Federal Judge Sends Wiretap Dispute Back to Pennsylvania State Court

A Pennsylvania federal judge remanded wiretap claims, affirming state—not federal—jurisdiction.

A federal court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently remanded a wiretap dispute—docket No. 23-4588—back to state court, ruling that the claims did not warrant federal jurisdiction. This reinforces the divide between state and federal courts for privacy litigation under Pennsylvania’s Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act.

• Earlier this year in Cordero v. Cigna, No. 23-cv-1487 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 2026), the court dismissed wiretap claims against Cigna, holding user consent via Terms of Use was valid. Courts noted, "website operators can wield consent arguments based on Terms of Use to defeat federal and state-law privacy claims." (Inside Class Actions)
• The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Caban, 32 EAP 2023 (Nov. 2025), confirmed high public official immunity shields district attorneys from wiretap liability when acting in official capacity, a critical defense for government-related litigation.
• Forum selection remains a key tactic: claims dismissed or remanded often turn on nuanced readings of state and federal authority. Counsel must monitor these evolving precedents to optimize defense or pursuit of privacy claims in Pennsylvania.

The recent wave of remandings and dismissals signals to legal teams that forum choice, valid consent, and official immunity require close review in privacy and wiretap litigation planning across the state.

Yes, but: Jurisdictional remands do not resolve the merits—wiretap claims may still proceed in state court, now governed by state law.

What's next: Attorneys expect more forum challenges as federal and state courts clarify the reach of the Pennsylvania Wiretap Act.