Camplisson v. Adidas Am., Inc.

Published by Crandall Consulting · Informational litigation intelligence · Last substantive update: October 1, 2026

Summary

This Baker Donelson client alert (Jan 8, 2026) summarizes and analyzes a November 18, 2025 Southern District of California decision in Camplisson v. Adidas, where the court denied a motion to dismiss CIPA § 638.51 claims alleging website tracking pixels collected PII. The publication highlights conflicting district and state court decisions and recommends affirmative consent, conspicuous disclosures, audits, and vendor controls for website operators.

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

Putative class action filed by website visitors alleging CIPA § 638.51 violations based on TikTok and Microsoft/Bing pixels and device fingerprinting; defendant moved to dismiss; court denied dismissal on November 18, 2025.

Reported Holding

The district court held that allegations that website-installed tracking pixels recorded personally identifiable information (including IP addresses and other identifiers) were sufficient, at the pleading stage, to plausibly allege use of a pen register/trap and trace device under CIPA § 638.51 and thus avoid dismissal. The court also held that the plaintiffs did not consent where website terms were not sufficiently conspicuous and no affirmative pop-up consent mechanism was presented.

What the Court Decided

On a motion to dismiss, the court found plaintiffs' allegations that Adidas installed tracking pixels that captured PII and used device fingerprinting were sufficient to plausibly allege the use of a pen register/trap and trace device under CIPA § 638.51, and the court rejected the defendant's argument that the website's terms purportedly supplied consent.

What the Court Did Not Decide

The court did not establish a broad rule resolving all questions about the outer scope of CIPA and digital tracking (the opinion is discussed as one among conflicting district and state decisions), nor did it resolve merits beyond the pleading-stage adequacy of the allegations.

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

• tracking pixels
• TikTok Pixel
• Microsoft Bing tracker
• device fingerprinting
• Microsoft/Bing pixel
• cookies
• session replay (referenced)

Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: TikTok, Microsoft Bing, Adidas, Microsoft (Bing), Kochava (mentioned in background).

Statutes Invoked

• California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) § 638.51 — all-party consent · private right of action
• Penal Code § 638.51 (California Invasion of Privacy Act)

Claims Asserted

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

• CIPA § 638.51 (pen register/trap and trace device claim)
• CIPA § 638.51 pen register / trap and trace claim
• allegations concerning device fingerprinting and collection of PII

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.

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. Our scanner tests these behaviors empirically.

The reported outcome direction at the pleading stage reflects how tracked sources characterize the ruling; such rulings are often narrow, posture-specific, and fact-bound rather than broad statements of law.

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

• Green Light for CIPA: New Federal Court Ruling Fuels Digital Tracking Class Actions — Baker Donelson · Tier A (Primary authority) · 2026-01-08
• CIPA & Meta Pixel Threat Letter & Litigation Update — Traverse Legal · Tier C (Professional analysis) · January 20, 2026

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.