In Shah v. Politico LLC, 5:25-cv-05213 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2026), the Court addressed plaintiffs’ attempts to invoke equitable tolling, delayed discovery, and fraudulent concealment to save untimely claims under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”).  

Defendant Politico LLC (“Politico”) had filed a motion to dismiss allegations…

Continue Reading N.D. Cal. Rejects Non-Specific Tolling Arguments in Shah v. Politico LLC

In Smith v. Rack Room Shoes, Inc., No. 24-cv-06709-RFL (N.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2026), Plaintiffs sought class certification on claims under the California Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Penal Code §§ 631 and 632, and the Federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a).  Plaintiffs asserted that Defendant Rack Room, an online shoe retailer, helped third-party pixel-tracking services intercept private communications containing personally identifiable information.  The Court found that Plaintiffs had no Article III standing, rejecting harm theories based on both actual and attempted interception of private information, and dismissed those claims without prejudice while denying class certification.

Continue Reading Pixel Tracking Technologies and Article III Standing: Lessons from the Rack Room Shoes Decision

On September 30, Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 690, a significant new law aimed at curbing the wave of lawsuits and demand letters asserting “pen register” claims under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”).  The legislation eliminates the private right of action for pen register and trap-and-trace claims arising…

Continue Reading California Governor Signs SB 690, Eliminating Private Website-Based CIPA Pen Register Claims and Calling for Broader CIPA Reform

A recent Ninth Circuit decision, Rushing v. Williams-Sonoma, Inc., 2026 WL 2731408 (9th Cir. Sept. 16, 2026), confirms that defendants seeking to compel arbitration based on internet contracts must do more than submit exemplar screenshots of webpages containing arbitration-related disclosures.  Rather, to meet their evidentiary burden, defendants must tie that visual evidence to the specific users at issue—showing that the webpages actually appeared as depicted in the exemplars at the time those users accessed them.

In Rushing, the plaintiffs brought a putative class action alleging false advertising related to the thread count of defendants’ bedding products.  After the district court certified a class of California consumers, the defendants moved to compel arbitration of claims by class members who had purportedly agreed to defendants’ arbitration agreement.  In support, defendants submitted declarations and accompanying exemplar screenshots of checkout and account sign-up processes on their webpages that contained language disclosing that taking some action on the page constituted agreement to defendants’ terms and conditions, which included an arbitration agreement.

Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Emphasizes Importance of Connecting Visual Proof to Class Members for Motions to Compel Arbitration

The Sixth Circuit’s recent en banc decision in Clippinger v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co., 173 F.4th 817 (6th Cir. 2026), continues to shape class action litigation involving breach-of-contract claims. In Nichols v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 2026 WL 2581605 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 1, 2026), the Southern District of Ohio denied class certification in a putative class action challenging the method State Farm used to calculate “actual cash value” payments for totaled vehicles.

Continue Reading Ohio Federal Court Denies Class Certification in Contract Dispute, Illustrating Strategies For Defeating Similar Claims

On August 28, 2026, the California Legislature passed SB 690, a significant bill aimed at curbing the flood of demand letters and lawsuits asserting “pen register” claims under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”). If enacted, the bill would eliminate the private right of action for website-based pen register claims and could affect many pending lawsuits filed since January 1, 2025.

Continue Reading California Legislature Passes CIPA Pen Register Reform Bill and Sends It to Governor

The Ninth Circuit recently confirmed that when a putative class alleges that a marketing representation is deceptive because it is inconsistent with industry standards, plaintiffs must offer common, class-wide proof of deception.  See Rusoff v. The Happy Group, Inc., No. 24-7706 (9th Cir. Aug. 17, 2026).

In Rusoff…

Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Hatches New Opinion Confirming False Advertising Plaintiffs Must Offer Common Proof of Deception

Does class certification strip a defendant of its right to compel arbitration against unnamed class members?  The Third Circuit recently held that it does not, unless the party seeking arbitration has waived that right by expressly or impliedly demonstrating an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of it.  Salvatora v. XTO Energy, Inc., ___ F.4th ___, *3 (3d Cir. 2026).  What, then, constitutes such a demonstration?

Continue Reading Preserving the Right to Arbitrate Against Unnamed Class Members

In a recent decision challenging Google’s Gemini AI features, a California federal court held that allegations concerning an AI tool’s capabilities, without facts showing actual access or use of plaintiffs’ data, were insufficient to demonstrate the “concrete” harm required for Article III standing.  Thele v. Google LLC, 2026 WL…

Continue Reading Gemini Tracking Allegations Fall Short of Article III Standing

In a decision highlighting the importance of testing standing through discovery, a Florida federal court dismissed privacy claims at the class-certification stage after concluding that neither named plaintiff could establish Article III standing.  Although the plaintiffs’ allegations survived a motion to dismiss, discovery later exposed their “utter disregard” for the allegedly private information at issue, leaving them with nothing more than “a bare statutory violation.”  Cobbs v. PetMed Express, Inc., 2026 WL 2234135 (S.D. Fla. July 31, 2026).

Continue Reading Letting the Cat Out of the Bag: Named Plaintiffs’ Own Conduct Defeats Privacy Claims