Shah v. Politico LLC

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

Docket / citation: 25-cv-05213-NW · Filed: 2026-09-25

Summary

Plaintiffs allege Politico continued third-party cookie tracking after they rejected certain cookies through its banner. The September 25, 2026 order permitted several claims to proceed while dismissing CIPA claims on limitations grounds, with limited amendment permitted for two plaintiffs. ([docs.justia.com](https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/5%3A2025cv05213/451599/131))

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

Ruling on Politico’s motion to dismiss the first amended complaint in a putative class action; any second amended complaint was due October 16, 2026. The original action was filed June 20, 2025. ([docs.justia.com](https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/5%3A2025cv05213/451599/131))

Reported Holding

The court found sufficient Article III standing and allowed privacy, intrusion, fraud, and unjust-enrichment/quasi-contract claims to proceed, but dismissed all CIPA claims as untimely. ([docs.justia.com](https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/5%3A2025cv05213/451599/131))

What the Court Decided

Shah’s CIPA claims were dismissed with prejudice; Willis’s and Penning’s were dismissed with limited leave to plead investigation supporting delayed discovery. Dismissal of Counts I–II and V–VI was denied. ([docs.justia.com](https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/5%3A2025cv05213/451599/131))

What the Court Did Not Decide

The court did not determine ultimate liability or resolve factual disputes about Penning’s alleged tester status and whether Willis and Penning encountered the cookie banner. ([docs.justia.com](https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/5%3A2025cv05213/451599/131))

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
• Performance cookies
• Online behavioral advertising cookies
• Online behavioural advertising cookies

Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: Google, Adobe, TikTok, Google LLC, Adobe Inc., LiveRamp Holdings, Inc., Microsoft Corp., The Trade Desk, Inc., Comscore, Inc., PubMatic, Inc., Amazon.com, Inc., X Corp (Twitter), Yahoo, Inc., Criteo S.A., Sonobi, Inc., GumGum, Inc., OpenX Technologies, Inc., X Corp. (Twitter).

Statutes Invoked

• Cal. Penal Code §§ 631, 638.51 (California Invasion of Privacy Act)
• Cal. Penal Code § 631; Cal. Penal Code § 638.51
• California Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Penal Code §§ 631 and 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
• CIPA wiretapping
• CIPA pen register
• Common-law fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation
• Unjust enrichment/quasi-contract

What This Matter May Mean for Website Operators

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

• 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
• Shah v. Politico LLC, 5:2025cv05213 - Document 131 (N.D. Cal. 2026) — Justia · Tier A (Primary authority) · 2026-09-25
• Shah v. Politico LLC — Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint — U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, via Justia · Tier A (Primary authority) · 2026-09-25
• Shah v. Politico LLC — Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint — U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, via Justia · Tier A (Primary authority) · 2026-09-25
• Shah v. Politico LLC — Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint — U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, via Justia · Tier A (Primary authority) · 2026-09-25

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.