On Wednesday, October 7, 2026, Law360 reported that a federal judge in California dismissed, for now, a proposed class action accusing the operator of the Crypto.com platform of letting third parties track visitors’ browsing activity even after users declined cookies, concluding the plaintiffs had not shown a concrete injury sufficient to bring the case in federal court.
U.S. District Judge Edward M. Chen granted a motion to dismiss filed by Foris Dax Inc., which runs the Crypto.com platform. The suit was brought by Jose Ortiz and Javier Hernandez, who claimed the company violated state and federal privacy laws by allowing outside parties, including advertising partners Google, X, and Snapchat, to intercept the contents of their communications while they used the site.
Foris Dax did not raise the issue of standing in its motion. Judge Chen took it up on his own to determine whether the court had jurisdiction over the dispute. He found it did not, at least on the current allegations.
“Based on the allegations regarding the information collected from the plaintiffs, they cannot establish the concrete injury required for Article III standing,” the judge wrote.
In reaching that conclusion, the judge relied on the Ninth Circuit’s August 2025 decision in Popa v. Microsoft Corp. In that case, the appellate court upheld the dismissal of a suit alleging Microsoft supplied a pet supply website with “session replay” technology that captured users’ browsing activity. The panel found the plaintiff had not shown the conduct caused concrete harm.
According to the order, Popa turned on the fact that the plaintiff did not point to any embarrassing, invasive, or otherwise private information gathered by the defendant. The tracking tool was therefore likened to a store clerk observing shoppers rather than an intrusion. Judge Chen noted that the Ninth Circuit acknowledged the analysis could differ where the information collected is inherently sensitive, such as medical or financial data.
The judge found, however, that the information Foris Dax allegedly collected from Ortiz and Hernandez was not “materially more sensitive” than the data at issue in Popa.
The plaintiffs alleged that their browsing history was captured as they moved through menus, viewed pricing data, and entered cryptocurrency-related search terms. They also asserted that the tracking tools could potentially collect user-entered details such as name, age, gender, email, location or payment information, and that third parties were able to monitor users secretly in real time.
Judge Chen observed that the plaintiffs did not claim they entered that type of information on the site, and they did not allege that details about their personal finances were shared with third parties. He emphasized that standing must be tailored to a plaintiff’s own circumstances and tied to a specific tort. The court, he wrote, looks at what the tracking actually revealed about the plaintiffs, not what it could theoretically capture about other visitors.
The judge also rejected the argument that Foris Dax collected the plaintiffs’ sensitive financial data. He characterized the alleged information as nonidentifiable browsing activity on a public platform displaying cryptocurrency prices and market performance. Ortiz and Hernandez were granted leave to amend their complaint.
The ruling is the latest development in a case filed in 2025 asserting wiretap, privacy, and unjust enrichment claims. In May, Judge Chen sharply narrowed the suit, dismissing all but a single claim under the pen register provision of the California Invasion of Privacy Act.
The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 22, and Foris Dax moved to dismiss it on July 13. The company argued the new filing did not cure the deficiencies the judge identified in May, when he tossed five of the six claims. It contended the case rested on a single allegation that the plaintiffs browsed Crypto.com at some point, an effort to turn a noninteractive visit to a public platform into a statutory privacy claim on behalf of a class of users who likely had similar “passive” encounters with the site.
On August 3, Ortiz and Hernandez opposed dismissal, arguing they had pleaded details about their interactions with the site. They said Crypto.com permitted third parties to track their information, including data tied to their financial interests, needs and investment research, despite an express promise not to do so. Such information, they argued, is reasonably regarded by consumers as highly private.
Source: Law360
Be the first to comment