On February 18, 2026, Judge Charles R. Breyer, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part a motion to dismiss in a privacy case involving untimely allegations of unauthorized data tracking.
Background
Plaintiff claims that a skincare company offering online dermatological consultations allowed tracking software from Google and LinkedIn to capture her personal information from its website for third-party advertising purposes. Plaintiff claimed that as a result of these alleged interceptions, she received targeted advertisements for cosmetic medical procedures based on her disclosed medical booking information. Plaintiff alleged that she did not discover the disclosure of her personally identifiable information (“PII”) and protected health information (“PHI”) until November 2024, despite visiting defendant’s website on May 12, 2023.
CIPA Section 631 Claim Dismissed With Prejudice. The court dismissed Plaintiff’s claim under Section 631 as untimely. CIPA claims are subject to a one-year statute of limitations, and because Plaintiff visited the website in May 2023 but did not file suit until December 2024, her claim fell outside the limitations period. The court had previously granted Plaintiff leave to amend if she could plausibly invoke the delayed discovery rule by alleging when she first saw the targeted advertisements. However, Plaintiff’s amended complaint failed to include this critical allegation, instead merely reasserting that the “surreptitious nature” of the interceptions made it impossible for her to discern the causal connection. The court found these allegations insufficient and declined to reconsider its earlier order. Because amendment would be futile, the dismissal was with prejudice.
CIPA Section 632 Claim Dismissed With Prejudice. Plaintiff attempted to add a new claim under California Penal Code section 632 in her amended complaint. The court dismissed this claim because its prior order only granted limited leave to amend existing claims and Plaintiff did not seek leave to add new claims. The court noted that district courts in the Ninth Circuit generally strike new claims added without leave when a prior order granted only limited leave to amend. The court further observed that any section 632 claim would also be untimely.
Invasion of Privacy Claim Remains. Plaintiff’s common law invasion of privacy claim remains in the case, as defendant did not move to dismiss that claim.
Rusow v. SkinSpirit Essential LLC, Case No. 24-cv-09317-CRB, 2026 WL 453476 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2026).
