Caldwell v. InMobi Pte. Ltd.
Summary
The Northern District of California denied InMobi’s motion to dismiss, holding the amended complaint plausibly alleges that InMobi’s mobile SDK collected routing/identifying data and that these allegations support claims under CIPA’s pen register provision and California privacy torts. The court left factual disputes (including consent and app identity) for later stages of litigation.
Litigation Status
Procedural Posture
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 18); after briefing and without oral argument the district court issued an order denying the motion on April 29, 2026.
Reported Holding
The court denied Defendant InMobi’s motion to dismiss. The court concluded that the amended complaint plausibly alleges (1) a CIPA pen register claim under Cal. Penal Code § 638.51(a) based on allegations that InMobi’s SDK collected timestamped geolocation data, mobile advertising IDs, IP addresses, and device fingerprinting data in real time, and (2) intrusion upon seclusion and California constitutional invasion of privacy claims, finding factual issues about expectation of privacy and offensiveness that cannot be resolved at the pleading stage.
What the Court Decided
The court denied the motion to dismiss plaintiff’s CIPA pen register claim and his claims for intrusion upon seclusion and invasion of privacy under the California Constitution, holding the pleaded facts are sufficient to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge.
What the Court Did Not Decide
The court did not resolve the merits of the claims, issues of consent or the identity of the specific app (left to discovery), or any factual determinations reserved for summary judgment or trial; it also did not adopt any state-court writ proceedings cited by defendant as controlling.
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
- mobile SDK tracking
- device fingerprinting
- timestamped geolocation tracking
- mobile advertising identifiers (MAIDs)
- mobile app software development kit (SDK)
- internet tracking/advertising trackers
- timestamped geolocation
- mobile advertising IDs
- mobile SDK (in-app tracking)
- mobile advertising identifiers
- IP address collection
- identity resolution services/persistent identifiers
- mobile software development kit (SDK)
- identity resolution services
Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: InMobi Pte Ltd., InMobi Pte. Ltd., InMobi Pte., Ltd..
Statutes Invoked
- Cal. Penal Code § 638.51(a)
- Cal. Penal Code § 638.51(a) (CIPA pen register provision)
- California Penal Code § 638.51(a) (CIPA pen register provision); Cal. Penal Code § 638.50(a) referenced
Claims Asserted
- Cal. Penal Code § 638.51(a) (CIPA pen register)
- Intrusion upon seclusion (California common law)
- Invasion of privacy (California Constitution)
- California Penal Code § 638.51 (CIPA pen register)
- Cal. Penal Code § 638.51 (CIPA pen register)
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
- ORDER by Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin DENYING 18 Motion to Dismiss (Caldwell v. InMobi Pte Ltd.)
- ORDER by Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin DENYING 18 Motion to Dismiss (Filed on 4/29/2026)
- ORDER by Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin DENYING 18 Motion to Dismiss for Caldwell v. InMobi Pte Ltd.
- ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS (Caldwell v. InMobi)
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