Allison v. PHH Mortgage
Summary
Ethan Allison brought a putative class action alleging that PHH Mortgage used website tracking devices to disclose users’ personal and financial information to third parties without their knowledge or consent. The amended order granted PHH’s motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part, with leave to amend; the excerpt does not identify the affected claims or provide claim-specific holdings.
Litigation Status
Procedural Posture
Amended order on the defendant’s motion to dismiss a putative class action for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Reported Holding
The court granted PHH’s motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part, with leave to amend. The excerpt does not identify which claims were dismissed or survived.
What the Court Decided
The court resolved PHH’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion by granting it in part and denying it in part, with leave to amend.
What the Court Did Not Decide
The court accepted the complaint’s allegations as true for purposes of the motion; the excerpt does not establish factual findings concerning the alleged tracking or disclose claim-specific reasoning.
Significance
Generally viewed as plaintiff-favorable. Characterizations of significance describe how the matter has generally been discussed in tracked public sources; individual holdings are often narrow, procedural, or fact-specific, and this page does not state or imply broader holdings than the sources support.
What This Page Does and Does Not Say
This page reports what our tracked public sources say about this matter — including, where identified, the procedural posture (for example, a ruling on a motion to dismiss is not a final merits decision). It does not report legal conclusions beyond those sources, does not predict outcomes, and does not constitute legal advice.
Technologies at Issue
- website_tracking
- third-party_tracking
- session_replay_style_tracking
- form_activity_tracking
- Google_tracking
- HotJar
- Microsoft_tracking
- Yahoo_tracking
- Blend/Sentry.io
- Website trackers
- Cookies
- Browser fingerprinting
- Form-activity tracking
- Code-based website tracking devices
- Browser fingerprints
- Tracking of loan application events
- Tracking of scrolling and button clicks
Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: Google, HotJar, Microsoft, Yahoo, Blend/Sentry.io, Facebook.
Statutes Invoked
- California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA); California Penal Code §502 (Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act); California Penal Code §§631, 632 (CIPA); 18 U.S.C. §2511 (Wiretap Act); references to FTC Act and Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.
- Cal. Penal Code §§ 502, 631(a), 632(a); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150; UCL; 18 U.S.C. § 2511
Claims Asserted
- negligence
- negligence per se
- Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (CDAFA) (Cal. Penal Code §502)
- Unfair Competition Law (UCL)
- California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA)
- breach of express contract
- breach of implied contract
- unjust enrichment
- declaratory judgment
- breach of confidence
- California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) (Cal. Penal Code §§631, 632)
- Electronic Communications Privacy Act / Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. §2511)
- Negligence
- Negligence per se
- CDAFA
- UCL
- CCPA
- Express and implied contract
- Unjust enrichment
- Declaratory judgment
- Breach of confidence
- CIPA
- Federal Wiretap Act
- Eleven unspecified claims under federal and state law concerning alleged website tracking and disclosure of personal and financial information
What This Matter May Mean for Website Operators
California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) is an all-party consent statute with a private right of action. Consent standard and private enforceability are the structural features that most shape where website tracking claims are filed and how they are valued.
For operators using similar technologies, the recurring factual questions in matters like this one are when session recording begins relative to consent and whether input masking covers every field; what page URLs and query strings analytics tools share with third parties. Our scanner tests these behaviors empirically.
Because this matter is pending, anything reported here is procedural — allegations and interim rulings, not final determinations.
Detection of a similar technology on a website is an informational risk indicator, not a legal conclusion, and nothing in this section is legal advice.
Related Intelligence
Sources
- Amended Order Granting in Part Motion to Dismiss
- AMENDED ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS
- Allison v. PHH Mortgage, No. 3:2025cv05323 - Document 50 (N.D. Cal. 2026)
About This Page
Publisher: Inspection-Ready Institute, Inc. (DBA Crandall Consulting), an independent website compliance and risk consultancy. We are not a law firm and nothing on this page is legal advice.
How this content is produced: Facts are extracted from publicly available sources — court and government materials, recognized legal press, professional analysis, and industry reports — by our litigation intelligence engine, stored with full source provenance, and rendered from the database. Risk guidelines are computed by a deterministic formula, never by an AI model directly. See the full methodology.
Limitations: Counts labeled "Tracked" reflect matters identified in our source set and are not official court statistics. We report what courts decided and did not decide; we do not predict outcomes.
Corrections: If you believe anything on this page is inaccurate, contact us via the contact page and we will review the underlying sources promptly.
Is Your Website Creating Hidden Tracking Risk?
Scan your site for third-party tracking and potential wiretap exposure. Free, no account required.
Scan My Website