Krzyzek et al v. OpenX Technologies, Inc.

Published by Crandall Consulting · Informational litigation intelligence · Last substantive update: October 12, 2026

Docket / citation: 25-cv-05588-SI · Filed: 2025-07-02

Summary

Plaintiffs allege OpenX used pixels to track browsing and compile personal profiles without consent. The court allowed four claims to proceed and dismissed unjust enrichment with leave to amend by February 5, 2026. ([cases.justia.com](https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3%3A2025cv05588/452278/35/0.pdf?ts=1769715990))

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

Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) motion addressing the first amended putative class complaint. ([law.justia.com](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3%3A2025cv05588/452278/35/))

Reported Holding

Alleged cross-website profiling sufficiently established standing; four privacy claims survived dismissal. ([law.justia.com](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3%3A2025cv05588/452278/35/))

What the Court Decided

The court accepted the pleaded content interception, third-party status, interception in transit, crime-tort exception, and pen-register theories. Unjust enrichment was dismissed with leave to amend for failure to allege an inadequate legal remedy. ([cases.justia.com](https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3%3A2025cv05588/452278/35/0.pdf?ts=1769715990))

What the Court Did Not Decide

The court did not resolve actual interception in transit, ultimate liability, damages, or class certification. ([law.justia.com](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3%3A2025cv05588/452278/35/))

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

• tracking pixel
• identity resolution/cross-site profiling
• cross-site tracking
• OpenX pixel
• Identity resolution
• Identity graph
• Cookies
• Hashed identifiers
• Full-string URL tracking
• Button-click tracking

Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: OpenX Technologies, Inc..

Statutes Invoked

• Cal. Penal Code §§ 631, 638.51; 18 U.S.C. § 2511
• California Penal Code §§ 631(a), 638.51(a); Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511

Claims Asserted

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

• Intrusion upon seclusion (California common law)
• California Penal Code § 631(a) (CIPA)
• California Penal Code § 638.51(a) (pen register statute)
• Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511)
• Unjust enrichment
• Intrusion upon seclusion
• CIPA § 631(a)
• CIPA § 638.51(a)
• ECPA § 2511

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

• Krzyzek et al. v. OpenX Technologies, Inc. — Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Dismiss — U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California via Justia · Tier A (Primary authority) · 2026-01-27
• Krzyzek et al v. OpenX Technologies, Inc., Document 35 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2026) — Justia Dockets & Filings · Tier B (Authoritative secondary) · 2026-01-27

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.