CRANDALL CONSULTING
HomeWebsite Tracking Cases › So v. Hyatt Hotels Corp.

So v. Hyatt Hotels Corp.

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

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division
Court
Federal
Jurisdiction
2026-05-05
Decision Date
Lawsuit
Matter Type

Docket / citation: 25 C 10483

Risk scores, classifications, statistics, and technical findings are informational guidelines based on observed website behavior and publicly available litigation activity, statutes, court decisions, legal commentary, and other public sources. They are not legal advice, legal opinions, or determinations of liability.

Summary

Plaintiff Juhyun So sued Hyatt in federal court alleging that Hyatt enabled Adobe and Meta to intercept website inputs in violation of the Federal Wiretap Act. The Northern District of Illinois granted Hyatt's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint for failure to plausibly allege that Adobe or Meta acquired the plaintiff's personal identifying information; the court did not address the motion to strike class allegations.

Litigation Status

Decided
Current Status
Defense-favorable (as reported)
Reported Outcome Direction
Pleading
Ruling Stage
Limited (stage- or fact-specific)
Precedential Weight

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 Juhyun So filed a putative class action originally in the Central District of California alleging CIPA claims; the case was transferred to the Northern District of Illinois based on Hyatt's forum-selection clauses. In the Northern District, So filed a second amended complaint asserting a claim under the Federal Wiretap Act; Hyatt moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), and the court granted that motion.

Reported Holding

The district court granted Hyatt's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's second amended complaint alleging violations of the Federal Wiretap Act, concluding the complaint did not plausibly allege interception by Adobe or Meta of the plaintiff's personal identifying information.

What the Court Decided

The Court granted Hyatt's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the second amended complaint alleging violations of the Federal Wiretap Act and therefore did not rule on Hyatt's motion to strike class allegations.

What the Court Did Not Decide

The Court did not decide the motion to strike the class allegations because it granted the motion to dismiss.

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 parties named or identified in tracked sources: Adobe Inc., Meta Platforms, Inc., Hyatt Hotels Corp..

Statutes Invoked

Claims Asserted

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

What This Matter May Mean for Website Operators

The reported outcome direction at the pleading stage reflects how tracked sources characterize the ruling; such rulings are often narrow, posture-specific, and fact-bound rather than broad statements of law.

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

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.

Is Your Website Creating Hidden Tracking Risk?

Scan your site for third-party tracking and potential wiretap exposure. Free, no account required.

Scan My Website