Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Two proposed class actions alleged that LinkedIn learned private information through users’ browser extensions. One plaintiff did not allege having an extension; the other alleged extensions generally can reveal private data but did not say his own extensions disclosed any.
The ruling addresses the dispute at its current procedural stage and does not resolve issues the court expressly left for later proceedings.
The Court’s Holding
The court dismissed both complaints for lack of Article III standing. A plaintiff must plausibly connect the challenged software to collection of that person’s embarrassing, invasive, or otherwise private information. Hypothetical data flows and generalized categories of possible information were insufficient, though amendment was allowed.
The result follows from the governing pleading, jurisdictional, or merits standard applied to the record before the court.
Key Takeaways
- Privacy plaintiffs should investigate and plead their own technical experience, including the extension, data field, transmission, and recipient.
- Businesses defending tracking claims should test the causal link between alleged technology and each named plaintiff before reaching the merits.
- Practitioners should preserve the documents and technical evidence needed to prove the rule applies to the client’s specific facts.
Why It Matters
Privacy plaintiffs should investigate and plead their own technical experience, including the extension, data field, transmission, and recipient. Businesses defending tracking claims should test the causal link between alleged technology and each named plaintiff before reaching the merits.
The decision is unreported and may be persuasive rather than binding, but it offers a current view of how a Northern District of California judge is applying these rules.