Shah v. Politico LLC

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

Docket / citation: 25-cv-05213-NW · Filed: 2026-02-06

Summary

A federal district court in the Northern District of California issued an order on February 6, 2026, granting in part and denying in part Politico's motion to dismiss a class-action complaint alleging that Politico's website placed or transmitted tracking cookies despite user opt-outs. The complaint asserts multiple claims, including CIPA wiretapping and pen-register claims; the court allowed some claims to proceed and dismissed others, but did not decide the merits.

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

Plaintiff filed a class-action complaint alleging that Politico's website continued to place or transmit first- and third-party tracking cookies despite an opt-out selection; Defendant moved to dismiss; the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the motion.

Reported Holding

The district court issued an order granting in part and denying in part Defendant Politico's motion to dismiss Plaintiff Shah's complaint alleging various claims (including CIPA wiretapping and pen-register claims, invasion of privacy, fraud, unjust enrichment, contract claims, and trespass to chattels). The order allowed some claims to proceed while dismissing others.

What the Court Decided

The court granted in part and denied in part Politico's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Shah's class-action complaint and addressed Article III standing and pleading sufficiency under Rule 12(b)(6). Some claims survived the motion while others were dismissed by the court.

What the Court Did Not Decide

The court did not resolve the merits of the surviving claims, any class certification issues, or liability and damages.

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

• third-party cookies
• first-party cookies
• tracking technologies
• cookie consent banner / toggle opt-outs
• Cookie consent banner
• Third-party cookies
• Tracking cookies
• Tracking technologies

Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: Google, Adobe, TikTok.

Statutes Invoked

• Cal. Penal Code §§ 631, 638.51 (California Invasion of Privacy Act)
• Cal. Penal Code § 631; Cal. Penal Code § 638.51

Claims Asserted

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

• Invasion of privacy
• Intrusion upon seclusion
• California Invasion of Privacy Act (Cal. Penal Code § 631) - wiretapping
• California Invasion of Privacy Act (Cal. Penal Code § 638.51) - pen register
• Common law fraud/deceit/misrepresentation
• Unjust enrichment
• Breach of contract
• Breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
• Trespass to chattels
• Wiretapping (CIPA Cal. Penal Code § 631)
• Use of a pen register (CIPA Cal. Penal Code § 638.51)
• Common law fraud, deceit, and/or misrepresentation
• Breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing

Related Intelligence

Sources

• ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART POLITICO'S MOTION TO DISMISS (Shah v. Politico LLC) — Justia Dockets & Filings (U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal.) · Tier A (Primary authority) · 2026-02-06
• Shah v. Politico LLC, 25-cv-05213-NW (N.D. Cal. Feb 06, 2026) - ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART POLITICO'S MOTION TO DISMISS — vLex (case law database) · Tier A (Primary authority) · 2026-02-06

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.