Stowe et al. v. Hearst Magazine Media, Inc.

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

Docket / citation: 1:25-cv-01128-JCG · Filed: 2025-09-10

Summary

Plaintiffs allege that Bicycling.com tracking tools disclosed search terms, video-viewing information, and identifying information to third parties without consent. The court denied immediate arbitration and ordered limited discovery on agreement formation, leaving arbitrability and the underlying claims unresolved. ([law.justia.com](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/delaware/dedce/1%3A2025cv01128/90541/23/))

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

Pre-discovery motion to compel arbitration in a putative class action; Hearst’s complaint-response deadline remained stayed pending arbitrability proceedings. ([law.justia.com](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/delaware/dedce/1%3A2025cv01128/90541/23/))

Reported Holding

Arbitration was not established by the complaint or supporting documents, and plaintiffs sufficiently disputed agreement formation. Limited discovery was required. ([cases.justia.com](https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/delaware/dedce/1%3A2025cv01128/90541/23/0.pdf?ts=1781549703))

What the Court Decided

The court denied Hearst’s motion to compel arbitration and ordered discovery limited to arbitrability, followed by Rule 56 briefing and a possible trial if material factual disputes remain. ([cases.justia.com](https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/delaware/dedce/1%3A2025cv01128/90541/23/0.pdf?ts=1781549703))

What the Court Did Not Decide

The court did not finally resolve arbitration agreement formation or the merits of the privacy claims. ([cases.justia.com](https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/delaware/dedce/1%3A2025cv01128/90541/23/0.pdf?ts=1781549703))

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
• Website search bar
• Online video

Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: Meta Platform Inc., Google LLC.

Statutes Invoked

• Federal Arbitration Act, Section 3; Video Privacy Protection Act; Federal Wiretap Act; California Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Penal Code §§ 631 and 638; Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act

Claims Asserted

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

• Video Privacy Protection Act
• Common law invasion of privacy
• Federal Wiretap Act
• California Invasion of Privacy Act, § 631
• California Invasion of Privacy Act, § 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

• Stowe et al. v. Hearst Magazine Media, Inc. — Document 23, Opinion Denying Motion to Compel Arbitration — U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, via Justia · Tier A (Primary authority)

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.