Torres v. SeatGeek, Inc.
Summary
A California federal judge dismissed a putative class action against a ticket seller alleging third-party pixel tracking, concluding the alleged collection and transmission of browsing metadata did not establish Article III standing. The court relied on Ninth Circuit precedent and allowed the plaintiff leave to amend.
Litigation Status
Procedural Posture
Plaintiff filed a putative class action alleging use of TikTok and Meta pixels to collect and transmit identifying browsing metadata; defendant moved to dismiss, arguing lack of Article III standing; the court granted dismissal but permitted amendment.
Reported Holding
The district court dismissed a putative class action for lack of Article III standing, concluding that the alleged collection of IP addresses, device/browser metadata, and cookie identifiers by third-party pixels did not amount to the kind of privacy harm establishing Article III standing. The court cited Ninth Circuit precedent (Popa v. Microsoft) and ruled that metadata tracking on a public ticket-resale site does not resemble traditional common-law privacy torts, while noting the plaintiff could amend the complaint.
What the Court Decided
The court granted defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of Article III standing, finding that the alleged routine collection and transmission of browsing metadata via third-party pixels did not constitute an Article III injury sufficient to support the privacy claims.
What the Court Did Not Decide
The court did not finally adjudicate the merits of the CDAFA, CIPA, or common-law invasion-of-privacy claims on the merits and allowed the plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint.
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
- TikTok Pixel
- Meta Pixel
- Microsoft Bing tracker
- third-party tracking cookies
- device fingerprinting
- tracking pixels
- third-party trackers
- fingerprinting
- cookie synchronization
- targeted advertising
- third-party pixel tracking
Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: SeatGeek, Inc., TikTok, Meta, Microsoft (Bing), third-party tracking vendors.
Statutes Invoked
- Cal. Penal Code § 502 (CDAFA); Cal. Penal Code § 638.51(a) (CIPA); Cal. Const. art. I, § 1
- California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (CDAFA); California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) § 638.51(a)
- California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (CDAFA); California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA)
Claims Asserted
- California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (CDAFA), Cal. Penal Code § 502
- California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), Cal. Penal Code § 638.51(a)
- Invasion of privacy under California Constitution, art. I, § 1
- Common-law intrusion upon seclusion (invasion of privacy)
- California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (CDAFA)
- California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) § 638.51(a)
- Invasion of privacy under the California Constitution
- Common-law invasion of privacy
- California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA)
- common-law invasion of privacy
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 whether advertising pixels transmit page URLs or hashed form data before a consent choice. Our scanner tests these behaviors empirically.
The reported outcome direction at the standing 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
- Torres v. SeatGeek, Inc. — ORDER (No. 25-cv-07118-LB)
- Post-Popa v. Microsoft, Courts in California Keep the Standing Bar High for Web-Tracking Claims
- No Standing For You! Pixel Tracking Lawsuit Dismissed
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