In re Meta Android Privacy Litigation

Published by Crandall Consulting · Informational litigation intelligence · Last substantive update: August 25, 2026

Docket / citation: 3:2025cv04674

Summary

This May 11, 2026 district-court order in the consolidated In re Meta Android Privacy Litigation granted in part and denied in part motions to dismiss: three specific claims were dismissed with leave to amend while the remainder survived. The case concerns allegations that Meta’s Pixel and related techniques on Android devices routed identifying data via localhost ports (using HTTP/WebSocket/WebRTC/SDP munging) to link browsing to Meta accounts.

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

Consolidated putative class actions arising from alleged Android tracking by Meta; Meta and Google filed motions to dismiss; the court issued an order resolving those motions in part (Document 120).

Reported Holding

The court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motions to dismiss: it dismissed (with leave to amend) Plaintiffs’ pen register, unjust enrichment, and negligent misrepresentation claims, and allowed all other claims in the consolidated complaint to survive dismissal.

What the Court Decided

The district court evaluated the motions to dismiss and held that most of Plaintiffs’ claims survive Rule 12(b)(6) challenges, but that the pen register claim, unjust enrichment claim, and negligent misrepresentation claim must be dismissed with leave to amend.

What the Court Did Not Decide

The court did not resolve the merits of surviving claims, class certification, damages, or any subsequent dispositive motions; it did not adjudicate final liability or any potential defenses beyond whether the pleadings suffice at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

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

• Meta Pixel (web tracking pixel)
• browser cookies (_fbp, c_user)
• localhost ports on Android devices
• HTTP
• WebSocket
• WebRTC (SDP munging)
• Android app sandboxing
• Meta Pixel
• cookies (_fbp, c_user)
• localhost ports (device loopback)
• WebRTC
• SDP munging

Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: Meta (Facebook, Instagram), Google (Android, Play), Yandex (mentioned), Mozilla/Firefox (browser developer), Google (Android, Chrome), Yandex (referenced), Mozilla/Firefox (referenced).

Statutes Invoked

• 18 U.S.C. § 2511; Cal. Penal Code §§ 631, 632, 635, 638.51; Cal. Penal Code § 502

Claims Asserted

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

• intrusion upon seclusion
• invasion of privacy (Cal. Const. art. I, § 1)
• Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511(1))
• California Penal Code § 631 (wiretapping)
• California Penal Code § 632 (eavesdropping)
• California Penal Code § 635 (eavesdropping device)
• California Penal Code § 638.51 (pen register)
• California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (Cal. Penal Code § 502)
• unjust enrichment
• negligence (against Google)
• negligent misrepresentation (against Google)
• invasion of privacy under Cal. Const. art. I, § 1
• California Penal Code § 631 (CIPA wiretapping)
• California Penal Code § 632 (CIPA eavesdropping)
• California Penal Code § 635 (CIPA eavesdropping device)
• California Penal Code § 638.51 (CIPA pen register)

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. 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

• In re Meta Android Privacy Litigation, No. 3:2025cv04674 - Document 120 (N.D. Cal. 2026) — Justia · Tier A (Primary authority) · 2026-05-11
• In re Meta Android Privacy Litigation, No. 3:2025cv04674 - Document 120 (N.D. Cal. 2026) — Justia (federal docket/opinion) · Tier B (Authoritative secondary) · 2026-05-11

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.