Dawn Fregosa v. Mashable, Inc.

Published by Crandall Consulting · Informational litigation intelligence · Last substantive update: August 23, 2026

Docket / citation: 3:25-CV-01094-CRB · Filed: 2026-02-19

Summary

This document is a joint stipulation filed in the Northern District of California (filed February 19, 2026) in which the parties request a stay of Dawn Fregosa's suit against Mashable pending a California Court of Appeal ruling in Variety Media, LLC v. Superior Court (Case No. B350578). The central disputed legal issue identified is whether California Penal Code § 638.51's pen register prohibition applies to automated online tracking technologies on commercial websites.

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

Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint on May 5, 2025 asserting a single cause of action under Cal. Penal Code § 638.51. Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss on June 4, 2025, which the Court denied on October 9, 2025. Defendant moved for interlocutory appeal certification on November 10, 2025; the Court denied that motion on January 23, 2026. The parties have jointly stipulated to stay this federal action pending a decision in a California Court of Appeal matter (Variety Media, LLC v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Case No. B350578).

Reported Holding

The court denied Defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, holding that CIPA's pen register prohibition (Cal. Penal Code § 638.50 et seq.) can extend to software 'processes' — including web trackers that record IP addresses and device identifiers — and that the SAC plausibly alleges Mashable installed and used such trackers; the court also rejected a lenity argument.

What the Court Decided

The court decided that, for pleading-stage purposes, the statutory definition of 'pen register' can encompass software processes that record addressing information transmitted by electronic communications and that the SAC sufficiently alleges Mashable installed and used third-party trackers that recorded IP addresses and device fingerprints, so the motion to dismiss is denied.

What the Court Did Not Decide

The court did not resolve the merits of whether the trackers in fact violated CIPA on the facts, any factual determinations about data collection, damages, class certification, or any post-pleading dispositive issues; it addressed only the sufficiency of the pleading under Rule 12(b)(6).

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

• web tracking
• third-party trackers
• HTTP requests
• device fingerprinting
• IP address collection
• online tracking technologies
• web 'Trackers' / automated website software that capture routing/ addressing/ signaling information

Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: Microsoft, Wunderkind, PubMatic.

Statutes Invoked

• Cal. Penal Code §§ 638.50–638.55; Cal. Penal Code § 638.51; Cal. Penal Code § 637.2
• California Penal Code § 638.51 (see also § 638.50(b) definition; §§ 638.52, 638.53 referenced)

Claims Asserted

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

• Violation of California Penal Code § 638.51 (pen register / trap-and-trace prohibition)
• Violation of Cal. Penal Code §§ 638.50–638.55 (CIPA pen register provisions)
• Private right of action under Cal. Penal Code § 637.2 (statutory damages / injunctive relief)
• Violation of California Penal Code § 638.51 (pen register prohibition)

What This Matter May Mean for Website Operators

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 34 Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint (Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer) — United States District Court for the Northern District of California (posted on Justia) · Tier B (Authoritative secondary) · 2025-10-09
• Stipulation to Stay Case Pending Ruling from California Court of Appeal (Fregosa v. Mashable) — Document 82 — govinfo (U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal.) · Tier B (Authoritative secondary) · 2026-02-19

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.