Greenley v. Kochava
Summary
This is a district-court order in GREENLEY v. KOCHAVA, INC. (S.D. Cal.) dated July 27, 2023. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion to dismiss and denied the defendant's motion to transfer venue. The order did not resolve the merits of any claims that survived dismissal.
Litigation Status
Procedural Posture
Plaintiff filed a civil action (Case No. 22-cv-01327-BAS-AHG). Defendant moved to dismiss and moved to transfer venue. The court ruled on those motions by order dated July 27, 2023.
Reported Holding
The district court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the defendant's motion to dismiss and denying the defendant's motion to transfer venue. The order left some claims or issues unresolved for further proceedings.
What the Court Decided
The court granted in part and denied in part Defendant's motion to dismiss and denied Defendant's motion for venue transfer (Order signed July 27, 2023 by Judge Cynthia Bashant).
What the Court Did Not Decide
The court did not resolve the merits of any claims that survived the motion to dismiss; specific claims and merits outcomes are not described on the provided page.
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
- Google Analytics
- Meta Pixel
- Google Tag Manager
- LinkedIn Insight
- TikTok Pixel
- JavaScript tag/loader
- region1.analytics.google.com (analytics endpoint)
- third-party analytics
- advertising pixels
- session replay/recorders
- content delivery networks (CDNs)
- consent management platforms (CMPs)
- embedded video players
- JavaScript tag/loader (region1.analytics.google.com)
- cookies
- tracking pixels
- analytics software
- software development kits (SDKs)
- session replay tools
Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: Google, Meta, LinkedIn, TikTok, Kochava, AddShoppers, Assurance IQ, Kochava, Inc..
Statutes Invoked
- California Penal Code §638.50(b); §638.51(a)
- California Penal Code §§ 638.50–638.52; § 637.2
- California Penal Code § 638.51 (CIPA pen register / trap-and-trace provision); CIPA §§ 631 and 632 referenced
Claims Asserted
- California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) pen-register claim under Penal Code §638.51(a) (as described in the source)
- CIPA pen register claims under California Penal Code §§ 638.50–638.52
- Statutory damages claim under California Penal Code § 637.2
- California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) pen-register claim under Penal Code § 638.51(a)
- CIPA pen-register claims under California Penal Code §§ 638.50–638.52
- California Penal Code § 638.51 (pen register / trap-and-trace)
- CIPA §§ 631 and 632 (traditional wiretapping provisions) referenced
What This Matter May Mean for Website Operators
California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) is an all-party consent statute with a private right of action. Consent standard and private enforceability are the structural features that most shape where website tracking claims are filed and how they are valued.
For operators using similar technologies, the recurring factual questions in matters like this one are when session recording begins relative to consent and whether input masking covers every field; whether advertising pixels transmit page URLs or hashed form data before a consent choice; what page URLs and query strings analytics tools share with third parties. 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
- GREENLEY v. KOCHAVA, INC.
- CIPA Pen Register Demand Letters: What Technology Companies Need to Know
- Greenley v. Kochava — Website Tracking Litigation
- California's CIPA pen-register lawsuit wave: what website owners need to know in 2026
- SB 690 would end lawsuits over website tracking under one CIPA provision
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.
Is Your Website Creating Hidden Tracking Risk?
Scan your site for third-party tracking and potential wiretap exposure. Free, no account required.
Scan My Website