A California federal court dismissed a CIPA claim involving tracking pixels and cookies, finding the amended complaint did not adequately allege that Google read communications while they were in transit.
<!doctype html>
The decision distinguishes between allegations that tracking technology collects and transmits information and allegations that a third party actually reads or learns the substance of a communication during transmission.
The plaintiff, Hania Rouhani, alleged that she visited the SEV Laser Aesthetics website to schedule a laser appointment. According to the complaint, tracking pixels and third-party cookies captured and transmitted information, including what the plaintiff described as sensitive health information, to Google without her knowledge.
The plaintiff initially asserted six causes of action, including a claim under CIPA Section 631(a). On June 18, 2026, the court dismissed the CIPA claim but allowed the plaintiff to amend it.
At that stage, the court found that the plaintiff had plausibly alleged that the tracking tools transmitted the “contents” of her communications. However, the complaint did not adequately allege that Google read those communications while they were in transit.
The plaintiff then filed a First Amended Complaint. It added allegations that Google “read,” “used,” and “monetized” the information for advertising services and had learned the contents of the communications. The defendants again moved to dismiss the CIPA claim.
Section 631(a) requires more than showing that information was collected or transmitted. As the court explained, reading or learning the contents of a communication requires some effort to understand its substantive meaning.
The amended complaint alleged that Google read, analyzed, and learned the plaintiff’s information. The court regarded those assertions as conclusions that repeated the legal requirement, rather than factual allegations explaining how Google actually read or understood the information.
The court considered the plaintiff’s allegation that she received targeted advertisements after using the website. It recognized that those advertisements could support an inference that Google had read or learned something about her. But the complaint primarily described data collection and transmission.
The court therefore required additional factual allegations connecting Google to the actual reading or learning of the contents of the plaintiff’s communications. The court’s analysis did not treat collection, transmission, or subsequent targeted advertising as automatically establishing that requirement.
The court also examined whether the alleged reading occurred while the communications were in transit.
A plaintiff does not necessarily need to explain every technical detail of an interception at the pleading stage. But the complaint must still provide fair notice of how and when the plaintiff believes the defendant or a third party intercepted the communication.
Rouhani alleged that the tracking pixels collected and transmitted online behavior in real time as a user navigated the website. The court found that the phrase “in real time” did not, by itself, establish that Google read the communications during transmission.
In the court’s view, the amended complaint described real-time collection and transmission but did not adequately allege that Google simultaneously read the communications. The distinction mattered because Section 631(a) concerns interception while a communication is in transit, not merely the collection or later use of information.
The court dismissed the CIPA claim because the amended complaint did not plausibly allege either that Google read or learned the contents of the plaintiff’s communications or that any such reading occurred while the communications were in transit.
The dismissal was not the end of the claim. The court granted the plaintiff leave to amend again, indicating that more specific factual allegations about how and when Google allegedly read the information might address the identified deficiencies.
The ruling should therefore be understood as a pleading decision, not a final determination that the alleged tracking did or did not occur.
The decision highlights two distinct questions for claims brought under Section 631(a):
For businesses, the ruling is a reminder that website-tracking disputes can turn on the precise technical and factual allegations made about the tools involved. It does not establish that all tracking pixels or cookies are lawful, nor does it resolve every CIPA theory that may arise from website technology.
For plaintiffs, the decision underscores the importance of explaining the alleged interception with facts rather than relying solely on labels such as “read,” “analyzed,” or “monetized.”
The case was Firlej v. Petrosian Esthetic Enterprises, LLC, No. 2:26-cv-01030-MWC-AGR, 2026 WL 2575938 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2026).
The plaintiff alleged that tracking pixels and third-party cookies on the SEV Laser Aesthetics website collected and transmitted information to Google.
The court found that the amended complaint did not adequately allege that Google read or learned the contents of the plaintiff’s communications and that any such reading occurred while the communications were in transit.
No. The court dismissed the claim based on the sufficiency of the allegations and allowed another amendment. The ruling was not a final finding that the alleged tracking was lawful.
The decision indicates that plaintiffs should provide factual allegations explaining how a third party allegedly read or learned the substance of a communication and when that reading occurred in relation to transmission.
This article is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. It summarizes a court ruling as reported by CIPAWorld. Allegations in the complaint are not established facts, and the outcome of any other case will depend on its specific facts, claims, and procedural posture. Consult qualified legal counsel about a particular matter.
Receive offers, product allerts, styling inspiration and more.
Learn what DNC.com does, how its TCPA and Do Not Call compliance tools work, Litigator Insights, reassigned-number screening, integrations, and its 2026 transition to Sonera.
Lawyer.com connects consumers with attorneys while operating a legal lead-generation and marketing platform. Explore its TCPA consent practices, automated calls, mass tort leads, compliance claims, and lawsuit history.
Cox Media Group has faced significant legal scrutiny, including an FTC Active Listening enforcement action and a Texas TCPA case involving defamation and free speech.
Explore Cox Media Group (CMG), its history, ownership, television and radio operations, digital advertising business, consumer data practices, privacy policy, Active Listening controversy, leadership and 2026 developments.
Explore MindSift’s data marketing platform, the Active Listening controversy, FTC allegations, 2026 consent order, consumer consent issues and legal implications.
Learn about MindSift, its audience intelligence and data platform, consumer and B2B databases, Visitor ID, Buyer Intent, OutReach Mining, advertising services, Active Listening controversy and 2026 FTC order.
