Gilligan v. Experian Data Corp.

Published by Crandall Consulting · Informational litigation intelligence · Last substantive update: September 24, 2026

Docket / citation: 25-cv-02873-RFL

Summary

A federal district court in the Northern District of California denied Experian's motion to stay a putative class action pending arbitration and resolved a motion to dismiss by granting in part and denying in part. The court held that plaintiffs adequately alleged intrusion upon seclusion and had pleaded sufficient injury for standing at the pleading stage based on allegations about Tapad pixel tracking and profile-building.

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

Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint alleging intrusion upon seclusion, violations of CIPA (Cal. Penal Code §§ 631(a), 638.51(a)), unjust enrichment, and ECPA (18 U.S.C. § 2511). Defendant Experian moved to stay the action pending arbitration in a parallel case and moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court denied the stay and granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss.

Reported Holding

The district court denied Experian's request to stay the putative class action pending arbitration of a parallel matter and granted in part and denied in part Experian's motion to dismiss, finding that plaintiffs adequately alleged an intrusion upon seclusion claim and pleading-stage standing for certain named plaintiffs.

What the Court Decided

The court exercised its discretion to deny Experian's motion to stay this action pending arbitration in Zhen v. Experian, concluding arbitration outcomes would not bind the court as to non-arbitrable class claims and a stay would cause undue delay. On the motion to dismiss, the court held that plaintiffs' allegations about Tapad pixel-based tracking and profile-building were sufficient at the pleading stage to allege a 'highly offensive' intrusion upon seclusion and to support standing for named plaintiffs; the motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part.

What the Court Did Not Decide

The court did not resolve the ultimate merits of the substantive privacy claims, did not make a final adjudication on whether the alleged tracking is 'highly offensive' as a matter of law beyond the pleading stage, and did not issue a final ruling on damages or class certification.

Significance

Neutral / mixed significance. 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

• pixel tracking
• web tracking
• cross-device/profile building

Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: Experian Data Corporation, Experian PLC, Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Tapad, Inc..

Statutes Invoked

• Cal. Penal Code §§ 631(a), 638.51(a); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (ECPA)

Claims Asserted

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

• Intrusion upon seclusion (California)
• California Penal Code § 631(a) (CIPA)
• California Penal Code § 638.51(a) (CIPA)
• Unjust enrichment
• Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511)

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.

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

• Gilligan v. Experian Data Corp. — vLex United States · Tier A (Primary authority) · 2026-01-06

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.