Ayerdi v. Zeta Global Holdings Corp. and Dotdash Meredith

Background

Diane Ayerdi filed a proposed class action against Zeta Global Holdings Corporation and Dotdash Meredith, Inc. The complaint concerned California residents who opened certain email newsletters containing the LiveIntent pixel. The next day, A.P., R.E.A., and K.G. filed a separate proposed class action against Zeta Global Corporation and Zeta Global Holdings Corporation. That action concerned individuals whose personally identifiable information Zeta allegedly aggregated, collected, retained, sold, or otherwise profited from between January 1, 2019, and July 15, 2025.

Both actions alleged that Zeta obtained personal data and behavioral profiles and shared, sold, or otherwise disclosed the information to clients and third parties for advertising, marketing, and analytics without customer consent. The alleged information included religious identities, political preferences, financial health indicators, household characteristics, sexual orientations, and other demographic information. The plaintiffs asserted claims under federal and state consumer-protection and privacy laws, including New York General Business Law § 349, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.

The plaintiffs jointly moved to consolidate the actions and, in the consolidated case, to appoint Mason LLP and Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. as interim co-lead counsel. They also sought appointment of Blake Hunter Yagman of Spiro Harrison & Nelson LLC, Danielle L. Perry of Mason, and Israel David of Israel David LLC as executive committee members. The motion was unopposed.

Consolidation

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) permits consolidation when actions involve a common question of law or fact. The court concluded that consolidation would promote fairness and efficient use of judicial resources because both actions concerned alleged privacy violations involving the collection, retention, and distribution of personal data. The cases also shared several legal claims and overlapping defendants, including Zeta.

The court held that differences in the proposed class definitions and class periods did not prevent consolidation. It therefore granted the motion to consolidate the Ayerdi and A.P. actions.

Interim Co-Lead Counsel

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(3), a court may appoint interim counsel for a proposed class before deciding whether to certify the class. The court considered the factors used to evaluate class counsel, including the work performed investigating the claims, experience with class actions and the types of claims involved, knowledge of the applicable law, and the resources counsel would commit.

The court found Mason and Lowey Dannenberg qualified to serve as interim co-lead counsel. The plaintiffs represented that both firms had investigated the facts, screened potential plaintiffs, and examined the legal merits. The court also noted their experience litigating data-privacy class actions and cases involving the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and state consumer-protection and privacy laws. The court appointed Mason and Lowey Dannenberg as interim co-lead counsel.

Executive Committee

The court determined that an executive committee could provide a useful resource to interim co-lead counsel given the potential complexity of the litigation. It found that the proposed committee members had experience with data-privacy matters, including class actions involving alleged unauthorized disclosure of personally identifiable information to third-party advertisers.

The court appointed the identified counsel from Spiro Harrison & Nelson, Mason, and Israel David as executive committee members. It clarified that these lawyers were not given responsibilities in the case at that time and were not authorized to perform independent work for the proposed class. They were designated as an on-call resource available at the interim co-lead counsel’s discretion.

Other Directions and Disposition

The court consolidated the actions under the caption In re Zeta Global Data Privacy Litigation, 25 Civ. 5780 (PAE), and directed that all filings be made under that docket number. It directed the parties to confer and jointly file a proposed schedule by October 21, 2025, addressing an amended complaint and briefing for any motion to dismiss. The Clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions. The order addressed case management and counsel appointments; it did not decide whether the alleged privacy-law violations occurred or whether the proposed classes should be certified.