){kind=logo}
Website advertising technology has been the subject of much recent litigation. While California plaintiffs have sought to reframe website cookies as illegal "trap and trace" devices in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), a new federal ruling just hit the brakes on this trend.
In Travis Rounds v. Development Dimensions International, Judge David O. Carter of the Central District of California dismissed a class action that attempted to link standard browser tracking to CIPA.
The Allegation: Cookies as Digital Wiretaps
The plaintiff argued that defendant's website ad technology did more than just track visits, it functioned as a "trap and trace" device by capturing "routing and signaling" data to de-anonymize users and build covert profiles. Under CIPA, these devices are strictly regulated, usually requiring a court order. These allegations, if viable, could render every visit to an offending website a violation of the law.
The Decision: The Cookies Crumble
The court ultimately found the "trap and trace" theory unpersuasive. Key highlights from the March 11, 2026, ruling include:
No Statutory Violation: Judge Carter ruled that the mere use of cookies does not plausibly constitute a violation of the CIPA.
Jurisdictional Defeat: Because the plaintiff couldn't prove a valid CIPA violation, he also failed to establish personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
Finality: The court dismissed the complaint without leave to amend, signaling a high bar for plaintiffs trying to stretch decades-old privacy laws to cover modern data-broker SDKs.
Why It Matters
This decision provides a significant defensive roadmap for companies facing the current wave of CIPA litigation. It suggests that when tracking technology is tied to user choice or standard browser functions, courts will not — even at the pleadings stage — categorize it as an illegal surveillance tool. This means that companies facing waves of demand letters related to this theory now have a strong chance to win a motion to dismiss early in the litigation.
"The court finds persuasive Defendant’s argument that allegations of the use of cookies does not suffice as a statutory violation of § 638.51 and the alleged use of a trap and trace device."
-
Partner