In re Adobe Data Tracking Litigation

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

Docket / citation: 25-cv-03032-NW

Summary

The law firm article reports that a federal court dismissed all nine claims in a putative privacy class action alleging that Adobe used persistent ECIDs to track users across websites and build advertising profiles. The court found the nonconsent allegations insufficient and identified additional pleading defects, while granting leave to amend and staying discovery. It did not reach several substantive CIPA questions concerning parties, confidential communications, and pen registers.

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

Dismissal of all nine claims in a putative class action with leave to amend within 21 days; discovery stayed pending clarification of the amended complaint's scope.

Reported Holding

According to the article, the court dismissed all nine claims with leave to amend, holding that conclusory assertions of nonconsent did not adequately plead lack of consent. The court also found deficiencies in the equitable-relief allegations and rejected unjust enrichment and injunctive relief as standalone claims.

What the Court Decided

The court found the consent allegations insufficient to sustain the CIPA, common-law privacy, California constitutional, and CDAFA claims. It dismissed the UCL claim because plaintiffs did not allege that damages were inadequate, allowed narrow repleading of unjust enrichment as a quasi-contract claim for restitution, rejected injunctive relief as a standalone claim, and stayed discovery.

What the Court Did Not Decide

The court did not reach the party analysis under CIPA Section 631, confidential-communication analysis under Section 632, or whether an ECID functions as a pen register under Section 638.51.

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

• Adobe Experience Cloud Identity Service
• Adobe Experience Cloud ID (ECID)
• Persistent unique identifiers
• Cross-site tracking
• Advertising-profile construction

Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: Adobe.

Statutes Invoked

• California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), Sections 631, 632, and 638.51; California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (CDAFA); California Unfair Competition Law (UCL); California Constitution — all-party consent · private right of action

Claims Asserted

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

• CIPA claims addressing Sections 631, 632, and 638.51
• Common-law privacy
• California constitutional privacy
• CDAFA
• UCL
• Unjust enrichment
• Injunctive relief pleaded as a standalone claim

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.

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

• HOW TO PLEAD CONSENT: Court Says “Plaintiffs Must Do More Than Merely Assert That They Did Not Consent To The Tracking Devices.” — The Legal 500 / Troutman Amin LLP · Tier C (Professional analysis) · 2026-09-18

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.