Austin Roth, Brandon Rose, and Alexander Fonseca v. Woot.com LLC (as a wholly owned subsidiary of Amazon.com Services LLC)

Published by Crandall Consulting · Informational litigation intelligence · Last substantive update: August 23, 2026

Docket / citation: 2:26-cv-01460

Summary

This is a class action complaint filed April 29, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. Plaintiffs allege Woot.com deployed third‑party tracking tools (notably Meta Pixel and cookies) that captured and transmitted users’ browsing and video-purchase data, and assert claims under the VPPA, the Wiretap Act, state privacy statutes (including California and Florida laws), common‑law intrusion, and related consumer statutes. Plaintiffs seek class certification, injunctive relief, statutory and compensatory damages, restitution, and attorneys’ fees.

Litigation Status

Status, direction, and weight describe how tracked public sources characterize this matter as of our last review — they are informational classifications, not legal assessments.

Procedural Posture

Class action complaint filed (Document 1) alleging violations of the VPPA, the federal Wiretap Act, related state statutes, and common-law/privacy claims; plaintiffs seek class certification, injunctive and declaratory relief, statutory damages, restitution/disgorgement, and attorneys' fees; jury demand made.

Significance

Neutral / mixed significance. 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

• Meta/Facebook Pixel (Meta Pixel)
• cookies (including Facebook cookies such as c_user)
• HTTP headers/GET/POST request parameters
• tracking pixels and similar third-party tracking tools

Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: Meta Platforms, Inc. (formerly Facebook).

Statutes Invoked

• 18 U.S.C. § 2710 (VPPA); 18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq. (Wiretap Act); Cal. Penal Code § 631; Cal. Penal Code § 638.51; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200; Cal. Const. Art. I, §1; Fla. Stat. § 934.01 et seq. — one-party consent · private right of action

Claims Asserted

Claims identified in tracked public sources; pleadings may include additional or amended claims.

• Video Privacy Protection Act (18 U.S.C. § 2710)
• Federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq.)
• Common-law intrusion upon seclusion (invasion of privacy)
• California Penal Code § 631 (CIPA)
• California Penal Code § 638.51 (pen register / trap & trace)
• California Business & Professions Code § 17200 (UCL)
• California Constitution, Art. I, §1 (privacy)
• Florida Security of Communications Act (Fla. Stat. § 934.01 et seq.)
• Unjust Enrichment

What This Matter May Mean for Website Operators

Federal Wiretap Act (ECPA Title I) is a one-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 whether advertising pixels transmit page URLs or hashed form data before a consent choice. 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

• CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT (Woot) - Case 2:26-cv-01460 Document 1 — Courthouse News Service (PDF of complaint) · Tier A (Primary authority) · 2026-04-29

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.