Thomas v. Papa John's International, Inc.

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

Docket / citation: 24-3557; cross-appeal 24-3834

Summary

The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of Thomas's session-replay privacy claims while rejecting Papa John's personal-jurisdiction challenge. The unpublished memorandum is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ([law.justia.com](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/24-3557/24-3557-2025-06-18.html))

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

Thomas appealed Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals of her amended complaints; Papa John's cross-appealed denial of its personal-jurisdiction motion. ([law.justia.com](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/24-3557/24-3557-2025-06-18.html))

Reported Holding

A conversation participant cannot eavesdrop on its own conversation under section 631; Thomas also inadequately pleaded highly offensive intrusion. ([law.justia.com](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/24-3557/24-3557-2025-06-18.html))

What the Court Decided

The court affirmed dismissal of both privacy claims and upheld personal jurisdiction over Papa John's in California. ([law.justia.com](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/24-3557/24-3557-2025-06-18.html))

What the Court Did Not Decide

The court did not adjudicate an aiding-another-party theory because Thomas did not allege it. ([law.justia.com](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/24-3557/24-3557-2025-06-18.html))

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

• Meta Pixel
• TikTok Pixel
• Microsoft Clarity
• FullStory
• Google Analytics
• session-replay
• browser fingerprinting
• chat widgets
• Session Replay Code

Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: Meta, TikTok, FullStory, Salesforce, Hotjar, Microsoft, Papa John's.

Statutes Invoked

• California Penal Code § 631; California Penal Code § 638.51
• California Invasion of Privacy Act, California Penal Code § 631(a)

Claims Asserted

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

• California Penal Code § 631 (wiretap/eavesdropping allegations)
• California Penal Code § 638.51 (referenced)
• CIPA section 631(a) direct eavesdropping
• California common-law intrusion upon seclusion

What This Matter May Mean for Website Operators

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 chat transcripts or typing previews transit a vendor's servers before the visitor presses send; whether advertising pixels transmit page URLs or hashed form data before a consent choice; what page URLs and query strings analytics tools share with third parties. Our scanner tests these behaviors empirically.

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

• Thomas v. Papa John's International, Inc., No. 24-3557 — Affirmance of Dismissal of California Session-Replay Privacy Claims — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, via Justia · Tier A (Primary authority) · 2025-06-18
• When Website Tracking Becomes a Wiretap Claim — Captain Compliance · Tier D (Industry data) · 2026-08-31

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.