Bradshaw et al v. Lowe's Companies, Inc.

Published by Crandall Consulting · Informational litigation intelligence · Last substantive update: October 8, 2026

Docket / citation: 25cv0742 DMS (MMP) · Filed: 2025-03-31

Summary

The court dismissed Lowe’s Companies for lack of personal jurisdiction and the case for insufficiently alleged concrete injury. It rejected the remaining dismissal arguments and allowed amendment. ([cases.justia.com](https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/casdce/3%3A2025cv00742/809503/39/0.pdf))

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

Motion to dismiss the first amended complaint; amendment permitted by November 19, 2025. ([cases.justia.com](https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/casdce/3%3A2025cv00742/809503/39/0.pdf))

Reported Holding

Dismissal rested on personal jurisdiction and Article III standing, with leave to amend. ([cases.justia.com](https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/casdce/3%3A2025cv00742/809503/39/0.pdf))

What the Court Decided

The court rejected defendants’ statutory-scope, consent, scienter, statutory-standing, and collective-pleading arguments. ([cases.justia.com](https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/casdce/3%3A2025cv00742/809503/39/0.pdf))

What the Court Did Not Decide

The order did not establish final liability or resolve the disputed scienter standard. ([cases.justia.com](https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/casdce/3%3A2025cv00742/809503/39/0.pdf))

Significance

Generally viewed as defense-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

• TikTok Pixel
• Microsoft (Bing) tracking
• web tracking pixels / browser tracking
• detailed requested page URLs / browsing history collection
• Microsoft Bing trackers
• Microsoft Bat Bing Tracker

Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: TikTok, Microsoft (Bing), Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, Microsoft.

Statutes Invoked

• California Invasion of Privacy Act § 638.51
• California Invasion of Privacy Act, California Penal Code §§ 638.50(b), 638.51
• California Invasion of Privacy Act, California Penal Code §§ 638.50–638.51

Claims Asserted

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

• California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) claim — Cal. Penal Code § 638.51
• Intrusion upon seclusion (privacy tort)
• Unjust enrichment / disgorgement
• Article III standing (constitutional standing challenge)
• CIPA § 638.51 website-tracking claim
• Intrusion upon seclusion as an analogue for standing injury
• Alleged economic injury through data misappropriation and unjust enrichment
• CIPA § 638.51(a): alleged unauthorized pen-register use

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.

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

• ORDER Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss — Bradshaw et al v. Lowe's Companies, Inc. — Justia Dockets & Filings · Tier A (Primary authority) · 2026-08-26
• Bradshaw et al v. Lowe's Companies, Inc., 3:2025cv00742 - Document 58 (S.D. Cal. 2026) — Justia · Tier A (Primary authority) · 2026-08-26
• Bradshaw et al. v. Lowe's Companies, Inc.: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss — Justia · Tier A (Primary authority) · 2025-11-12

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.