Judge refuses to dismiss Adidas pixel-tracking privacy lawsuit

Adidas class action overview:

• Who: A California federal judge denied a motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit against Adidas.
• Why: The Adidas class action alleges the company violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) by installing and using tracking pixels on its website.
• Where: The Adidas class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court.

A California federal judge denied Adidas’ motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit accusing the company of violating the California Invasion of Privacy Act by installing and using tracking pixels on its website.

Plaintiffs Maeve Complisson, David Sanchez and Elvis Diciero, the legal guardian of a minor, filed the class action lawsuit in March, alleging Adidas installed and used tracking pixels on its website to collect their private information without their consent.

The plaintiffs claim the tracking pixels constitute a “pen register” under California law and, without the class members’ consent, violate the CIPA.

Adidas moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing the plaintiffs lacked Article III and statutory standing and failed to state a claim.

Adidas failed to put website users on notice of tracking pixels, judge says

U.S. District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel denied Adidas’ motion to dismiss the class action, finding the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged statutory standing. He rejected Adidas’ argument that the plaintiffs failed to plead any injury, noting that a violation of one’s privacy rights is an injury in itself.

Curiel also found the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged Article III standing, rejecting Adidas’ argument that the plaintiffs’ claims were not supported by legislative intent and were inconsistent with traditional privacy harms.

The judge further found the plaintiffs adequately alleged that the tracking pixels constitute a pen register under the CIPA. He rejected Adidas’ argument that the pixels cannot be a pen register because they only capture “certain specific outgoing information” rather than all outgoing communications from a device.

Finally, Curiel rejected Adidas’ argument that the plaintiffs consented to the use of the tracking pixels by agreeing to the company’s privacy policy. He found Adidas failed to adequately show the plaintiffs and class members were put on notice of the policy, which was hyperlinked at the footer of the website.

Earlier this year, SeatGeek faced a class action lawsuit claiming it violated California law by installing tracers or pixels on its website to capture visitors’ phone numbers, email addresses and other personal information.

What do you think of the allegations made in the Adidas class action lawsuit? Tell us in the comments.

The plaintiffs are represented by Avi Josefson, Jonathan D. Uslaner, Michael Blatchley and Timothy G. Fleming of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP.

The Adidas class action lawsuit is Camplisson, et al. v. Adidas America Inc., Case No. 25-cv-603-GPC-KSC, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Fruity Pebbles maker faces lawsuit over false serving size and nutrition info
• Goli sued for misleading melatonin gummy count on ‘Dreamy Sleep’ label
• Trader Joe’s class action alleges ‘100% juice’ freezer pops contain non-juice ingredients
• Class action accuses Hilton of sending false urgency spam to Washington consumers