Johnson v. The Allstate Corporation

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

Docket / citation: 1:26-cv-02016

Summary

This is a putative class-action complaint filed February 23, 2026 in the Northern District of Illinois alleging that Allstate’s website continued to load third‑party tracking technologies (Adobe, Meta, Google, DoubleClick, Invoca, Pinterest, Acoustic, YouTube) despite a cookie-banner opt-out, and asserting claims under the Federal Wiretap Act and various Illinois and California privacy and consumer-protection statutes. Plaintiffs seek statutory and actual damages, injunctive and equitable relief, and attorneys' fees on behalf of nationwide and state subclasses. The matter is at the pleading stage and no decision is reported in the document.

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

Complaint (Document #1) filed February 23, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois asserting class claims against The Allstate Corporation for alleged unauthorized interception and disclosure of website communications and deceptive privacy practices.

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

• cookies
• third-party trackers
• CNAME-based tracking
• conversion tracking / pixel
• server-side Conversions API
• tracking scripts

Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: Adobe, Meta / Facebook, Pinterest, Google, DoubleClick, Invoca, Acoustic, YouTube.

Statutes Invoked

• 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/14 et seq.; Cal. Penal Code §§ 631, 632, 638.51 et seq.; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200; 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. § 505/1 et seq.

Claims Asserted

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

• Federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511)
• Illinois Eavesdropping Statute (720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/14 et seq.)
• Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (815 Ill. Comp. Stat. § 505/1 et seq.)
• California Invasion of Privacy Act (Cal. Penal Code § 631)
• California Penal Code § 632
• Cal. Penal Code § 638.51 et seq.
• California Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200)

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.

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

• Johnson v. The Allstate Corporation — Lawsuit Complaint (Document #1 Filed 02/23/2026) — DocketNexus · Tier A (Primary authority) · 2026-02-23

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.