Shah v. MyFitnessPal, Inc.

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

Docket / citation: 5:25-cv-04430-PCP · Filed: 2026-09-28

Summary

Plaintiffs alleged tracking continued after cookie opt-outs. The court partially granted dismissal but allowed Wiley’s CIPA claims and both plaintiffs’ fraud claims to proceed, rejecting dismissal on timeliness grounds. ([govinfo.gov](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-5_25-cv-04430/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-5_25-cv-04430-1.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

Rule 12(b)(6) motion addressing an amended complaint after an earlier partial dismissal. ([govinfo.gov](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-5_25-cv-04430/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-5_25-cv-04430-1.pdf))

Reported Holding

Shah’s wiretapping and pen register claims were dismissed; the motion was otherwise denied. ([govinfo.gov](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-5_25-cv-04430/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-5_25-cv-04430-1.pdf))

What the Court Decided

Wiley sufficiently alleged communications containing personal information and preferences; Shah alleged only browsing records. Both plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded fraud. ([govinfo.gov](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-5_25-cv-04430/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-5_25-cv-04430-1.pdf))

What the Court Did Not Decide

Actual interception in transit and whether cookies tracked information covered by the pen register statute remained factual questions. ([govinfo.gov](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-5_25-cv-04430/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-5_25-cv-04430-1.pdf))

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

• Tracking cookies
• Website search
• Sign-up input tracking
• TCP/UDP and request-header metadata

Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: Comscore, Inc..

Statutes Invoked

• California Invasion of Privacy Act; California Penal Code §§ 631(a), 638.50(b), 638.51(a)

Claims Asserted

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

• Invasion of privacy
• Intrusion upon seclusion
• CIPA wiretapping
• CIPA pen register
• Common law fraud, deceit, and/or misrepresentation
• Unjust enrichment

What This Matter May Mean for Website Operators

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. 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

• Shah v. MyFitnessPal, Inc.: Order Granting Motion to Dismiss in Part — U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California / GovInfo · Tier A (Primary authority) · 2026-09-28

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.