Lutge v. Timex.com, Inc.

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

Docket / citation: 3:26-cv-00960

Summary

The complaint alleged that Timex disclosed shopping information to Klaviyo despite a cookie opt-out. The court found insufficient allegations of concrete privacy injury and dismissed with leave to amend, without reaching the merits.

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

Timex requested transfer or dismissal; the court raised standing sua sponte.

Reported Holding

The alleged collection of nonsensitive shopping information did not establish concrete injury sufficient for Article III standing.

What the Court Decided

The court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, without prejudice and with leave to amend.

What the Court Did Not Decide

The court did not reach transfer or the merits.

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

• Cookies
• Embedded tracking code
• Identity resolution
• Anonymous visitor activity backfill
• Browser fingerprinting
• Server-side matching
• Website form collection

Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: Klaviyo.

Statutes Invoked

• Electronic Communications Privacy Act; California Invasion of Privacy Act; California Constitution

Claims Asserted

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

• Electronic Communications Privacy Act
• California Invasion of Privacy Act
• California constitutional privacy

Related Intelligence

Sources

• Lutge v. Timex.com, Inc. — Order Dismissing Case — U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (via Midpage) · Tier A (Primary authority) · 2026-09-14

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.