Farve v. River Light V, L.P. et al.

Published by Crandall Consulting · Informational litigation intelligence · Last substantive update: October 11, 2026

Docket / citation: 3:26-cv-05140-JSC · Filed: 2026-10-05

Summary

The complaint alleges Tory Burch website communications were disclosed to TikTok and Google. The court found insufficient allegations identifying plaintiff’s disclosed information and concrete privacy injury, and allowed amendment rather than deciding liability. ([cases.justia.com](https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3%3A2026cv05140/471088/26/0.pdf?ts=1791278492))

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; amendment allowed through October 26, 2026, otherwise dismissal without prejudice to state-court claims. ([docs.justia.com](https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3%3A2026cv05140/471088/26))

Reported Holding

Plaintiff inadequately alleged a concrete injury supporting Article III standing. ([cases.justia.com](https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3%3A2026cv05140/471088/26/0.pdf?ts=1791278492))

What the Court Decided

Granted dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, permitting amendment. ([cases.justia.com](https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3%3A2026cv05140/471088/26/0.pdf?ts=1791278492))

What the Court Did Not Decide

Did not resolve statutory liability or the alternative failure-to-state-a-claim grounds. ([cases.justia.com](https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3%3A2026cv05140/471088/26/0.pdf?ts=1791278492))

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

• Third-party tracking codes
• Targeting cookies

Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: TikTok, Google.

Statutes Invoked

• Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511; unspecified California laws

Claims Asserted

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

• Alleged interception or recording of electronic communications under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act
• Unspecified California-law claims
• Electronic Communications Privacy Act interception claims

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

• Farve v. River Light V, L.P. et al.: Order Granting Motion to Dismiss — U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, via Justia · Tier A (Primary authority) · 2026-10-05
• Farve v. River Light V, L.P. — Order granting motion to dismiss website-tracking claims for lack of Article III standing — U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, via Justia · Tier A (Primary authority) · 2026-10-05

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.