Nelson v. Reddit, Inc.

1
25-CV-1470 JLS (AHG)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DOMINIQUE NELSON, individually and
on behalf of similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs,
v.
REDDIT, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant.
Case No.: 25-CV-1470 JLS (AHG)
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT
REDDIT, INC.’S MOTION TO
DISMISS CLASS ACTION
COMPLAINT
(ECF No. 15)
Presently before the Court is Defendant Reddit, Inc.’s (“Reddit” or “Defendant”)
Motion to Dismiss Class Action Complaint (“Mot.,” ECF No. 15). Also before the Court
is Plaintiff Dominique Nelson’s Response in Opposition to Defendant Reddit, Inc.’s
Motion to Dismiss Class Action Complaint (“Opp’n,” ECF No. 18), and Reddit’s Reply in
Support of Motion to Dismiss Class Action Complaint (“Reply,” ECF No. 19). 	Both
Parties submitted supplemental authority. 	See 	ECF Nos. 21–25. 	After reviewing
Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Compl.,” ECF No. 1, Ex. A), the Parties’ arguments, and the
relevant law, the Court DENIES Reddit’s Motion (ECF No. 15).1
/ / /
1 The Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice (ECF No. 15-1) as the Court
does not refer or rely on the information provided.
Case 3:25-cv-01470-JLS-AHG Document 26 Filed 02/17/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 12

2
25-CV-1470 JLS (AHG)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BACKGROUND
Defendant owns and operates the popular social media website, Reddit.com (the
“Website”). Compl. ¶ 1. Plaintiff, a user of Reddit.com, id. ¶ 39, alleges that when “users
access the Website, Defendant initiates the installation of a third-party tracking tool by
LiveRamp (‘LiveRamp Tracker’), on visitors’ internet browsers to capture the IP addresses
of the Website’s visitors,” id. ¶ 2, and places a cookie in the user’s browser cache, id. ¶ 26.
Plaintiff brings this class action complaint alleging that the use of the LiveRamp Tracker
violates the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”) by constituting a pen register
under CIPA § 638.50(b) and thus violating CIPA § 638.51(a)—which prohibits the use of
pen registers without prior consent or court order. 	Id. ¶¶ 3–5; 11–15; see also Cal. Penal
Code §§ 638.50(b), 638.51(a) (“Pen Register Act” or the “Act).
I. 	California Invasion of Privacy Act
“CIPA was enacted to protect Californians’ privacy rights.” 	Fregosa v. Mashable,
Inc., No. 25-CV-1094-CRB, 2025 WL 2886399, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2025) (citing Cal.
Penal Code § 630). The Pen Register Act “prohibits the installation or use of a pen register
or trap-and-trace device without first obtaining a court order or user consent.” 	Id. (citing
Cal. Penal Code § 638.51(a)-(b)). 	Section 638.50 defines pen register as “a device or
process that records or decodes dialing, routing, addressing, or signaling information
transmitted by an instrument or facility from which a wire or electronic communication is
transmitted, but not the contents of a communication.” 	Cal. Penal Code § 638.50(b). 	A
“trap and trace device” is a related device that “captures the incoming electronic or other
impulses that identify the originating number or other dialing, routing, addressing, or
signaling information reasonably likely to identify the source of a wire or electronic
communication, but not the contents of a communication.” Id. § 638.50(c).
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
Case 3:25-cv-01470-JLS-AHG Document 26 Filed 02/17/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 12

3
25-CV-1470 JLS (AHG)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Further, Section 637.2 states that,
(a) Any person who has been injured by a violation of [§
638.51(a)] 	may 	bring 	an 	action 	against 	the 	person 	who
committed 	the 	violation 	for 	the 	greater 	of 	the 	following
amounts:
(1) Five thousand dollars ($5,000) per violation.
(2) Three times the amount of actual damages, if any,
sustained by the plaintiff.
“Historically, these terms described devices attached to telephone lines that recorded
outgoing or incoming phone numbers dialed.” 	Fregosa, 2025 WL 2886399, at *2.
However, courts have extended this definition to include internet communications,
concluding that the definitions are “intentionally broad and not limited to specific
technology, as ‘all CIPA provisions are to be interpreted in light of the broad privacy-
protecting statutory purposes of CIPA.’” Camplisson v. Adidas Am., Inc., No. 25-CV-603-
GPC-KSC, 2025 WL 3228949, at *7 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2025) (quoting Javier v.
Assurance IQ, LLC, No. 21-16351, 2022 WL 1744107, at *2 (9th Cir. May 31, 2022)).
II. 	LiveRamp Tracker
Plaintiff alleges that, “to load Defendant’s website on a user’s internet browser, the
user’s browser transmits an ‘HTTP request’ or ‘GET’ request to the Defendant’s server,
which houses the necessary Website data.” Compl. ¶ 17. Defendant’s server then “delivers
an ‘HTTP response’ to the user’s browser containing a series of instructions.” 	Id.
Defendant’s Website then installs a LiveRamp Tracker on the user’s browser “prompt[ing]
the browser to transmit identifying data, specifically the user’s IP address,2 back to
LiveRamp.” Id. ¶ 18. “From an IP address, one can derive the device’s state, city, and zip
code.” Id. ¶ 19. LiveRamp “also places a cookie3 in the user’s browser cache.” Id. ¶ 26.
2 “An IP address is defined as ‘a unique numerical address identifying each computer on the internet.’”
United States v. Barnes, No. CR18-5141, 2019 WL 2515317, at *1 n.1 (W.D. Wash. June 18, 2019)
(internal citation omitted).
3 “Cookies are small text files sent by a website’s server to a user’s web browser and stored locally on the
user’s device which can be used to track, e.g., a user’s browsing and visit history, website interactions,
user input data, shopping behavior, session information, and more.” Walsh v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.,
Case 3:25-cv-01470-JLS-AHG Document 26 Filed 02/17/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 12

4
25-CV-1470 JLS (AHG)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
“When the user subsequently visits Reddit’s Website, LiveRamp automatically retrieves
the cookie and transmits the stored data along with the user’s IP address to LiveRamp’s
servers for ongoing analysis and personalized ad delivery.” 	Id. 	Each time a user clears
their cookies, the LiveRamp Tracker is erased from the browser cache, and the process
begins again. Id. ¶ 27.
LiveRamp “provides the ‘most expansive data collaboration network’ that can
‘[c]onnect data across every platform, unluck deep insights, and deliver personalized
experiences that fuel growth.’” Id. ¶ 22 (quoting hrrps://liveramp.com). LiveRamp is used
as an advertising tool that “helps marketers get a single view of consumers through an
offline identity graph—a large database of sourced, cleansed, and merged demographic
information such as a person’s name, address, and phone number.” 	Id. ¶ 23. 	In sum,
LiveRamp “enables Reddit to leverage its users’ interactions with the site for personalized
advertising.” Id. ¶ 24.
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) permits a party to raise by motion the
defense that the complaint “fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” To
survive a 12(b)(6) motion, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). 	A claim is
facially plausible when the facts pled “allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference
that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. That is not to say that the claim
must be probable, but there must be “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has
acted unlawfully.” Id. Facts “‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability” fall short of
a plausible entitlement to relief. Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).
No. 25-CV-1601-SVK, 2025 WL 2939229, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2025) (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted).
Case 3:25-cv-01470-JLS-AHG Document 26 Filed 02/17/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 12

5
25-CV-1470 JLS (AHG)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Though 	this 	plausibility 	standard 	“does 	not 	require 	‘detailed 	factual
allegations,’ . . . it [does] demand[] more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-
harmed-me accusation.” 	Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). 	In other words, a
complaint will not suffice “if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual
enhancement.’” 	Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). 	Put
differently, “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
Review under Rule 12(b)(6) requires a context-specific analysis involving the
Court’s “judicial experience and common sense.” 	Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. In performing
that analysis, “a district court must accept as true all facts alleged in the complaint, and
draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” 	Wi-LAN Inc. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
382 F. Supp. 3d 1012, 1020 (S.D. Cal. 2019). 	“[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not
permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has
alleged—but it has not ‘show[n]’—‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 679 (second alternation in original). 	If a complaint does not survive Rule 12(b)(6), a
court grants leave to amend unless it determines that no modified contention “consistent
with the challenged pleading could . . . possibly cure the deficiency.” 	Schreiber Distrib.
Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir. 1986).
DISCUSSION
On July 14, 2025, Defendant filed the current Motion moving for dismissal “on the
grounds that Plaintiff has not alleged facts that give rise to a claim under the Act.” Mot.
at 2. Specifically, Defendant argues: “(1) the technology alleged does not qualify as a pen
register as a matter of law because it does not capture outgoing dialing or addressing
information, (2) Plaintiff has not alleged transmission of a communication with content,
which is necessary to state a claim under the Act, (3) Reddit is exempt from statutory
liability because it is a party to any purported communication, (4) the Act’s plain language,
purpose, legislative history, and recent legislative developments all confirm it applies
exclusively to person-to-person communications that are not alleged here, and (5) to the
Case 3:25-cv-01470-JLS-AHG Document 26 Filed 02/17/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 5 of 12

6
25-CV-1470 JLS (AHG)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
extent that there is any ambiguity regarding the Act’s application, the rule of lenity requires
dismissal.” Id. The Court addresses each argument in turn.
I. 	Qualification as a Pen Register
Defendant first argues that the LiveRamp Tracker cannot qualify as a pen register
because “pen registers are designed to collect outgoing addressing information, such as the
numbers or addresses a user contacts,” not, as Plaintiff alleges, the collection of a user’s
own IP address and cookies. 	Mot. at 16. 	Plaintiff, citing several recent federal district
court opinions in the Ninth Circuit, argues that it is inapposite whether the addressing
information is coming from the recipient or the sender. Opp’n at 10–11 (first citing Shah
v. Fandom, Inc., 754 F. Supp. 3d 924, 929–30 (N.D. Cal 2024); then citing Riganian v.
LiveRamp Holdings, Inc., 791 F. Supp. 3d 1075, 1093 (N.D. Cal. 2025)). Plaintiff alleges
that the LiveRamp Tracker operates as a pen register because when installed on the user’s
browser, the Tracker captures the users’ IP address and other cookies information—thus
collecting the “user’s outgoing ‘routing, addressing, or signaling information.’” Compl. ¶
20.
The Court agrees with most districts to consider the issue that the LiveRamp Tracker
plausibly qualifies as a pen register for purposes of CIPA § 638.51(a). 	See, e.g.,
Camplisson, 2025 WL 3228949, at *7 (“[M]ost cases in this and other districts have also
recognized that website-based trackers can plausibly constitute a pen register.”) (collecting
cases); Fregosa, 2025 WL 2886399, at *6 (“Courts in this district have widely recognized
that trackers capturing IP addresses and related metadata fall comfortably within the
definition of a ‘pen register.’”); Casillas v. Six Flags Ent. Corp., No. 2:25-CV-6824-CBM-
PD, 2025 WL 3684543, at *8–9 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2025) (same); Gabrielli v. Haleon US
Inc., No. 25-CV-2555-WHO, 2025 WL 2494368, at *11 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2025) (“Th[e]
argument [that third-party trackers are not pen registers under CIPA] has been considered
and rejected multiple times.”); Semien v. PubMatic Inc., No. 25-CV-3164-SI, 2026 WL
216333, at *10–11 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2026) (same).
/ / /
Case 3:25-cv-01470-JLS-AHG Document 26 Filed 02/17/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 6 of 12

7
25-CV-1470 JLS (AHG)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Section 638.50 defines pen register as “a device or process that records or decodes
dialing, routing, addressing, or signaling information transmitted by an instrument or
facility from which a wire or electronic communication is transmitted, but not the contents
of a communication.” Cal. Penal Code § 638.50(b). The Court is not persuaded that the
definition of pen register requires the collection of only outgoing data. 	“By the plain
meaning of § 638.50(b), collection of the recipient phone number or IP address is not a
required element.” Shah, 754 F. Supp. 3d at 929; see also Harris v. iHeartMedia, Inc., No.
25-CV-6038-EKL, 2026 WL 247875, at *2–3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2026) (rejecting the
argument that pen registers only collect outgoing data and concluding third party trackers
are plausibly pen registers). “All that is required is that the Tracker[] record[s] addressing
information transmitted by the user’s computer or smartphone in connection with the
outgoing HTTP request to [Reddit’s] website, regardless of whether that addressing
information pertains to the sender or the recipient of the communication at issue.” 	Id.
“Th[e] definition [of a pen register] is technology-neutral, not confined to legacy telephone
equipment, and not particularly sensitive to the semantic distinction that [Defendant] seeks
to draw.” 	Fregosa, 2025 WL 2886399, at *6 (rejecting the argument that pen registers
must collect outgoing information and finding pleading sufficient). 	Therefore, it is
immaterial that the Tracker does not “operate like traditional phone pen registers.” Shah,
754 F. Supp. 3d at 929.
II. 	A Communication with “Content”
Defendant next argues that Plaintiff must also allege “that this purported pen register
captured information associated with a communication that contains content”—not simply
that he visited Reddit’s website. 	Mot. at 16. 	Defendant states that a pen register must
capture “dialing, routing, addressing, or signaling” (“DRAS”) information “about a
communication, but not the contents of that communication.” 	Id. at 17 (citing Cal. Penal
Code § 638.50(b)). 	Defendant thus concludes that “to state a claim under the Act,
[Plaintiff] must allege that he engaged in a communication with Reddit or another party
that involved some substantive ‘content’ (and that the LiveRamp Tracker captured the
Case 3:25-cv-01470-JLS-AHG Document 26 Filed 02/17/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 7 of 12

8
25-CV-1470 JLS (AHG)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DRAS information of that communication, but not the communication’s content).” 	Id.
Plaintiff argues that Defendant is conflating the requirements of § 631, the wiretapping
provisions, with those of § 638.51, the pen register provisions. 	Opp’n at 12. 	Plaintiff
admits that if they were alleging Defendant violated § 631, then the pleadings would need
to “include that Defendant aided and abetted LiveRamp to capture the ‘contents or
meaning’ of his electronic communications”—but the same is not required to state a claim
under § 638.51. Id. (first citing Cal. Penal Code § 631; and then citing Yoon v. Lululemon
USA, Inc., 549 F. Supp. 3d 1073, 1082 (C.D. Cal. 2021)). The Court agrees with Plaintiff.
Defendant fails to point to any authority—specifically within the plethora of cases
addressing the claims at issue—supporting its contention that to state a claim, Plaintiff
must “allege that he engaged in a communication with Reddit or another party that involved
some substantive ‘content,’” Mot. at 17, and the Court is unaware of any authority. The
Court agrees that Defendant is likely conflating the requirements of the wiretapping statute
with those of the pen register statute or asking the Court to add a new requirement to the
pleading standard for § 638.51. Rather, district courts that have considered claims under §
638.51 have found pleadings like those here sufficient and have never required specific
allegations that the communications with the website be substantive. 	See, e.g., Riganian,
791 F. Supp. 3d at 1092 (finding pleading sufficient for a device that “allegedly record[s]
addressing or signaling information—such as IP addresses and electronic identification
numbers” (cleaned up)); Fregosa, 2025 WL 2886399, at *6–7 (finding that “embedded
thirty-party trackers” that “recorded the IP address and device identifiers of the user”
adequately alleged a communication); Wright v. TrueCare Prop. Holdings, No. 25-CV-
786-JES-BLM, 2025 WL 3248749, at *4–5 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2025) (finding pleading
sufficient for a device that “tracked information related to her visit to [defendant’s] site and
her Facebook ID”); Mirmalek v. Los Angeles Times Commc’ns LLC, No. 24-CV-1797-
CRB, 2024 WL 5102709, at *3–4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2024) (finding pleading sufficient
for a device that collects IP addresses).
/ / /
Case 3:25-cv-01470-JLS-AHG Document 26 Filed 02/17/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 8 of 12

9
25-CV-1470 JLS (AHG)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Even if the Court were to engage in statutory analysis as Defendant suggests, “there
is no doubt that the California Legislature, in enacting CIPA, intended ‘to protect the right
of privacy of the people of this state from what it perceived as a serious threat to the free
exercise of personal liberties that cannot be tolerated in a free and civilized society.’” 	In
re Meta Pixel Tax Filing Cases, 793 F. Supp. 3d 1147, 1153 (N.D. Cal. 2025) (quoting
Flanagan v. Flanagan, 27 Cal. 4th 766, 775 (2002)). 	“Recognizing this intent, the
California Supreme Court ‘has instructed courts to interpret CIPA in the manner that
‘fulfills the legislative purpose of CIPA by giving greater protection to privacy interests.’”
Id. (quoting Matera v. Google, Inc., No. 15-CV-4062-LHK, 2016 WL 8200619, at *19
(N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2016)). Therefore, the Court finds that, in the interest of fulfilling the
purposes behind CIPA, the requirement of a communication containing substantive content
cannot be implied into § 638.51.
III. 	Exempt as a Party to the Communication
Defendant next argues that it is exempt from the Pen Register Act’s prohibitions
because “Plaintiff concedes that he was ‘communicat[ing] with the Website’—i.e., with
Reddit.” Mot. at 18 (quoting Compl. ¶ 60). Defendant argues that “courts have recognized
that pen register laws are intended to protect the parties to a communication from third-
party surveillance, not from one another.” 	Id. (first citing Wis. Pro. Police Ass’n v. Pub.
Serv. Comm’n of Wis., 555 N.W.2d 179, 188 (Wis. Ct. App. 1996); then citing S. Bell Tel.
& Tel. Co. v. Hamm, 409 S.E.2d 775, 777–78 (S.C. 1991)). Plaintiff counters that “use of
the LiveRamp Tracker is not akin to that of an entity monitoring its own incoming
communications” 	but 	rather 	“Defendant 	has 	intentionally 	designed 	its 	Website 	to
compulsively 	download 	third-party 	tracking 	technologies 	on 	its 	users’ 	browsers,
technology that remains installed even after users are done interacting with Defendant’s
website.” Opp’n at 14. The Court again agrees with Plaintiff.
The Court follows other courts in the Ninth Circuit in finding that Reddit is
mischaracterizing Plaintiff’s allegations. Plaintiff “does not allege that [Reddit] violated
CIPA simply by receiving IP addresses as part of an ordinary online exchange.” Fregosa,
Case 3:25-cv-01470-JLS-AHG Document 26 Filed 02/17/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 9 of 12

10
25-CV-1470 JLS (AHG)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2025 WL 2886399, at *7. 	Rather, Plaintiff alleges that Reddit “affirmatively embedded
third-party trackers that recorded and transmitted users’ identifying information to outside
entities for profiling and advertising purposes.” 	Id. 	The Court finds that Reddit is not
exempt as a party to the communication. See Fregosa, 2025 WL 2886399, at *7 (rejecting
the same argument); Camplisson, 2025 WL 3228949, at *8 (rejecting similar argument and
finding that the website owner was not “the appropriate ‘user’ to defeat [p]laintiffs’
claim”); Rodriguez v. Autotrader.com, 762 F. Supp. 3d 921, 930 (C.D. Cal. 2025) (rejecting
the same argument because the information the defendant collected was sent to third-
parties); Bradshaw v. Lowe’s Cos., Inc., No. 25-CV-742 DMS (MMP), 2025 WL 3171740,
at *7 (S.D Cal. Nov. 12, 2025) (rejecting “user” argument); Xu v. Reuters News & Media,
Inc., No. 25-CV-459918, 2025 WL 3035015, at *4 (Cal. Super. Oct. 24, 2025) (rejecting
suggestion 	to 	create 	an 	exception 	for 	liability 	for 	defendant 	as 	a 	party 	to 	the
communication).
Defendant attempts to rebut this conclusion by arguing that any liability for Reddit
due to LiveRamp’s actions must be based on aiding and abetting liability, which is not
permitted under § 638.51. Mot. at 19. The Court similarly rejects this argument because
Defendant mischaracterizes Plaintiff’s allegations. Plaintiff “pleads direct, not secondary,
liability.” Fregosa, 2025 WL 2886399, at *8. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant “embedded
third-party trackers in its own website, thereby causing users’ browsers to install and run
them” and then received data on personalized advertising as a result. Id. Plaintiff’s theory
turns on Defendant’s own conduct, not the conduct of LiveRamp. 	Id. (finding that, on
similar allegations, the defendant itself “installed” and/or “used” a “device or process” that
“records addressing information, i.e., a pen register”); see also Shah, 745 F. Supp. 3d at
931 (rejecting third party culpability argument). Therefore, this argument also fails.
IV. 	CIPA § 638.51 Only Applies to Person-to-Person Communications
Defendant next argues that Plaintiff’s claim must fail because § 638.51 “does not
cover merely visiting a website” but rather “[i]ts statutory scheme, clear language, and
legislative history all point in one direction: the Act protects communications between
Case 3:25-cv-01470-JLS-AHG Document 26 Filed 02/17/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 10 of 12

11
25-CV-1470 JLS (AHG)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
people—phone calls, emails, file sharing, chats—not every bit and byte of data that powers
the internet and might be generated when a person visits a website.” 	Mot. at 19–20.
Defendant then conducts a lengthy statutory analysis discussing the pen register act’s
statutory language and scheme, legislative history and recent activity, and public policy
implications of the act’s interpretation. Id. at 20–29.
As discussed above, the Court follows other courts in concluding that § 638.51
plausibly applies to the device at issue. 	See, e.g., Bradshaw, 2025 WL 3171740, at *7
(“Defendants’ first argument is the trackers are neither pen registers nor trap and trace
devices under CIPA. 	In support of this argument, Defendants rely on the statutory
language and legislative history, and raise a public policy argument. The reliance on these
sources is understandable as the case law is not in Defendants’ favor. Indeed, it uniformly
supports the opposite outcome.”) (collecting cases); Fregosa, 2025 WL 2886399, at *7
(“[Defendant’s] position—that there must be an interpersonal exchange—is unsupported.
Nothing in the text requires that a communication involve two human correspondents.”)
(rejecting the argument that the pending Senate Bill 690 undermines the pleading at issue);
Drummer v. Costar Grp., Inc., No. EDCV 25-1047 JGB (SPX), 2025 WL 3190656, at *4
(C.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2025) (rejecting the argument that interpreting the pen register act to
encompass IP address collection to third parties exposes every website operator to CIPA
liability); Shah, 745 F. Supp. 3d at 932–33 (same); Xu, 2025 WL 3035015, at *4 (rejecting
similar arguments about Senate Bill 690 and the statutory scheme). Therefore, the Court
is unpersuaded by this argument.
V. 	The Rule of Lenity Applies
Defendant’s final argument is that dismissal is proper under the rule of lenity. Mot.
at 29–30. Defendant argues that “[w]hen a criminal statute is ambiguous, the rule of lenity
requires courts to limit its reach ‘to conduct clearly covered.’” Id. (citing United States v.
Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 266 (1997)). 	Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s “interpretation
would require stretching the Act’s terms” such that “[t]he conduct alleged in the Complaint
is not ‘clearly covered’ by the Pen Register Act.” 	Id. 	Plaintiff argues that “[t]he ‘rule of
Case 3:25-cv-01470-JLS-AHG Document 26 Filed 02/17/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 11 of 12

12
25-CV-1470 JLS (AHG)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
lenity only applies if, after considering text, structure, history, and purpose, there remains
a grievous ambiguity or uncertainty in the statute.’” Opp’n at 21 (quoting Riganian, 791
F. Supp. 3d at 1094) (cleaned up).
The Court again follows other courts addressing similar arguments and finds that
there is no ambiguity regarding the application of §§ 638.50 and 638.51 to these facts. See,
e.g., Lewis v. Magnite, Inc., No. 25-CV-3448-MWC-SSCx, 2025 WL 3687546, at *13
(C.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2025) (finding the rule of lenity inapplicable); Deivaprakash v. Conde
Nast Digital, 798 F. Supp. 3d 1100, 1107–08 (N.D. Cal. 2025) (same); Riganian, 791 F.
Supp. 3d at 1094 (“[Defendant] has argued for a certain interpretation of Section 638.50(b),
but it has not established that any ‘grievous ambiguity’ in the statute’s express language.”);
Fregosa, 2025 WL 2886399, at *9 (“But as courts have recognized, the rule of lenity has
little force in this context.”); Garon v. Keleops USA, Inc., No. 25-CV-2124-DMR, 2025
WL 2522374, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2025) (same); Xu, 2025 WL 3035015, at *4 (“The
rule of lenity does not apply here because Defendant has not identified any ‘egregious
ambiguity’ in the express language of Section 638.51.”). 	Therefore, the rule of lenity is
inapplicable. See Reno v. Koray, 515 U.S. 50, 64 (1995) (“A statute is not ambiguous for
purposes of lenity merely because there is a division of judicial authority over its proper
construction.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons above, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Class
Action Complaint (“Mot.,” ECF No. 15).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 17, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-01470-JLS-AHG Document 26 Filed 02/17/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 12 of 12