D'Antonio et al v. Smith & Wesson Inc.

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

Docket / citation: 5:25-CV-03085-PCP · Filed: 2026-02-17

Summary

A law firm analysis reports that the Northern District of California denied a motion to dismiss CIPA website-tracking claims in D’Antonio v. Smith Wesson Inc. The court found the amended complaint sufficiently detailed at the pleading stage and left technical questions about tracking and interception for factual development, rather than deciding liability.

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

Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint for insufficient pleading detail; the court denied the motion.

Reported Holding

According to the article, the court denied the motion to dismiss because the amended complaint provided sufficient detail at the pleading stage. Precise technical details about tracking and interception were not required before factual development.

What the Court Decided

The court found the aiding-and-abetting and pen register allegations sufficiently pleaded and denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

What the Court Did Not Decide

The court did not determine on a complete factual record whether the cookies tracked information within the pen register statute or resolve factual questions concerning the processing platform and actual interception.

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

• Cookies
• Third-party tracking
• Cookie consent banner
• cookies
• website tracking
• communications metadata tracking

Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: Google LLC, X Corp, Listrak, Inc., Digioh LLC.

Statutes Invoked

• California Invasion of Privacy Act, California Penal Code §§ 631(a), 638.50(b), 638.51(a)
• California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) — all-party consent · private right of action

Claims Asserted

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

• Invasion of privacy
• Intrusion upon seclusion
• CIPA wiretapping
• CIPA pen register
• Common law fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation
• Unjust enrichment
• Breach of implied contract
• Breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
• Trespass to chattels
• CIPA aiding-and-abetting claim
• CIPA pen register claim

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 DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART Motion to Dismiss for D'Antonio et al v. Smith & Wesson Inc. — Justia · Tier A (Primary authority) · 2026-02-17
• WEBSITE TRACKING UNDER CIPA: Surviving Motion to Dismiss Without Technical Specificity — The National Law Review · Tier C (Professional analysis) · 2026-09-14

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.