Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
California consumers alleged that Campbell’s and Pacific Foods websites offered privacy controls but nevertheless transmitted browsing information to third parties. They asserted California privacy, wiretap, and related trust-based claims in a putative class action.
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 denied dismissal and refused to stay the case. At the pleading stage, the alleged mismatch between user-selected controls and actual third-party tracking plausibly supported the claims, and the court would not decide fact-intensive questions about offensiveness and data sensitivity against the consumers. A pending state appeal affecting only one theory did not justify freezing the entire action.
The result follows from the governing pleading, jurisdictional, or merits standard applied to the record before the court.
Key Takeaways
- Consent banners and preference centers must work as represented.
- Companies should test whether tags continue firing after opt-out choices, document each vendor’s role, and avoid relying on a possible future appellate ruling when independent claims remain.
- Practitioners should preserve the documents and technical evidence needed to prove the rule applies to the client’s specific facts.
Why It Matters
Consent banners and preference centers must work as represented. Companies should test whether tags continue firing after opt-out choices, document each vendor’s role, and avoid relying on a possible future appellate ruling when independent claims remain.
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.