In Re: USA Today Co., Inc. Internet Tracking Litigation
Summary
The Northern District of California granted USA Today's motion to dismiss, holding plaintiffs failed to allege Article III standing based on the pleaded collection of IP addresses, device type, and browser type and on unspecified 'unique and persistent identifiers.' The complaint was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction with leave to amend by April 28, 2026.
Litigation Status
Procedural Posture
Defendant moved to dismiss (motion dated June 25, 2025). The court took the motion under submission and, by order signed April 6, 2026, dismissed the FCC for lack of Article III standing and afforded plaintiffs leave to amend by April 28, 2026; failure to amend will result in remand for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Reported Holding
The court held plaintiffs failed to allege Article III standing. The complaint's allegations that third-party trackers collected IP addresses, device type, and browser type do not, as pled, implicate legally protected privacy interests; plaintiffs also failed to identify specific persistent or unique identifiers with sufficient specificity. Alleged economic injury (value of user data) and a statutory CIPA violation, standing alone, were insufficient to establish a concrete injury. The First Consolidated Class Action Complaint (FCC) was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction with leave to amend.
What the Court Decided
The court granted defendant USA Today Co., Inc.'s motion to dismiss for lack of Article III standing, dismissed the First Consolidated Class Action Complaint, and afforded plaintiffs leave to amend by April 28, 2026; if plaintiffs fail to amend, the action will be remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
What the Court Did Not Decide
The court did not reach the merits of plaintiffs' underlying statutory or substantive claims (e.g., whether the trackers in fact violated the cited statutes or caused compensable harm) because it dismissed on standing/subject-matter jurisdiction grounds.
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
- third-party website tracking technologies
- collection of IP addresses
- location data
- browser type
- unique/persistent identifiers (as alleged)
- third-party trackers
- IP addresses
- device type / browser type (device/browser identifiers)
- alleged unique and persistent identifiers
Statutes Invoked
- California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) — trap-and-trace provision
- Cal. Penal Code § 502; Cal. Penal Code § 638.51 (CIPA, Penal Code §§ 630-638.55); Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200
Claims Asserted
- California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) — trap-and-trace provision
- Unjust enrichment
- Other privacy-related claims (as pled)
- Violation of the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (Cal. Penal Code § 502)
- Unlawful Use of a Pen Register or Trap and Trace Device (Cal. Penal Code § 638.51 / CIPA)
- Invasion of Privacy (Cal. Const. Art. I)
- Unjust Enrichment
- Violations of California Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.)
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.
The reported outcome direction at the pleading 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
- Another Court Dismisses Website Privacy Suit for Lack of Article III Standing
- ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS; AFFORDING LEAVE TO AMEND (In re: USA Today Co., Inc. Internet Tracking Litigation)
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