Gershzon v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

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

Docket / citation: 23-cv-00083-SI · Filed: 2023-01-06

Summary

Plaintiffs challenged Meta Pixel tracking on the California DMV website under the DPPA and CIPA. The court found that transmitted data showed webpage visits, not transaction contents or completion, and dismissed for lack of concrete injury; pending class-certification and expert motions were moot. ([docs.justia.com](https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3%3A2023cv00083/406976/241))

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

Standing reviewed at the class-certification stage following a September 15, 2026 hearing. ([cases.justia.com](https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3%3A2023cv00083/406976/241/0.pdf?ts=1790848085))

Reported Holding

The named plaintiffs lacked Article III standing because the transmitted webpage-visit data did not establish concrete harm analogous to intrusion upon seclusion. ([docs.justia.com](https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3%3A2023cv00083/406976/241))

What the Court Decided

The court dismissed the case for lack of standing and denied class-certification and expert-exclusion motions as moot. ([docs.justia.com](https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3%3A2023cv00083/406976/241))

What the Court Did Not Decide

The court did not reach class-certification issues or resolve statutory liability on the merits. ([docs.justia.com](https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3%3A2023cv00083/406976/241))

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

• Meta Pixel
• JavaScript website tracking

Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: Meta Platforms, Inc..

Statutes Invoked

• Driver’s Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2721 et seq.; California Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Penal Code § 631(a)

Claims Asserted

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

• DPPA claims
• CIPA claims
• CIPA section 631(a) claims

What This Matter May Mean for Website Operators

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.

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

• Gershzon v. Meta Platforms, Inc. — Order Dismissing Case for Lack of Standing — U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (via Justia) · Tier A (Primary authority) · 2026-09-30
• Gershzon v. Meta Platforms, Inc.: Order Dismissing Case for Lack of Standing and Denying as Moot Motions for Class Certification and Motions to Exclude Experts — U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California via Justia · Tier A (Primary authority) · 2026-09-30

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.