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).

The lawsuit asserted claims against PetMed Express, an online veterinary pharmacy operating 1800petmeds.com. Plaintiffs Kristin Cobbs and Lynne Kawaminami alleged that PetMed used third-party website technologies that disclosed information concerning their pets’ medical conditions and perscription purchases. The plaintiffs asserted wiretap claims under the federal Wiretap Act (ECPA) and the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA).  Based on the allegations in the complaint, the court previously held that the plaintiffs had standing to bring these claims.

Discovery revealed facts that, in the court’s view, showed that the plaintiffs “care little” about their claimed privacy interest in their pets’ medical conditions and prescription purchases:

• Kawaminami joined a public social media group entitled “I have a cat with kidney disease,” where she discussed her cat’s condition and treatment and posted photos relating to that treatment;
• Kawaminami continued shopping on PetMed’s website “with the same browser settings that led to the initial ‘harm,’ whilst prosecuting the lawsuit”;
• Cobbs testified that she “does not have any concern with people knowing that Kona,” her dog, “is on the preventative Simparica Trio.”
• When asked about her concern regarding disclosure of her pet’s information, Cobbs admitted that it was simply “the violation itself.”

Based on the record developed during discovery, the court concluded that neither plaintiff established the type of concrete privacy injury required for Article III standing.  Instead, the plaintiffs demonstrated an “utter disregard” for the information being shared publicly.  Having found that the case amounted to nothing more than “a bare statutory violation,” the court denied class certification and dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

This decision illustrates how a plaintiff’s own testimony and conduct can become powerful evidence defeating standing in privacy litigation.