PogoWasRight.org

Privacy News and Issues

Menu
  • About
  • Privacy
Menu

Northern District of California Finds No Concrete Injury Despite A Lack of Consent

Posted on October 27, 2026October 28, 2026 by Dissent

Kelly Sandberg of Troutman Amin, LLP writes:

In Shirley Vanasch et al. v. GoFundMe Inc., Plaintiffs Sal Munoz and Shirley Vanasch brought an action against Defendant GoFundMe for violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”), Cal. Penal Code §§ 631 and 638.51, and common law fraud, deceit and/or misrepresentation for the use of third-party tracking technologies on Defendant’s website despite Plaintiffs’ choices to opt out of such tracking. Shirley Vanasch, et al., v. GoFundMe Inc., No. 26-CV-01217-TLT, 2026 WL 3182540 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2026).

GoFundMe operates a website that provides public online fundraising to allow individuals to raise money or donate to a variety of causes. Website users can also share fundraising campaigns with potential donors and browse for various campaigns on the website themselves.

Plaintiffs alleged that when they visited the website, GoFundMe provided a cookie-consent banner that offered users the option to either accept or reject all cookies. When Plaintiffs clicked the option to reject all cookies, GoFundMe caused Plaintiffs’ browsers to send information to third-party companies. These third-party companies included Google, Meta, Microsoft, PayPal, TikTok, and others who received Plaintiffs’ information through the use of cookies, pixels, scripts, and similar technologies.

The information disclosed included Plaintiffs IP addresses, browser and device information, identifiers, webpage URLs, site-navigation and interaction information, as well as the particular webpages they viewed on the website.

Plaintiffs alleged that the information tracked could reveal further information concerning medical conditions, financial difficulties, personal relationships, religious affiliations, or other sensitive matters.

GoFundMe moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for a lack of Article III standing, and the United States District Court for the Northern District of California agreed with their reasoning.

Read more at The National Law Review.

Category: BusinessCourtOnline

Post navigation

← Border Searches of Laptops, Phones Up 32% This Year
UK: Action taken against Staffordshire Police after victim’s address wrongly disclosed to alleged abuser →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search

Contact Me

Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight
Signal: Dissent.73

Research Report of Note

A report by EPIC.org:

State Attorneys General & Privacy: Enforcement Trends, 2020-2024

Categories

Recent Posts

  • Recommended readings on AI and privacy
  • Tajani data leak on the dark web: The Guarantor warns the media.
  • Former Meta Exec Shreds the Company’s Muse AI Agent as “Insane” Privacy Risk
  • Class Action Lawsuit Alleges Google, UPS Disclose Users’ Info to Third Parties Without Consent via Tracking Widget
  • Europe’s Plot To End Americans’ Online Anonymity
  • Google threatened to block search function in schools. NC schools seek answers
  • Tech Tips for Parents this Digital Parenting Week

RSS feed: Recent Posts at DataBreaches.net Recent Posts at DataBreaches.net

  • No need to hack when it’s leaking: Artex edition
  • County of Sussex, New Jersey Notice of Data Privacy Incident
  • Coding Agents Copy Your Secrets to a Hidden File. Thousands Are on GitHub
  • Norad targeted by cyberattack
  • State attorneys general secure up to $10 million and corrective action plan from Perry Johnson companies after 2023 breach

Want to Get PogoWasRight’s RSS Feed?

 

It’s at https://pogowasright.org/feed/

©2026 PogoWasRight.org. All rights reserved.