The Pulse
OpenAI Faces Wiretapping Suit Over Its Ad-Measurement Pixel
Steven Checchia and Stacy Penning sued OpenAI over its advertising measurement pixel, alleging it tracks visits to advertisers’ websites and links activity to identifiable people. The October 23 complaint claims the tracking violates federa
AI.info Team · Written with AI · fact-checked ·
“Americans do not expect that an artificial intelligence company is secretly intercepting their communications with the websites they visit, linking what it captures to the identity it maintains for them, and exploiting that information for its commercial ends.”
Steven Checchia and Stacy Penning, plaintiffs
Checchia and Penning target OpenAI’s website pixel
OpenAI faces a proposed class-action lawsuit accusing it of using its advertising measurement pixel to track people on advertisers’ websites without their consent. Plaintiffs Steven Checchia and Stacy Penning say the technology records visitors’ browsing and purchase activity and links that information to identifiable individuals, including people who do not have ChatGPT accounts. They claim the alleged tracking violates the federal Wiretap Act and wiretapping laws in California and Pennsylvania.
The complaint was filed October 23 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against OpenAI OpCo, LLC. The docket identifies Checchia and Penning as the plaintiffs and lists a complaint and proposed summons filed that day. The allegations have not been established in court.
What OpenAI says its pixel measures
OpenAI describes the pixel as a browser-based tool for measuring website events that can be attributed to ChatGPT ads. Advertisers install its code on their websites and send events such as a purchase or registration to OpenAI for conversion reporting. The company announced pixel-based measurement and its Conversions API on May 5, saying the tools help advertisers assess what happens after someone engages with an ad.
OpenAI’s developer documentation says the pixel can automatically detect supported customer information on a website, hash it in the browser and include it with conversion events. The documentation says raw customer information is not sent through that automatic matching feature. It also says OpenAI does not currently use pixel data for user-level personalization.
The lawsuit puts the pixel’s measurement role at the center of a different question: whether the code’s alleged collection and linking of activity on third-party websites amounts to unlawful interception. The company’s stated purpose is to measure ad outcomes; the plaintiffs allege the collection goes further by connecting browsing and purchases to identities OpenAI maintains.
The case turns on tracking beyond ChatGPT
The complaint concerns OpenAI’s own measurement technology on advertisers’ websites, not tracking code installed on ChatGPT itself. Its central allegation is that people can be tracked on those sites even if they have never used ChatGPT. That distinction places the focus on what information the pixel captures during a website visit and how OpenAI allegedly connects it to a person.
OpenAI has said its advertising measurement tools provide advertisers with aggregated performance insights without giving them access to individual conversations. That statement addresses what advertisers receive; the plaintiffs’ claims instead challenge what OpenAI allegedly collects through its pixel from people visiting advertiser sites.
A complaint, not a finding
The legal claims remain allegations, and the docket record lists no ruling on them. The dispute will test whether the plaintiffs can show that the pixel’s activity falls within the wiretapping laws they invoke. For now, the case turns on the gap between the pixel’s documented purpose—measuring conversions—and the plaintiffs’ claim that it also tracks and links visitors’ activity across websites.