Wright v. TrueCare Property Holdings, LLC

Published by Crandall Consulting · Informational litigation intelligence · Last substantive update: October 10, 2026

Docket / citation: 3:25-cv-00786-JES-BLM · Filed: 2025-11-21

Summary

The lawsuit concerns alleged Meta Pixel tracking on truecare.org. The November 21, 2025 order preserved the pen-register claim and permitted amendment of four dismissed counts, without resolving ultimate liability. ([govinfo.gov](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-casd-3_25-cv-00786/pdf/USCOURTS-casd-3_25-cv-00786-0.pdf))

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

Motion to dismiss the first amended complaint, ECF No. 26. ([govinfo.gov](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-casd-3_25-cv-00786/pdf/USCOURTS-casd-3_25-cv-00786-0.pdf))

Reported Holding

Meta Pixel tracking of visits and Facebook IDs plausibly supported the pen-register claim; four other counts were dismissed with leave to amend. ([govinfo.gov](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-casd-3_25-cv-00786/pdf/USCOURTS-casd-3_25-cv-00786-0.pdf))

What the Court Decided

Count IV survived; Counts I, II, III, and V lacked sufficient allegations of communication contents, serious privacy intrusion, or protected medical information. ([govinfo.gov](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-casd-3_25-cv-00786/pdf/USCOURTS-casd-3_25-cv-00786-0.pdf))

What the Court Did Not Decide

The court deferred the party exception, remaining dismissal arguments, and motion to strike CMIA class allegations. ([govinfo.gov](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-casd-3_25-cv-00786/pdf/USCOURTS-casd-3_25-cv-00786-0.pdf))

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

• Meta Pixel

Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: Meta Platforms, Inc..

Statutes Invoked

• 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1); California Penal Code §§ 631(a), 638.50–638.51; California Civil Code § 56.05

Claims Asserted

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

• ECPA interception
• CIPA interception
• California constitutional invasion of privacy
• Pen register or trap and trace device
• CMIA medical-information disclosure

What This Matter May Mean for Website Operators

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.

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

• Wright v. TrueCare Property Holdings, LLC: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss — U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California / GovInfo · Tier A (Primary authority) · 2025-11-21

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.