Ortiz v. Foris Dax, Inc.

Published by Crandall Consulting · Informational litigation intelligence · Last substantive update: October 11, 2026

Docket / citation: 25-cv-08950-EMC · Filed: 2025-10-17

Summary

Plaintiffs alleged crypto.com transmitted browsing data despite their selecting “Disable All” cookies. The court found the allegations insufficient to establish concrete privacy injury and dismissed with leave to amend. ([docs.justia.com](https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3%3A2025cv08950/458198/44))

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

Motion to dismiss the amended complaint; standing addressed sua sponte. ([docs.justia.com](https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3%3A2025cv08950/458198/44))

Reported Holding

Plaintiffs inadequately alleged concrete injury supporting Article III standing. ([docs.justia.com](https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3%3A2025cv08950/458198/44))

What the Court Decided

The court dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, allowing amendment within 30 days. ([docs.justia.com](https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3%3A2025cv08950/458198/44))

What the Court Did Not Decide

The court did not resolve the claims on their merits or find further amendment futile. ([docs.justia.com](https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3%3A2025cv08950/458198/44))

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-party cookies
• Browser identifiers
• Cookie consent banner

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

Statutes Invoked

• Cal. Penal Code §§ 631(a), 638.51 (CIPA) — all-party consent · private right of action
• California Invasion of Privacy Act — 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
• Invasion of privacy
• Intrusion upon seclusion
• Unjust enrichment
• California Invasion of Privacy Act

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.

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

• Ortiz et al. v. Foris Dax, Inc. — Order Dismissing Case, with Leave to Amend — U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, via Justia · Tier A (Primary authority) · 2026-10-06
• 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.