Capture of personal or private information is a prerequisite to Article III standing in wiretapping cases brought under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”).  As we reported on here, when a plaintiff fails to plead the capture of any such information, courts have dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint for lack of standing.  A Utah federal court recently confirmed that the “timestamp” of a plaintiff’s “last visit to a website” is “not” among the personal or private information that creates “a cognizable harm” for purposes of Article III standing.  See Cordero v. Sportsman’s Warehouse, Inc., No. 2:24-CV-575-DAK-CMR, 2025 WL 1114196 (D. Utah Apr. 15, 2025).

This lawsuit arose from Utah-based Sportsman’s Warehouse’s purported use of AddShoppers’ software-based service on its website.  Plaintiff Miguel Cordero, a California resident, asserted that Addshoppers tracks users’ browsing activity across multiple websites, including the Sportsman’s website, to create profiles on individuals, and then uses those profiles to send targeted advertisements.  Cordero asserted claims under CIPA: that Sportsman allegedly aided and abetted wiretapping by AddShoppers in violation of CIPA section 631 and that AddShoppers’ technology is a “trap and trace device” that Sportsman is allegedly liable for using in violation of CIPA section 638.51.  

The Court granted Sportsman’s motion to dismiss for lack of Article III standing because plaintiff “makes no claims as to what personal information” was collected during his visit to Sportsman’s website.  “[T]he only information Cordero alleges was captured is a time stamp stating ‘last visit: 2024-03-07T16:47:18, 672000+00:00.’’’  Plaintiff “did not create an account or make a purchase” and “did not provide Defendants with his name, address, email, or payment card information.”  All that was allegedly captured was the timestamp, which the Court concluded was not “personal information” because it “does not rise to the standard of being able to identify or describe Cordero.”  In dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint, the Court joined the “numerous courts” that have dismissed website wiretapping complaints for failure to plead the collection of personal information.