A California federal court ruled on Wayfair’s motion to dismiss a CIPA website-tracking lawsuit, allowing several claims to proceed while dismissing one claim after the plaintiff failed to oppose it.
A California federal court has issued a ruling in a lawsuit alleging that Wayfair’s website used third-party tracking pixels to collect and share information about visitors’ browsing activity. In Limas v. Wayfair LLC, the court rejected most of Wayfair’s arguments for dismissal but dismissed the plaintiff’s claim under California’s pen-register statute after the plaintiff failed to respond to that argument.
The August 13, 2026 decision addressed allegations involving tracking tools associated with social media and advertising platforms. The court’s ruling did not establish that Wayfair unlawfully tracked visitors. It addressed whether the plaintiff’s allegations could proceed at the pleading stage.
Joseph Limas filed the lawsuit after visiting Wayfair.com to browse products. According to the complaint, Wayfair’s website allegedly used tracking pixels associated with third parties, including TikTok, Meta, Pinterest, Snapchat, X, and Reddit.
The complaint alleged that these tools collected information about the pages and products a visitor viewed, linked browsing activity to social media accounts, and transmitted information to third parties for advertising purposes. Limas brought claims under California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) Section 631(a) and Section 638.51.
In Limas v. Wayfair LLC, No. CV 25-11185-DMG (Ex), 2026 WL 2351592 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2026), Chief Judge Dolly M. Gee considered Wayfair’s motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint.
Wayfair argued that encrypted communications were not the “same” communications for purposes of CIPA Section 631(a), and that the alleged interception did not occur while the communications were in transit.
The court rejected that interpretation. It read the statutory wording as referring back to the previously listed message, report, or communication, rather than requiring the data to remain in an identical form throughout transmission.
Wayfair also argued that Limas had not identified the precise searches he entered or the information returned to him.
The court found that the complaint provided sufficient detail for the pleading stage. It described the tracking tools, included examples of website pages and code, and explained what the tools allegedly collected.
The court distinguished allegations involving Snapchat from claims concerning other tracking tools. It recognized that an IP address alone does not carry a reasonable expectation of privacy under Ninth Circuit precedent.
However, the complaint alleged more than IP-address collection. It claimed that the Snapchat tool tracked viewed products, followed users across devices, and matched browsing information with data Snapchat already possessed. The court allowed that claim to proceed at this stage.
Wayfair argued that, because it operated a website, it qualified as a provider of electronic or wire communication services under CIPA.
The court rejected the argument, reasoning that operating an online retail website does not by itself make a company a communication-service provider. The court also found that Wayfair had not explained how the alleged advertising-related use of tracking pixels fit within the statute’s listed purposes for the exemption.
The court also rejected Wayfair’s arguments based on the rule of lenity, the canon against absurd results, and the First Amendment.
On the First Amendment issue, the court did not accept the argument that the alleged duplicated transmissions constituted Wayfair’s own protected expression. The court reasoned that the transmissions were the user’s communications and that installing software did not, by itself, amount to protected expression.
The court dismissed Limas’s claim under CIPA Section 638.51. The dismissal was not based on a finding that the alleged tracking tools could not qualify as pen registers.
Instead, Wayfair had challenged that claim in its motion to dismiss, and Limas’s opposition did not address the argument. The court treated the failure to respond as a waiver and dismissed the claim on the grounds presented by Wayfair.
The dismissal was without leave to amend.
The court separately allowed the trap-and-trace theory under the same statutory section to proceed. The ruling therefore distinguished between the pen-register claim that was dismissed after it went undefended and the trap-and-trace claim that survived the motion.
The decision illustrates that a motion to dismiss can turn on both the substance of a legal theory and whether the opposing party adequately addresses the arguments raised against it.
For website operators, the ruling does not create a blanket exemption for tracking pixels or advertising technologies. The court rejected Wayfair’s broad service-provider argument and allowed several allegations to proceed.
For plaintiffs, the outcome highlights the importance of responding directly to each dismissal argument. In this case, the pen-register claim was dismissed because the plaintiff did not defend it in the opposition brief, not because the court resolved the underlying legal question on its merits.
The remaining claims were permitted to proceed beyond the motion-to-dismiss stage. That is not a final determination of liability, and the allegations still must be proven or otherwise resolved through the litigation process.
The lawsuit alleges that Wayfair used third-party tracking pixels to collect information about visitors’ browsing activity and share it with other companies. These are allegations, not established findings of unlawful conduct.
The plaintiff asserted claims under CIPA Section 631(a) and Section 638.51. The court dismissed the pen-register claim under Section 638.51 after the plaintiff failed to respond to Wayfair’s argument, while allowing the trap-and-trace theory and other claims to proceed.
No. The ruling addressed Wayfair’s motion to dismiss. It did not determine that Wayfair was liable or that the alleged tracking practices violated CIPA.
The court dismissed it because the plaintiff’s opposition did not respond to Wayfair’s challenge to that claim. The court treated the argument as waived and dismissed the claim without leave to amend.
Yes. The court allowed the remaining claims addressed in the ruling to proceed beyond the motion-to-dismiss stage. Their ultimate outcome was not decided by this ruling.
This article is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. It summarizes allegations and a court ruling as reported in the cited source. Allegations are not findings of fact, and the ruling described here does not establish Wayfair’s liability. Readers should consult the court’s opinion and qualified legal counsel for advice about a specific 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.
