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

Published by Crandall Consulting · Informational litigation intelligence · Last substantive update: August 23, 2026

Docket / citation: CACE26003507

Summary

This document is a settlement agreement (with exhibits) for Grubor v. Barefoot Dreams, Inc., Case No. CACE26003507, in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida. The complaint alleges Barefoot Dreams disclosed customers' personally identifiable information to third parties via tracking technologies (naming Meta Platforms and Attentive Mobile) in violation of Florida and California privacy laws and the federal ECPA; Defendant denies wrongdoing but agreed to the settlement. Class members who purchased from barefootdreams.com between October 14, 2023 and the date of notice may submit a claim (the notice indicates a potential $8.00 cash payment per valid claim).

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 class action pending in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida (Case No. CACE26003507). Parties executed a Settlement Agreement (with exhibits and notice materials) dated April 10, 2026; settlement provides monetary relief to qualifying class members and requires final court approval/hearing.

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

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

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

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; what page URLs and query strings analytics tools share with third parties. Our scanner tests these behaviors empirically.

The reported outcome direction at the settlement stage reflects how tracked sources characterize the ruling; such rulings are often narrow, posture-specific, and fact-bound rather than broad statements of law.

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

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.