Bianca Johnston v. Capital One Financial Corp.

Published by Crandall Consulting · Informational litigation intelligence · Last substantive update: October 9, 2026

Docket / citation: CV 26-00457-MWF(PVCx) · Filed: 2026-05-07

Summary

Crandall Consulting reports a pending federal lawsuit involving alleged website tracking, including a TikTok pixel, and claims under California Penal Code §§631(a) and 638.51. The court vacated a scheduled hearing and requested additional briefing on Article III standing because both claims concern the same allegedly collected data. The page reports no merits ruling or final standing determination.

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

Defendant moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint (Docket No. 13); Plaintiff opposed (Docket No. 16), and Defendant replied (Docket No. 18). After reviewing the briefing, the court vacated the hearing and requested additional briefing on Article III standing.

Reported Holding

According to the page, the court identified a preliminary Article III standing question concerning claims under §631(a) and §638.51 based on the same allegedly collected website-tracking data, including a TikTok pixel. It required additional briefing before resolving the motion to dismiss.

What the Court Decided

The court vacated the May 11, 2026 hearing, ordered Defendant to show cause why Plaintiff has Article III standing for the §631(a) claim but not the alternative §638.51 claim, and set a May 22, 2026 response deadline and June 5, 2026 optional reply deadline. It took the motion to dismiss under submission pending resolution of the jurisdictional issue.

What the Court Did Not Decide

The court did not decide the merits of the motion to dismiss, determine whether either statutory claim should be dismissed on the merits, or make a final standing determination.

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

• TikTok pixel
• website tracking tools
• Website tracking tools

Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: TikTok.

Statutes Invoked

• California Penal Code §631(a); California Penal Code §638.51

Claims Asserted

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

• California Penal Code §631(a)
• California Penal Code §638.51 (pen-register claim)

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. 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

• Civil Minutes — Order to Show Cause re: Jurisdiction (Bianca Johnston v. Capital One) — MINUTE ORDER (in chambers) — U.S. District Court, Central District of California (hosted on Justia) · Tier B (Authoritative secondary) · 2026-05-07
• Bianca Johnston v. Capital One Financial Corp. — Crandall Consulting · Tier D (Industry data) · 2026-08-23

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.