On February 17, 2026, Judge P. Casey Pitts, in the Northern District of California, issued a mixed ruling in D’Antonio v. Smith & Wesson Inc., a class action alleging that Smith & Wesson violated users’ privacy rights by placing cookies on their devices after they had expressly opted out of receiving them.
Background
The plaintiffs in this case visited Smith & Wesson’s website, which displayed a popup cookie consent banner offering users the option to “Accept Cookies,” “Reject All,” or “Manage Privacy Preferences”. The plaintiffs alleged that despite clicking “Reject All,” Smith & Wesson nonetheless placed cookies on their devices and allowed third parties—including Google LLC, X Corp, Listrak, Inc., and Digioh LLC—to track their browsing history, website interactions, geolocation data, and other personal information.
Plaintiffs asserted nine causes of action, including invasion of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion, wiretapping and pen register claims under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), common law fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and trespass to chattels.
Key Holdings
Claims Allowed to Proceed. The court denied Smith & Wesson’s motion to dismiss on the following claims:
The court found the intrusion upon seclusion and invasion of privacy claims sufficiently pleaded. Critically, the court held that Smith & Wesson’s alleged deception—promising users they could opt out while continuing to track them—constituted a “plus factor” supporting the conclusion that the intrusion was “highly offensive” as required under California law. The court noted that Smith & Wesson not only misled users into thinking their cookie rejections would be effective but also led them to engage in tracked conduct they otherwise would not have undertaken.
The court also allowed the common law fraud claims brought by plaintiffs Thayer and D’Antonio to proceed, finding they had adequately pleaded “the who, what, when, where, and how” of Smith & Wesson’s alleged misrepresentations. Additionally, the court permitted the unjust enrichment claim to proceed, as plaintiffs had alleged that Smith & Wesson misled them and that the resulting data collection was valuable because it enabled the company to better market its firearms and target advertisements.
Claims Dismissed with Leave to Amend. The court granted Smith & Wesson’s motion to dismiss, with leave to amend, on the following claims:
The CIPA wiretapping and pen register claims were dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to allege that they personally engaged in any communications with the website whose content could have been intercepted. The court noted, however, that cookies placed on users’ devices might amount to an unauthorized pen register and rejected Smith & Wesson’s argument that California’s pen register law applies only to telephones.
The breach of contract and breach of implied covenant claims were dismissed because plaintiffs failed to allege a bargained-for exchange, as they would have received the same access to the website whether or not they consented to cookies. The trespass to chattels claim was dismissed because plaintiffs did not plausibly allege any “measurable loss” from the involuntary placement of cookies on their devices.
D’Antonio v. Smith & Wesson Inc., No. 25-CV-03085-PCP, 2026 WL 446310 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2026).
