Grubor, et al. v. Barefoot Dreams, Inc.

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

Docket / citation: CACE26003507

Summary

Plaintiffs allege disclosure of customers’ personally identifiable information through third-party technologies without consent; Barefoot Dreams denies the claims. The proposed settlement provides $8 for valid claims, subject to court approval, without a merits determination. The FAQ does not confirm final approval. ([barefootdreamsclasssettlement.com](https://www.barefootdreamsclasssettlement.com/Home/FAQ))

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

Proposed settlement awaiting final approval; FAQ lists a September 24, 2026 hearing but reports no result.

Reported Holding

The website reports final settlement approval on September 26, 2026.

What the Court Decided

Authorized notice and appointed class counsel.

What the Court Did Not Decide

The FAQ states that the court has not decided in favor of either party.

Significance

Generally viewed as plaintiff-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

• tracking technologies
• analytics
• advertising technologies
• Meta Platforms tracking
• Attentive Mobile tracking
• Meta tracking technologies
• Attentive tracking technologies
• Other tracking, analytics, and advertising technologies
• Third-party tracking
• Analytics
• Advertising technologies

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

Statutes Invoked

• Fla. Stat. § 934.03 (Florida Security of Communications Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (ECPA); Cal. Penal Code §§ 631, 632, 502; California Constitution
• FSCA, Fla. Stat. § 934.03 et seq.; ECPA, 18 U.S.C. § 2511 et seq.; CIPA, Cal. Penal Code §§ 631 and 632; CDAFA, Cal. Penal Code § 502; California Constitution — all-party consent · private right of action
• Fla. Stat. § 934.03 et seq.; 18 U.S.C. § 2511 et seq.; Cal. Penal Code §§ 631–632; Cal. Penal Code § 502; California Constitution

Claims Asserted

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

• Florida Security of Communications Act (FSCA) Fla. Stat. § 934.03
• Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) 18 U.S.C. § 2511
• California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) Cal. Penal Code §§ 631, 632
• Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (CDAFA) Cal. Penal Code § 502
• Claims under the California Constitution
• Alleged disclosure of customers’ personally identifiable information to third parties without consent
• FSCA
• ECPA
• CIPA §§ 631 and 632
• CDAFA
• California Constitution
• Florida Security of Communications Act
• Electronic Communications Privacy Act
• California Invasion of Privacy Act
• Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act
• California constitutional privacy

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 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.

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

• Grubor v. Barefoot Dreams Settlement Agreement (with Exhibits).pdf — barefootdreamsclasssettlement.com (court-authorized settlement site) · Tier A (Primary authority) · 2026-04-09
• Grubor, et al., v. Barefoot Dreams, Inc. — Official Settlement Website — Barefoot Dreams Privacy Settlement Administrator · Tier B (Authoritative secondary)
• Grubor, et al., v. Barefoot Dreams, Inc. — Frequently Asked Questions — Court-authorized Barefoot Dreams settlement website · 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.