Gonzalez v. Windstream Holdings Inc

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

Docket / citation: 4:26-cv-00227

Summary

The complaint alleges website tracking through cookies and web beacons before meaningful notice or control. The source has not established whether the case remains active or has terminated and identifies no court ruling stating a result. ([docketnexus.com](https://docketnexus.com/case/gonzalez-v-windstream-holdings-inc-72368020/))

Procedural Posture

Class action complaint with jury demand; source identifies one docket entry and no responsive defendant filing.

What the Court Did Not Decide

No result-stating order appears in the source's available filings; no merits determination is identified.

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

• Cookies
• Web beacons
• Third-party tracking technologies

Statutes Invoked

• 28 U.S.C. § 2201; complaint citations include 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510, 2511, 2520 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331; the source also lists 18 U.S.C. § 251.

Claims Asserted

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

• Unjust enrichment
• Two additional causes of action not identified on the page

Related Intelligence

Sources

• Gonzalez v. Windstream Holdings Inc — Eastern District of Arkansas, No. 4:26-cv-00227 — Docket Nexus · Tier B (Authoritative secondary)

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.