otherwise enabling the wiretapping of the electronic communications of visitors to its website," by allowing Meta Platforms to collect information from visitors to its e-commerce site as they search for products.

As reported by The Fashion Law, the plaintiffs allege that a Meta Tracking Pixel, which is a snippet of code provided by Meta Platforms, is active on the Skims website, tracking users' interactions with the site and gathering data for advertising and analytics purposes.

When a user visits a website with the Pixel installed, the Pixel sends information back to Meta, allowing the company to track the user's actions, such as page views, clicks, and conversions.

For consumers, the use of Meta Tracking Pixels raises privacy concerns. While the data collected by these pixels is typically used for advertising and analytics purposes, it can also be used to create detailed profiles of users' online activities and behaviours. This can lead to targeted advertising, where users are shown ads based on their browsing history, interests, and demographics. This is why, after browsing certain items on a website, similar products and ads may appear in a user's social media feed.

The plaintiffs are suing for 5 million dollars in damages, which may set a precedent in digital litigation if they are successful.