Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Angela Farve filed a proposed class action alleging Tory Burch’s website used third-party trackers to intercept or record customer communications despite privacy representations. She invoked federal electronic-communications law and alleged that customer information was shared with tracking vendors.
The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of Article III standing—the constitutional requirement that a federal plaintiff suffer a concrete, personal injury.
The Court’s Holding
The court found no concrete injury. Farve did not identify what information about her was collected or shared. General allegations involving an email address, IP address, device visit, or approximate location did not resemble the highly offensive intrusions traditionally recognized at common law.
An alleged promise not to share data did not by itself create federal standing. The complaint also did not allege that Farve personally relied on the representation or opted out of cookies. The court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction with leave to amend; otherwise, dismissal would be without prejudice to pursuing claims in state court.
Key Takeaways
- Tracking complaints must identify the plaintiff’s own information and explain why its disclosure caused concrete harm.
- Email and IP-address collection, without more, may be too routine to support federal privacy standing.
- A broken privacy promise does not automatically make an intrusion highly offensive.
- State court may remain available when Article III bars the federal forum.
Why It Matters
Privacy plaintiffs need technically specific allegations connecting the tracker, the data collected, the recipient, and a recognized harm. Website operators should still treat privacy disclosures carefully, but a policy inconsistency alone may not establish federal jurisdiction.