Brittanee Jackson, et al. v. Yardi Systems, Inc., et al.

Published by Crandall Consulting · Informational litigation intelligence · Last substantive update: October 12, 2026

Docket / citation: 25CV07506

Summary

An official Santa Barbara Superior Court tentative ruling addresses a filed class action alleging that Yardi Systems and RentCafe used website-tracking tools to intercept and disclose visitors' information without their knowledge or consent. The tentative ruling overrules the defendants' demurrer and directs an answer by October 9, 2026; the excerpt does not establish a final order or liability finding.

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

Tentative ruling on defendants' demurrer to the complaint and a case management conference, with a hearing scheduled for September 23, 2026.

Reported Holding

The tentative ruling overrules Yardi Systems, Inc. and RentCafe, LLC's demurrer to the complaint and directs them to answer by October 9, 2026. The excerpt does not establish that the tentative ruling became a final order.

What the Court Decided

The court's tentative ruling rejects the defendants' demurrer, directs an answer by October 9, 2026, and sets further case-management and pretrial dates.

What the Court Did Not Decide

The excerpt does not establish liability, class certification, or a final merits disposition. It does not provide the court's reasoning for overruling the demurrer.

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

• Google Analytics
• DoubleClick Digital Marketing
• Microsoft Clarity
• Meta Pixel
• Adnxs
• Tracking cookies
• JavaScript tracking code
• Microsoft Azure
• JavaScript

Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: Google LLC, Microsoft Corporation, Meta Platforms, Inc., Yardi Systems, Inc., RentCafe, LLC.

Statutes Invoked

• California Penal Code sections 631, 632, and 638.51

Claims Asserted

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

• California Penal Code section 631 claim concerning Google Analytics
• California Penal Code section 631 claim concerning Microsoft Clarity
• California Penal Code section 631 claim concerning Meta Pixel
• California Penal Code section 632 recording claim
• California Penal Code section 638.51 pen-register claim
• Common-law invasion of privacy
• California Penal Code section 632 claim
• California Penal Code section 638.51 claim

What This Matter May Mean for Website Operators

For operators using similar technologies, the recurring factual questions in matters like this one are when session recording begins relative to consent and whether input masking covers every field; 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

• Tentative Ruling: Brittanee Jackson, et al. v. Yardi Systems, Inc., et al. — Santa Barbara County Superior Court · Tier A (Primary authority) · 2026-09-23

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.