Barrales et al v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC
Summary
Plaintiffs filed a putative class action alleging that Reckitt's Enfamil, Durex, and K-Y websites placed third-party tracking cookies and transmitted browsing information despite their selection of the 'Disable All' option. They asserted California privacy, CIPA, fraud, and unjust-enrichment claims. The court granted in part and denied in part Reckitt's motion to dismiss, with leave to amend, but the excerpt does not disclose the claim-specific dispositions.
Litigation Status
Procedural Posture
Putative class action at the motion-to-dismiss stage. Reckitt sought dismissal under Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6), and requested that portions of the complaint be stricken under Rule 12(f).
Reported Holding
The court granted in part and denied in part Reckitt's motion to dismiss, with leave to amend. The excerpt does not identify which claims or grounds received each disposition.
What the Court Decided
The court announced a partial grant and partial denial of the motion to dismiss, with leave to amend.
What the Court Did Not Decide
The excerpt does not provide claim-specific rulings or the court's substantive reasoning and does not establish liability.
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
- third-party cookies
- tracking/analytics technologies (e.g., Google Analytics, DoubleClick)
- ad/retargeting/tracking domains (e.g., adsrvr.org, rlcdn.com)
- social-media/platform trackers (e.g., Meta, TikTok, Snap)
- tracking technologies
- website cookie consent banners
- third-party analytics/ad platforms
- Third-party cookies
- Website browsing tracking
- Cookie consent banners
- DoubleClick
- Google Analytics
- YouTube
- Evergage
Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: Meta Platforms, Inc., Google LLC (DoubleClick, Google Analytics, YouTube), ByteDance Ltd. (TikTok), LiveRamp Holdings, Inc. (rlcdn.com), Salesforce, Inc. (Evergage), The Trade Desk, Inc. (adsrvr.org), Snap Inc., Google LLC, ByteDance Ltd., LiveRamp Holdings, Inc., Salesforce, Inc., The Trade Desk, Inc., Meta Platforms, Inc. (Facebook), Snap Inc. (Snapchat).
Statutes Invoked
- Cal. Penal Code § 631; Cal. Penal Code § 638.51; 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)
- Cal. Penal Code § 631; Cal. Penal Code § 638.51; Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 340(a); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 338(d); 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) (CAFA)
- California Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Penal Code §§ 631 and 638.51
Claims Asserted
- Invasion of Privacy (common law)
- Intrusion Upon Seclusion (common law)
- California Invasion of Privacy Act (Cal. Penal Code § 631)
- Pen Register/Trap and Trace allegation (Cal. Penal Code § 638.51)
- Common Law Fraud/Deceit/Misrepresentation
- Unjust Enrichment
- Use of a Pen Register / Cal. Penal Code § 638.51
- Common Law Fraud / Deceit / Misrepresentation
- Invasion of privacy
- Intrusion upon seclusion
- Alleged wiretapping under CIPA, Cal. Penal Code § 631
- Alleged use of a pen register under CIPA, Cal. Penal Code § 638.51
- Common law fraud, deceit, and/or misrepresentation
- Unjust enrichment
What This Matter May Mean for Website Operators
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; 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
- Barrales et al v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC, 5:2025cv10643 - Document 40 (N.D. Cal. 2026)
- Barrales v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, with Leave to Amend
- Barrales et al v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC, Document 40 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 31, 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