Reimer v. BabyCenter, LLC, et al.

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

Docket / citation: 2:26-cv-10783

Summary

According to the source, a proposed federal class action alleges that BabyCenter, Everyday Health, and Ziff Davis continued sending pregnancy-related browsing data to advertising and analytics recipients after visitors selected “Do Not Consent.” The complaint asserts federal and California privacy and related claims on behalf of a proposed nationwide class and California subclass. The defendants have not yet answered, and the source reports no ruling, certified class, or settlement.

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 filed; defendants have not yet answered. Plaintiff demands a jury trial.

What the Court Decided

The source reports no court ruling.

What the Court Did Not Decide

The court has not ruled on the allegations, certified a class, or awarded the requested relief.

Significance

Neutral / mixed significance. 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

• Cookie consent banner and consent-management settings
• Third-party cookies and tracking tags
• Advertising and analytics network requests
• Publisher-provided persistent identifiers
• Custom advertising parameters
• URL and on-site search-term transmission
• Cross-site and cross-device identity resolution
• DoubleClick
• Google Analytics
• Google Ad Manager
• Google IDE and APC cookies
• LiveRamp pxrc and rlas3 cookies

Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: Google, LiveRamp, Microsoft, Amazon, The Trade Desk, Magnite, Index Exchange, TripleLift, OpenX, Comscore, Yahoo, Criteo, Outbrain, Adobe, Temu.

Statutes Invoked

• California Invasion of Privacy Act, Penal Code sections 631 and 632; Federal Wiretap Act; California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act

Claims Asserted

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

• Invasion of privacy under the California Constitution
• Intrusion upon seclusion
• California Invasion of Privacy Act, Penal Code section 631
• California Invasion of Privacy Act, Penal Code section 632
• Federal Wiretap Act
• California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act
• Fraud
• Unjust enrichment
• Breach of contract
• Negligent misrepresentation
• Intentional misrepresentation

What This Matter May Mean for Website Operators

For operators using similar technologies, the recurring factual questions in matters like this one are 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

• BabyCenter Lawsuit: "Do Not Consent" Ignored, Suit Says — OpenClassActions.org · Tier D (Industry data) · 2026-10-01

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.