Wiley v. Universal Music Investments, Inc.

Published by Crandall Consulting · Informational litigation intelligence · Last substantive update: October 12, 2026

Docket / citation: 25-cv-03095-PCP · Filed: 2026-09-14

Summary

Plaintiffs alleged tracking despite cookie opt-outs. The court dismissed CIPA claims with prejudice while permitting privacy and unjust enrichment claims to proceed past standing and timeliness challenges. ([docs.justia.com](https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/5%3A2025cv03095/447589/68))

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

Rule 12(b)(6) motion addressing an amended complaint after an earlier partial dismissal; CIPA claims dismissed without further leave to amend. ([docs.justia.com](https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/5%3A2025cv03095/447589/68))

Reported Holding

The court dismissed the CIPA claims with prejudice but allowed privacy and unjust enrichment claims to continue. ([docs.justia.com](https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/5%3A2025cv03095/447589/68))

What the Court Decided

Browsing URLs and associated data did not sufficiently establish communications supporting the wiretapping or pen-register claims. Standing was adequately pleaded, and dismissal on timeliness grounds was denied. ([cases.justia.com](https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/candce/5%3A2025cv03095/447589/68/0.pdf?ts=1789463524))

What the Court Did Not Decide

The court did not determine ultimate liability or resolve the applicable unjust enrichment limitations period. ([docs.justia.com](https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/5%3A2025cv03095/447589/68))

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

• Cookies
• Website tracking
• Full-string URL transmission

Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: Meta.

Statutes Invoked

• California Invasion of Privacy Act; California Penal Code §§ 631(a), 638.50(b), 638.51(a)

Claims Asserted

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

• CIPA wiretapping
• CIPA pen-register use
• Invasion of privacy
• Intrusion upon seclusion
• Unjust enrichment

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

• Wiley v. Universal Music Investments, Inc., 5:25-cv-03095 — U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, via Midpage · Tier A (Primary authority) · 2026-09-14
• Wiley et al. v. Universal Music Group, Inc.: Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss in Part — U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, via Justia · Tier A (Primary authority) · 2026-09-14

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.