Judge Sunshine S. Sykes, of the Central District of California, denied in part and granted in part defendant’s motion to dismiss alleged cookie banner malfunction claims.
Background. Garcia alleged that AEG’s website used third-party cookies and tracking technologies to begin collecting her data as soon as she arrived at the site, even though she immediately rejected non-essential cookies through AEG’s consent banner. The alleged data included browsing and visit history, website interactions, user inputs, interests, shopping behavior, device and session information, identifiers, and geolocation. She asserted claims under the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act, CIPA Section 638.51, and California common-law intrusion upon seclusion.
The Court’s Analysis. The court found standing for damages because the allegations involved browsing history, location data, identifiers, and loss of control over personal information after the plaintiff rejected tracking. However, Garcia’s claims for injunctive relief failed because the complaint alleged she would not browse the website in the future. The court reasoned that this concession foreclosed Article III standing for injunctive relief. Her status as a privacy “tester” did not defeat standing because she alleged a genuine interest in the site and an expectation that her cookie rejection would be honored.
The court dismissed the ECPA claim with leave to amend under the party exception, concluding that AEG was a party to the website communications and the complaint did not plead an independent criminal or tortious purpose. It denied dismissal of the CIPA claim and intrusion claim, holding that the alleged collection of IP address, session, and location data plausibly involved a pen register and could constitute a highly offensive intrusion. The court dismissed claims for injunctive relief because Garcia alleged she would not return to the site.
Garcia v. Anschutz Ent. Grp., Inc., 832 F. Supp. 3d 993 (C.D. Cal. 2026).
