Caldwell v. InMobi Pte. Ltd.
Summary
The Northern District of California denied InMobi’s motion to dismiss a putative class action alleging CIPA pen register violations and California privacy torts, holding the pleading sufficiently alleges modern tracking technologies can satisfy CIPA’s definitions and that privacy claims survive at the pleading stage. The court left factual questions (e.g., consent, app identity, linkage to real-world identity) for later stages of the case.
Litigation Status
Procedural Posture
Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint alleging CIPA, intrusion upon seclusion, and California constitutional privacy claims; Defendant moved to dismiss (Dkt. No. 18); the court considered briefs and denied the motion to dismiss on April 29, 2026.
Reported Holding
The court denied Defendant InMobi’s motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. The court held that (1) CIPA’s pen register provision can apply to internet/mobile tracking technologies and the FAC plausibly alleges interception of dialing, routing, addressing, or signaling information (e.g., timestamped geolocation data, mobile advertising IDs, IP addresses, device fingerprinting); and (2) the FAC sufficiently alleges intrusion upon seclusion and invasion of privacy under California law (reasonable expectation of privacy and highly offensive intrusion) at the pleading stage.
What the Court Decided
The court denied InMobi’s motion to dismiss Caldwell’s CIPA pen register claim, intrusion upon seclusion claim, and California constitutional invasion of privacy claim, finding the allegations sufficient to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge and adopting district-court authority holding CIPA can cover modern tracking technologies.
What the Court Did Not Decide
The court did not resolve merits questions or factual issues such as whether InMobi actually identified Caldwell’s real-world identity, whether the specific app’s disclosures or user consent defeat the claims, or any summary-judgment or trial issues; it also did not rule on arguments raised for the first time in defendant’s reply brief.
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
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)
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.
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