Camplisson v. Adidas America, Inc.

Published by Crandall Consulting · Informational litigation intelligence · Last substantive update: October 10, 2026

Docket / citation: 3:25-cv-00603 · Filed: 2025-03-14

Summary

A Womble Bond Dickinson analysis reports that the Southern District of California denied Adidas's motion to dismiss a putative CIPA class action concerning TikTok and Microsoft Bing tracking pixels on November 18, 2025. The court found the allegations sufficient for standing, treated the pixels as plausible pen registers, and rejected consent defenses based on website-operator consent and footer browsewrap disclosures.

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

Denial of defendant's motion to dismiss a putative class action.

Reported Holding

According to the source, the court denied Adidas's motion to dismiss, finding sufficient allegations of statutory and Article III standing, concluding that tracking pixels can plausibly qualify as pen registers under CIPA, and rejecting the asserted consent defenses.

What the Court Decided

The court held that the alleged collection of identifying and addressing information supported standing and distinguished the session-replay allegations in Popa. It concluded that CIPA's pen-register definition can encompass website tracking pixels, including those collecting only IP addresses, and that neither website-operator consent nor the described footer browsewrap disclosures established consumer consent.

What the Court Did Not Decide

The ruling addressed pleading sufficiency, not final liability, damages, or class certification. The source does not report a final resolution or an appeal.

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
• cookies
• browser fingerprinting
• fingerprinting
• Microsoft Bing Tracker
• Microsoft Bat Bing Tracker
• Cookies
• Device fingerprinting
• AutoAdvanced Matching
• Microsoft Bing tracking
• TikTok AutoAdvanced Matching
• Microsoft Bing tracking pixel
• Tracking cookies
• Cross-site tracking using a unique Microsoft ID

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

Statutes Invoked

• Cal. Penal Code § 638.50(b); Cal. Penal Code § 638.51 (California Invasion of Privacy Act)
• California Invasion of Privacy Act (Cal. Penal Code § 638.50(b); Cal. Penal Code § 638.51)
• California Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Penal Code § 638.51
• California Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Penal Code §§ 630 et seq., 637.2, 638.50(b), 638.51
• California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), including Section 638.50(b) — all-party consent · private right of action

Claims Asserted

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

• California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) – Cal. Penal Code § 638.50(b), § 638.51
• Standing (Article III and statutory)
• Consent / browsewrap adequacy
• California Invasion of Privacy Act (pen register claim under Cal. Penal Code § 638.50(b) and prohibition in § 638.51)
• Article III standing (injury-in-fact)
• Failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
• CIPA claim alleging collection of private information through tracking pixels without consent. ([cases.justia.com](https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/casdce/3%3A2025cv00603/807817/65/0.pdf?ts=1787820428))
• CIPA § 638.51 claim concerning alleged nonconsensual installation and use of pen registers
• CIPA pen-register claim based on alleged placement of tracking pixels on consumers' browsers without consent

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 whether advertising pixels transmit page URLs or hashed form data before a consent choice. 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

• ORDER: (1) Granting Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice (2) Denying the Motion to Dismiss (Camplisson v. Adidas) — U.S. District Court (published via Justia Dockets & Filings) · Tier A (Primary authority) · 2025-11-18
• ORDER Granting Defendant's Motion to Stay for Camplisson et al v. Adidas America, Inc. — Justia · Tier A (Primary authority) · 2026-08-26
• Camplisson v. Adidas America, Inc., 3:25-cv-00603 — Midpage · Tier A (Primary authority) · 2025-11-18
• Camplisson v. Adidas America, Inc. — Order Denying Motion to Dismiss — CaseMine · Tier B (Authoritative secondary) · 2025-11-18
• Southern District of California Denies Motion to Dismiss in Tracking Pixel Privacy Class Action — Consumer Finance + Privacy Counsel — Womble Bond Dickinson · Tier C (Professional analysis) · 2026-03-22

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.