Stowe et al. v. Hearst Magazine Media, Inc., d/b/a Bicycling
Summary
Plaintiffs filed a putative class action alleging that Hearst used tracking tools on Bicycling.com to intercept and disclose search terms, video viewing information, and identifiable information to third parties without consent. On June 10, 2026, the federal district court denied Hearst's motion to compel arbitration; the excerpt does not provide the reasons for denial or a merits determination.
Litigation Status
Procedural Posture
Putative class action filed September 10, 2025; the court denied Defendant's motion to compel arbitration on June 10, 2026.
Reported Holding
The court denied Hearst's motion to compel arbitration. The bounded excerpt does not include the court's application of the arbitration standards or its reasons for denial.
What the Court Decided
The court denied Defendant's motion to compel arbitration.
What the Court Did Not Decide
The excerpt shows no merits determination on the privacy or wiretapping claims.
Significance
Generally viewed as plaintiff-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
- Website tracking tools
- Built-in search bar
- Website video viewing
Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: Meta Platform Inc., Google LLC.
Statutes Invoked
- Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2710; Federal Wiretap Act (the excerpt repeats the VPPA citation for this claim); California Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Penal Code §§ 631 and 638; Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 5701 et seq.
Claims Asserted
- Video Privacy Protection Act
- Common law invasion of privacy
- Federal Wiretap Act
- California Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Penal Code § 631
- California Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Penal Code § 638
- Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act
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
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