Recently, a California federal judge dismissed—for the second time—a suit asserting that Sojern, Inc., a travel marketing platform, violated the Federal Wiretap Act and California privacy laws by allegedly deploying “tracking technology” on two hotel websites.  Crano v. Sojern, Inc., 2026 WL 1670136 (N.D. Cal. June 9, 2026).

Plaintiff Suellen Crano asserted on behalf of a putative class that Sojern installed technology on hotel websites that collected data about users’ interactions with the websites, including the user’s “identifying numbers” (e.g., cookie IDs, mobile advertising IDs, IP address, device type, and email address), hotel name/location, hotel room price, number of rooms, and check-in and check-out dates.  Plaintiff brought claims under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (“ECPA”), the California Unfair Competition Law, as well as common law claims for intrusion upon seclusion and unjust enrichment.

The Court previously dismissed Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, holding that Plaintiff had not alleged an interception of communications “in transit” under CIPA and that Plaintiff’s ECPA claim was barred by the party exception.  Plaintiff subsequently filed her Second Amended Complaint, adding allegations about Sojern’s data collection and new claims for intrusion upon seclusion and violation of CIPA § 632.

In dismissing Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, the Court held that Plaintiff failed to allege a concrete injury for purposes of Article III standing.  Relying on the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Popa v. Microsoft Corp., 153 F.4th 784 (9th Cir. 2025), the Court rejected Plaintiff’s theories of standing based on intangible privacy injury.  The Court found that Plaintiff did not allege collection of “personal” information analogous to the “highly offensive” interferences or disclosures actionable at common law.  The Court further found that Plaintiff’s “allegations as to how Sojern’s technology theoretically works,” failed to establish an “actual injury to herself.”

The Court likewise rejected Plaintiff’s theory of tangible economic injury premised on unjust enrichment.  Distinguishing the Ninth Circuit’s decision in In re Facebook, Inc. Internet Tracking Litigation, 956 F.3d 589 (9th Cir. 2020), the Court explained that the unjust enrichment holding there turned on the “sensitive” and “personal” nature of the information collected and sold.  Plaintiff, however, failed to allege the collection of information in which she had a privacy interest.

The decision reinforces the growing body of post-Popa authority within the Ninth Circuit requiring plaintiffs to allege more than the collection of technical identifiers and non-sensitive data, and to tie any alleged harm to themselves, rather than to the defendant’s technology in the abstract, to establish Article III standing.