Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan, in the District of Minnesota, granted US Bank’s motion to dismiss based on Plaintiff’s lack of alleged standing.
Background. Butler alleged that U.S. Bank used the Meta Pixel on its website and mobile applications, and transmitted information to Meta when users began or completed applications for financial products. He alleged that cookies and onboarding information allowed Meta to associate activity with identifiable U.S. Bank customers and that he later saw more Facebook advertising concerning U.S. Bank interest rates. Butler asserted UCL, CCPA, invasion-of-privacy, implied-contract, unjust-enrichment, and ECPA claims, alleging both intangible privacy harm and diminution in the value of his personal information. U.S. Bank moved to dismiss for lack of standing.
The Court’s Analysis. The court held that Article III required more than labeling the transmitted information personally identifiable or highly sensitive.
Butler claims that U.S. Bank injured him in two ways. First, Butler generally alleges intangible harm due to U.S. Bank’s interception and disclosure of his “highly sensitive” PIFI. (FAC ¶ 74.) Second, Butler alleges economic harms for the “diminution in value of [his] PIFI.” (Id. ¶ 202.)
…
Intangible harms may constitute concrete injuries if they bear a “close relationship to harms traditionally recognized as providing a basis for lawsuits in American courts.” TransUnion, 594 U.S. at 425. Here, because Butler’s alleged intangible injuries stem from U.S. Bank’s disclosure of his PIFI without his knowledge or consent, the Court looks to the traditionally recognized torts of intrusion of seclusion and public disclosure of private facts, both of which require interference or disclosure of highly offensive information.
…
Butler also alleges economic harms for the “diminution in value of PIFI.”
Butler did not specify what information he entered, whether he completed an application, or whether the Pixel operated during the relevant visit. Under Popa v. Microsoft and traditional privacy tort principles, the omission of concrete facts about embarrassing, invasive, or otherwise private information defeated the alleged intangible injury and also made traceability uncertain. The court rejected the economic theory because Butler did not allege that he paid U.S. Bank for a product or service, lost money, or identified a market transaction involving his data. Because the named plaintiff lacked standing, the court dismissed the entire putative class action without prejudice and did not reach class certification.
Significance. Even allegations involving a bank and a credit application may fail at the standing stage if the complaint does not identify the specific information disclosed and tie it to the challenged technology. Financial-sector businesses should expect courts to scrutinize both the sensitivity of the data and the causal connection between the pixel and the alleged harm.
Butler v. U.S. Bancorp, No. 24-CV-03700 (JMB/SGE), 2026 WL 883904 (D. Minn. Mar. 31, 2026).
