Magenheim et al. v. Nike, Inc.

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

Docket / citation: 9:25-cv-81573-DMM

Summary

A March/April 2026 industry article reports that Salpeter Gitkin filed a proposed class action on December 16, 2025 in the Southern District of Florida (Magenheim et al. v. Nike) alleging that third-party scripts on nike.com installed code and transmitted user data without consent under the Florida Security of Communications Act and related tort theories. The filing is presented as part of a broader pattern of FSCA 'digital wiretapping' lawsuits targeting sites that use tag managers and third-party advertising/analytics tools.

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

Proposed class-action complaint filed December 16, 2025 in federal court (S.D. Fla.) alleging that third-party scripts on nike.com installed software and transmitted data without consent; plaintiffs seek statutory damages, punitive damages, disgorgement, and restitution and define a class of Florida residents who accessed nike.com in the two years before filing. Complaint alleges violations of the FSCA and multiple common-law torts; amount in controversy alleged to exceed $5 million.

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

• third-party scripts
• advertising pixels/tags
• analytics tags
• tag manager deployment

Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: The Trade Desk (adsrvr.org), Google Tag Manager, Google AdSense, PubMatic, Index Exchange, BidSwitch.

Statutes Invoked

• Florida Security of Communications Act (FSCA) — all-party consent · private right of action

Claims Asserted

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

• Florida Security of Communications Act (FSCA) - digital wiretapping
• Invasion of privacy
• Trespass to chattels
• Conversion
• Unjust enrichment

What This Matter May Mean for Website Operators

Florida Security of Communications Act (FSCA) is an all-party consent statute with a private right of action. Consent standard and private enforceability are the structural features that most shape where website tracking claims are filed and how they are valued.

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

• Salpeter Gitkin Florida’s Data Privacy Litigation Over FSCA — Captain Compliance · Tier D (Industry data) · 2026-04-02

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.