Tanner v. FCA US LLC
Summary
This website-tracking suit received a mixed pleading ruling: interception and constitutional privacy claims survived, while pen-register, CDAFA, and UCL claims were dismissed. The court allowed amendment rather than entering a final judgment. ([docs.justia.com](https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/caedce/2%3A2026cv01475/486758/22))
Litigation Status
Procedural Posture
Motion to dismiss a first amended putative class complaint; amendment permitted until October 15, 2026. ([docs.justia.com](https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/caedce/2%3A2026cv01475/486758/22))
Reported Holding
Sensitive checkout-data allegations supported Article III standing and survival of ECPA, CIPA § 631(a), and constitutional privacy claims; other claims were dismissed. ([docs.justia.com](https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/caedce/2%3A2026cv01475/486758/22))
What the Court Decided
The court found communication contents, contemporaneous interception, and the crime-tort exception adequately pleaded. It dismissed the pen-register claim for insufficient specificity and CDAFA/UCL claims for insufficient economic-loss allegations. ([docs.justia.com](https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/caedce/2%3A2026cv01475/486758/22))
What the Court Did Not Decide
The order did not determine ultimate liability, damages, or class certification. ([docs.justia.com](https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/caedce/2%3A2026cv01475/486758/22))
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
- session recording
- pixels
- cookies
- canvas fingerprinting
- key logging
- form-input tracking
- Third-party website tracking software
- Session recording
- Tracking pixels
- Cookies
- Canvas fingerprinting
- Keylogging
- Form-input tracking
Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: Meta/Facebook, Google, Crazy Egg, Adobe, Microsoft, Dotomi, Xandr/AppNexus, Rocket Fuel/Rfihub, LiveIntent, Pinterest, DoubleClick, Treasure Data, Reddit, Akamai.
Statutes Invoked
- CIPA §§ 631(a), 638.51(a); ECPA, 18 U.S.C. § 2511; CDAFA, Cal. Penal Code § 502; UCL, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, 17204; Cal. Const. art. I, § 1
- CIPA, Cal. Penal Code §§ 631(a), 638.51(a); ECPA, 18 U.S.C. § 2511; CDAFA, Cal. Penal Code § 502; UCL, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, 17204; Cal. Const. art. I, § 1
Claims Asserted
- CIPA interception
- CIPA pen register
- ECPA interception
- CDAFA
- California constitutional privacy
- UCL
- Alleged state- and federal-law claims concerning third-party website tracking; specific claims are not identified in the excerpt
- CIPA § 631(a)
- CIPA § 638.51(a)
- ECPA
What This Matter May Mean for Website Operators
California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) is an all-party consent statute with a private right of action. Consent standard and private enforceability are the structural features that most shape where website tracking claims are filed and how they are valued.
For operators using similar technologies, the recurring factual questions in matters like this one are when session recording begins relative to consent and whether input masking covers every field; whether advertising pixels transmit page URLs or hashed form data before a consent choice. Our scanner tests these behaviors empirically.
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
- Tanner v. FCA US LLC — Order on Motion to Dismiss (Document 22)
- Tanner v. FCA US LLC — Memorandum and Order Regarding Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
- Tanner v. FCA US LLC — Memorandum and Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
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