Jose Torres v. SeatGeek, Inc.

Published by Crandall Consulting · Informational litigation intelligence · Last substantive update: August 23, 2026

Docket / citation: No. 3:25-cv-07118-LB · Filed: 2026-05-28

Summary

This May 21, 2026 federal district-court order dismissed Jose Torres's putative class action against SeatGeek for lack of Article III standing based on alleged transmission of IP addresses and other device metadata to third-party trackers (TikTok, Meta, Microsoft). The court found the alleged record information did not amount to a traditional common-law privacy harm and dismissed without prejudice, giving leave to amend by June 29, 2026.

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

Order on defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 30). The court considered Rule 12(b)(1) standing arguments and Rule 12(b)(6) sufficiency; consent to magistrate jurisdiction is on the docket. Hearing was held May 21, 2026.

Reported Holding

The court held that the plaintiff has not plausibly pleaded a concrete Article III injury based on the alleged collection and sharing of IP addresses, device metadata, and browsing information via third-party trackers. The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims for lack of standing but granted leave to amend (amended complaint due June 29, 2026).

What the Court Decided

The court granted defendant SeatGeek's motion to dismiss for lack of Article III standing and dismissed the plaintiff's claims. The plaintiff was given leave to file an amended complaint by June 29, 2026.

What the Court Did Not Decide

The court did not resolve the merits of all statutory arguments at length (it resolved standing as a jurisdictional bar). It did not enter a final merits judgment on the underlying privacy claims; the order does not resolve all Rule 12(b)(6) arguments on the merits because dismissal was on standing grounds and some claims were discussed as insufficiently pleaded.

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

• TikTok Pixel
• Meta (Facebook) Pixel
• Microsoft Bing tracker
• third-party tracking cookies
• device fingerprinting

Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: TikTok, Meta (Facebook), Microsoft (Bing), SeatGeek.

Statutes Invoked

• Cal. Penal Code § 502; Cal. Penal Code § 638.51(a); Cal. Const. art. 1, § 1

Claims Asserted

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

• California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (CDAFA) Cal. Penal Code § 502
• California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) Cal. Penal Code § 638.51(a)
• Invasion of privacy under California Constitution art. 1, § 1
• Common-law intrusion upon seclusion / common-law invasion of privacy

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.

The reported outcome direction at the standing 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

• Order (United States District Court, N.D. Cal.) — dated May 21, 2026 — govinfo / United States District Court (N.D. Cal.) · Tier B (Authoritative secondary) · 2026-05-21

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.