Benjamin Paul de Ayora, et al. v. Inspire Brands, Inc., et al.
Summary
This June 8, 2026 district-court order on defendants' motion to dismiss (N.D. Cal.) grants in part and denies in part the motion: the court allowed many claims to proceed at the pleading stage (including fraud, unjust enrichment, common-law privacy, and a CIPA pen-register claim), dismissed certain CIPA claims as time-barred (some with prejudice), and dismissed the wiretapping claim with leave to amend. Plaintiffs were given until July 10, 2026 to file any amended complaint.
Litigation Status
Procedural Posture
Order on defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 61). The court struck a duplicate filing (Dkt. 57), designated Dkt. 54 as the operative SAC, granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, dismissed certain CIPA claims with and without prejudice, dismissed the wiretapping claim with leave to amend, sustained the pen-register claim, and set a deadline of July 10, 2026 for plaintiffs to file any amended complaint.
Reported Holding
The court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The court found plaintiffs have standing to sue Inspire at the pleading stage; plaintiffs meet Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading requirements; plaintiffs' fraud and unjust-enrichment claims survive dismissal; several common-law privacy claims survive; certain CIPA claims are time-barred and dismissed (some with prejudice); the wiretapping claim was dismissed with leave to amend; the pen-register claim under CIPA survives dismissal.
What the Court Decided
The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss in substantial part, concluding plaintiffs have standing to sue Inspire for the alleged website tracking practices, that the SAC satisfies Rule 9(b), and that plaintiffs adequately pleaded fraud, unjust enrichment, common-law privacy claims, and a CIPA pen-register claim. The court dismissed Ayora's CIPA claims against Baskin Robbins, Dunkin', and Jimmy John's with prejudice, dismissed Nino's CIPA claims against Arby's without prejudice, and dismissed the wiretapping claim with leave to amend. The court struck a duplicate filing and designated dkt. 54 as the operative SAC, and gave plaintiffs until July 10, 2026 to file an amended complaint.
What the Court Did Not Decide
The court did not resolve the merits of the claims beyond the pleading-stage analysis (it left factual determinations and defenses for later proceedings such as summary judgment or trial). The court did not finally resolve all timeliness issues for every defendant where factual development may affect timeliness, and it dismissed some claims with leave to amend rather than on the merits.
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
- cookies
- third-party cookies
- trackers
- cookie banners
- targeted advertising
Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: Inspire Brands, Inc., Arby's Restaurant Group, Inc., Jimmy John's Franchisor SPV, LLC, Sonic Industries Services, LLC, Dunkin' Brands, Inc., Baskin Robbins.
Statutes Invoked
Claims Asserted
- common-law privacy
- fraud
- unjust enrichment
- California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) - wiretapping claim
- California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) - pen register claim
- wiretapping (CIPA)
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.
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
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