I was excited to read about the Nebuad class action filed today.  (Ars Technica; ZDNet.com; docstoc (Complaint).) 

I was a bit disappointed.  Mostly because I thought the lawsuit would test the legality of an internet-based advertising practice that was (or is becoming increasingly) common: the use of cookies to monitor internet use on third party websites and build "advertising networks".  The Nebuad lawsuit alleges that Nebuad used hardware to actually examine pretty much everything that certain internet users accessed.  (As in what the federal government's snooping program is alleged to have done.)  As alleged in the complaint, Nebuad did this by "plac[ing] a hardware interception device directly into the data hub of the ISP."  The Complaint alleges a variety of statutory violations ranging from the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to the Communications Privacy Act to those based on state law.  Following implementation of the program, Nebuad came under heavy fire, and I think its CEO resigned.  I would guess someone will end up paying out $$ here - to the extent defendants are solvent. 

A few other comments:

1. There are no real recognized players named as defendants.  Again, that's what makes this lawsuit less interesting.  It's not really testing any cutting edge practices that recognized blue chip companies engage in.  (That is, unless the subpoenas reveal relationships that are not described in the complaint.)
   
   
2. It's cool to see the Concurring Opinions post by Paul Ohm in the complaint.  I have posted in the past about how in this day and age you are litigating against the blogosphere.  This is sort of related.  Your business practices will be scrutinized by the blogosphere, and blogs played a part in raising a hue and cry around this issue in general.  Here's the post in question (it more generally describes Paul's scholarship around ISPs/privacy).
   
   
3. The complaint is clean - another one by Kamberedelson (described as the "go to" internet class action firm).

At first glance, the complaint contains some solid allegations (that said, complaints are what they are). 

Again, this one is not going to test the bounds of practices that are viewed as cutting edge but which have gained traction in the market in the last couple of years.  If the allegations are even close to the truth, liability will be tough to contest (some sort of liability, maybe not on all of the statutory causes of action, but someone will be liable for something).