{"id":3267,"date":"2026-09-23T21:07:03","date_gmt":"2026-09-24T01:07:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=3267"},"modified":"2026-09-23T21:07:04","modified_gmt":"2026-09-24T01:07:04","slug":"california-federal-court-denies-class-certification-in-adtech-case-due-to-lack-of-article-iii-standing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2026\/09\/23\/california-federal-court-denies-class-certification-in-adtech-case-due-to-lack-of-article-iii-standing\/","title":{"rendered":"California Federal Court Denies Class Certification In Adtech Case Due To Lack Of Article III Standing"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Justin R. Donoho, and Hayley Ryan<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Duane Morris Takeaways:<\/strong>\u00a0 On September 21, 2026, in Smith, et al. v. Rack Room Shoes, Inc., No. 24-CV-6709 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2026), Judge Rita F. Lin of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California\u00a0denied <\/a>class certification in a case brought by consumers against an online shoe store company alleging that the company\u2019s use of website advertising technology (\u201cadtech\u201d) violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act (\u201cCIPA\u201d) and Electronic Communications Privacy Act (\u201cECPA\u201d).\u00a0 The ruling is significant as it shows that before any class can be certified in the hundreds of adtech class actions filed in federal courts across the nation alleging that adtech violates privacy laws, plaintiffs not only bear the burden to establish, by the preponderance of the evidence, that they have suffered an Article III injury, but also cannot meet this burden by showing merely that they visited the defendant\u2019s website at a time when adtech was installed on the website.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Background<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This case is one of a legion of class actions that plaintiffs have filed nationwide alleging that third-party technology captured plaintiffs\u2019 information and used it to facilitate targeted advertising. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This software, often called advertising technologies or \u201cadtech,\u201d is a common feature of millions of consumer products and websites in operation today.  In adtech class actions, the key issue is often a claim brought under a the CIPA, the ECPA, or a variety of other statutes providing for statutory damages regardless of whether any actual injury occurred, because plaintiffs often seek millions (and sometimes even billions) of dollars, even from midsize companies, on the theory that hundreds of thousands of consumers or website visitors, times $5,000 per claimant in statutory damages under the CIPA and $10,000 per claimant in statutory damages under the ECPA, for example, equals a huge amount of damages.  Plaintiffs have filed the bulk of these types of lawsuits to date against healthcare providers, but they have filed suits against companies that span nearly every industry including retailers, consumer products, universities, and the adtech companies themselves.  Several of these cases have resulted in multimillion-dollar settlements, several have been dismissed, and the vast majority remain undecided. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Smith,<\/em> the plaintiffs brought suit against Rack Room Shoes, Inc., an online shoe store company, alleging that in 2024, during their online web visits to purchase shoes from the company, the company had embedded on its website adtech supplied by Meta and other adtech companies that covertly intercepted the plaintiffs\u2019 identities and interactions with the website, including the items the plaintiffs viewed, added to the their cart, and purchased, in alleged violation of the CIPA and the ECPA. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The company answered the complaint, and the parties engaged in discovery, including the depositions of the plaintiffs and plaintiffs\u2019 subpoenas to the adtech companies. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Based on this discovery, the record reflected that in 2021 to 2023, the Meta pixel installed on the company\u2019s website captured activities from devices and browsers that were signed into the plaintiffs\u2019 accounts.  However, the plaintiffs provided no evidence that these 2021-2023 incidents involved their own web activities as opposed to activities of their family members using the same devices and browsers, that Meta captured any activity from the plaintiffs\u2019 devices and browsers during their own sole 2024 visits, or that the other adtech installed on the company\u2019s website captured any activities at all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The plaintiffs moved for class certification, arguing that they had standing to bring their claims and that they satisfied Rule 23.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court\u2019s Decision<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court disagreed that the plaintiffs established standing and denied class certification on that basis without addressing or needing to address any of the parties\u2019 arguments under Rule 23.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In their motion for class certification, the plaintiffs proffered two theories of injury in support of their argument that they had standing to bring their claims: one based on the actual interception of their information, and one based on the attempt to intercept their information.  (Slip Op. at 5.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the plaintiffs\u2019 interception injury theory, the Court found no evidence that the Meta pixel embedded on the company\u2019s website collected any data from the plaintiffs\u2019 2024 website visits, and no evidence that the activity that was recorded by Meta 2021-2023 was the plaintiffs\u2019 own browsing activity.  Further, the Court rejected the plaintiffs\u2019 argument that the company\u2019s general use of the Meta pixel during 2024 was circumstantial evidence of actual tracking.  As the Court explained, citing the company\u2019s expert testimony, the ability of adtech to collect and transmit data in a manner that can be linked to the website user \u201cis impacted by many factors, including the browser being used, whether the browser and device are signed in to a social media account, and what cookie blocking features are enabled.\u201d  (Id. <\/em>at 7.)  In sum, the Court found that plaintiffs failed to present evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that any adtech installed on the company\u2019s website collected any data attributable to the plaintiffs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the plaintiffs\u2019 attempt injury theory, the Court found that the mere presence of active adtech on a company\u2019s website does not bear the requisite close relationship to the type of harm traditionally at issue in intrusion upon seclusion and which type of harm the plaintiffs argued was the historical analog to the type of injury they suffered and thus sufficient to confer Article III standing.  On this point, the Court\u2019s opinion turned on its finding that the plaintiffs presented no evidence that the adtech on the company\u2019s website attempted to collect any \u201cembarrassing, invasive, or otherwise private information.\u201d  (Id. <\/em>at 8.)  Further the Court found that the plaintiffs had no reasonable expectation of privacy in their web-browsing data due to the company\u2019s privacy policy because the plaintiffs did not read it and the policy also did not create an expectation of privacy from adtech transmissions, and that even if plaintiffs had had a reasonable expectation of privacy, the plaintiffs failed to show that the mere presence of adtech was highly offensive.  (Id. <\/em>at 9.)  In short, the Court held that \u201c[t]he mere presence of active tracking software … on a website involving objectively non-sensitive information\u201d does not bear a close relationship to the type of harm traditionally at issue in intrusion upon seclusion and, therefore, was insufficient to confer Article III standing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Implications For Companies<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Smith <\/em>provides powerful precedent for any company opposing adtech class action claims where plaintiffs lack evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that any adtech installed on the company\u2019s website actually collected any data attributable to the plaintiffs, by showing that any number of issues could have prevented such collection, such as the browser being used, whether the browser and device are signed in to a social media account, and what cookie blocking features are enabled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of course, Smith <\/em>is just one tool in a defendant\u2019s kit for defeating class certification in adtech cases.  Another is that even when named plaintiffs can establish that adtech collected data attributable to themselves (unlike in Smith<\/em>), the same factors identified in Smith <\/em>\u2014 browser type, social media account login status, cookie blocking features \u2014 are individualized issues that prevent named plaintiffs from establishing the defendant\u2019s liability to alleged class members under Rule 23, as we blogged about here<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Justin R. Donoho, and Hayley Ryan Duane Morris Takeaways:\u00a0 On September 21, 2026, in Smith, et al. v. Rack Room Shoes, Inc., No. 24-CV-6709 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2026), Judge Rita F. Lin of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California\u00a0denied class certification in a case brought … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “California Federal Court Denies Class Certification In Adtech Case Due To Lack Of Article III Standing”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":575,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[59],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[7,122,145],"class_list":["post-3267","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-privacy-class-actions"],"authors":[{"term_id":7,"user_id":575,"is_guest":0,"slug":"gmaatman","display_name":"Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2022\/09\/maatmangerald-100x100.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Maatman Jr.","first_name":"Gerald L.","job_title":"","user_url":"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/geraldmaatman.html","description":"Read Gerald's bio.<\/a>"},{"term_id":122,"user_id":686,"is_guest":0,"slug":"jrdonoho","display_name":"Justin Donoho","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2025\/02\/donohojustin-1-100x100.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Donoho","first_name":"Justin","job_title":"","user_url":"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/justindonoho.html","description":"Read Justin's Bio<\/a>"},{"term_id":145,"user_id":740,"is_guest":0,"slug":"hhryan","display_name":"Hayley Ryan","avatar_url":{"url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2025\/09\/ryanhayley.jpg","url2x":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2025\/09\/ryanhayley.jpg"},"author_category":"1","last_name":"Ryan","first_name":"Hayley","job_title":"","user_url":"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/hayleyryan.html","description":"Read Hayley's bio.<\/a>"}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3267","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/575"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3267"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3267\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3272,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3267\/revisions\/3272"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3267"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3267"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3267"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=3267"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}