J.S. v. Spring Fertility Holdings, LLC et al.

Published by Crandall Consulting · Informational litigation intelligence · Last substantive update: September 6, 2026

Docket / citation: Case No. 5:24-cv-07374-EJD · Filed: 2024-10-22

Summary

This September 30, 2025 federal district court order granted Meta's motion to sever J.S.'s claims (to be consolidated with the In re Meta Pixel Healthcare Litigation) and granted LinkedIn and Spring Fertility's motions to dismiss J.S.'s complaint with leave to amend. In related cases the court dismissed CIPA § 631 claims with leave to amend while denying dismissal of CIPA § 632 and state constitutional invasion of privacy claims; a status conference on consolidation was set for October 23, 2025.

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

Multi-defendant putative class actions filed in 2024 (cases were related on Jan. 3, 2025). Defendants moved to dismiss and, in Meta's case, to sever/transfer claims. The Court heard argument June 5, 2025, granted Meta's motion to sever, granted dismissal of J.S.'s complaint with leave to amend, and set a status conference for October 23, 2025 with a joint status report due October 15, 2025.

Reported Holding

The Court granted Meta's motion to sever J.S.'s claims against Meta and ordered those claims consolidated with In re Meta Pixel Healthcare Litigation (N.D. Cal. Case No. 3:22-cv-03580-WHO). The Court granted LinkedIn and Spring Fertility's motions to dismiss all claims in J.S.'s complaint with leave to amend. In the related three cases, the Court granted dismissal of CIPA § 631 claims with leave to amend and denied dismissal of plaintiffs' CIPA § 632 and California constitutional invasion of privacy claims.

What the Court Decided

The Court severed J.S.'s claims against Meta and ordered consolidation of those claims into the In re Meta Pixel Healthcare Litigation. The Court granted motions to dismiss J.S.'s claims against LinkedIn and Spring Fertility with leave to amend, and, in the other related cases, granted dismissal of CIPA § 631 claims with leave to amend while denying dismissal of CIPA § 632 and California constitutional privacy claims.

What the Court Did Not Decide

The Court did not resolve the merits of the underlying privacy claims on the merits; it left issues such as the ultimate determination of whether LinkedIn's conduct was 'highly offensive' and other fact-intensive questions for later proceedings. The Court also did not finally consolidate the related cases — it set a status conference to discuss consolidation.

Significance

Neutral / mixed significance. 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

• LinkedIn Insight Tag (JavaScript tracking pixel)
• web cookies / cookie banner
• web tracking / pixel-based tracking

Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: LinkedIn Corporation, Spring Fertility Holdings, LLC, Meta Platforms, Inc..

Statutes Invoked

• Cal. Penal Code §§ 631, 632; California Constitution (invasion of privacy claim referenced)

Claims Asserted

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

• Cal. Penal Code § 631 (CIPA - eavesdropping/interception)
• Cal. Penal Code § 632 (CIPA - confidential communications)
• Invasion of privacy under the California Constitution
• Putative class privacy claims related to website tracking

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.

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

• Case 5:24-cv-07374-EJD Document 70 (Order) Filed 09/30/25 — United States District Court, Northern District of California (via govinfo) · Tier B (Authoritative secondary) · 2025-09-30

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.