Ortiz v. Foris Dax, Inc.

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

Docket / citation: 25-cv-08950-EMC

Summary

This is a May 21, 2026 Northern District of California order on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion in a putative class action alleging that Crypto.com (operated by Foris Dax) deployed third-party tracking cookies after users selected ‘Disable All.’ The court dismissed most claims with leave to amend but allowed one CIPA claim under Penal Code §638.51 to proceed. The case remains pending with leave to amend the complaint. ([govinfo.gov](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_25-cv-08950/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-3_25-cv-08950-0.pdf))

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

Putative class action. Defendant moved to dismiss all counts; the court issued an order dated May 21, 2026 granting the motion in part and denying it in part, and granted leave to amend for the dismissed claims.

Reported Holding

The court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss in part and dismissed Counts I (Invasion of Privacy), II (Intrusion Upon Seclusion), III (CIPA §631), V (Fraud), and VI (Unjust Enrichment) with leave to amend, and denied the motion as to Count IV (CIPA §638.51), allowing that claim to proceed. ([govinfo.gov](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_25-cv-08950/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-3_25-cv-08950-0.pdf))

What the Court Decided

The District Court granted in part and denied in part Foris Dax’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss: most common-law tort and certain statutory claims were dismissed with leave to amend, while the claim under CIPA §638.51 survives. ([govinfo.gov](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_25-cv-08950/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-3_25-cv-08950-0.pdf))

What the Court Did Not Decide

The court did not reach the merits of the surviving CIPA §638.51 claim nor enter final judgment; it resolved only the sufficiency of the pleaded claims on the motion to dismiss.

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

• third-party cookies
• cross-site tracking
• web tracking
• online advertising cookies

Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: Foris Dax / Crypto.com, Google, X, Snapchat.

Statutes Invoked

• Cal. Penal Code §§ 631(a), 638.51 (CIPA) — all-party consent · private right of action

Claims Asserted

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

• Invasion of Privacy
• Intrusion Upon Seclusion
• CIPA §631(a)
• CIPA §638.51
• Fraud
• Unjust Enrichment

What This Matter May Mean for Website Operators

California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) 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.

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

• Case 3:25-cv-08950-EMC Document 31 Filed 05/21/26 — United States District Court, N.D. Cal. (via govinfo) · 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.