D’Antonio v. Tripadvisor, LLC
Summary
D’Antonio filed this Massachusetts lawsuit alleging unauthorized third-party tracking on Tripadvisor’s website under CIPA and unjust enrichment, after a California court dismissed his earlier action without prejudice based on a forum-selection clause. Tripadvisor sought dismissal based in part on a Massachusetts choice-of-law provision; the court states that the motion will be allowed, although the excerpt does not include the complete dismissal analysis.
Litigation Status
Procedural Posture
Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim following a California dismissal without prejudice enforcing a Massachusetts forum-selection clause.
Reported Holding
The court states that Tripadvisor’s motion to dismiss will be allowed. The excerpt also states that collateral estoppel applies to the California court’s findings concerning contract formation, but ends before the complete dismissal rationale.
What the Court Decided
The court announced that it would allow Tripadvisor’s motion to dismiss and determined that collateral estoppel applies to the prior California court’s contract-formation findings.
What the Court Did Not Decide
The bounded excerpt does not establish a ruling on whether the alleged tracking conduct independently supports liability under CIPA or provide the complete analysis of the choice-of-law provision.
Significance
Generally viewed as defense-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
- Casale Media Tracker
- IP-address tracking
- Device metadata and unique-user-identifier collection
- Consumer-profile matching
- Third-party browser tracker
- Collection of IP addresses, device metadata, and unique identifiers linked to consumer profiles
- Website tracking tools
- Browser-installed tracking tools
- Browser-based third-party tracking
- IP address collection
- Device metadata and unique user identifier collection
- Matching identifiers to non-anonymous consumer profiles
Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: Tripadvisor, LLC, Casale Media, Index Exchange.
Statutes Invoked
- California Invasion of Privacy Act, California Penal Code § 638.51(a)
- California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), Section 638.51(a)
- California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA)
- California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), § 638.51(a)
Claims Asserted
- CIPA § 638.51(a) claim concerning alleged unauthorized tracker installation and data collection
- Unjust enrichment
- CIPA Section 638.51(a) claim concerning alleged installation or use of pen registers and trap-and-trace devices
- CIPA privacy claims alleging website tracking and collection of IP addresses and other data without consent
- Alleged unauthorized tracking under CIPA § 638.51(a)
- Unjust enrichment arising from alleged collection and sale of user data
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.
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
- D’Antonio v. Tripadvisor, LLC — Memorandum of Decision and Order on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint
- Privacy-tracking class action vs. Tripadvisor dismissed
- Massachusetts Court Enforces Choice-of-Law Provision to Dismiss California Website Tracking Privacy Class Action
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