Federal judge dismisses privacy lawsuit against Crypto.com over cookie tracking

Background

The case was brought by two individuals, Jose Ortiz and Javier Hernandez, who claimed that Crypto.com ignored their attempts to disable third-party tracking even after selecting 'Disable All' on cookie consent banners.

What the Plaintiffs Alleged

The plaintiffs alleged that Crypto.com's conduct violated several privacy laws, including the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), a state statute that has become a favorite tool in lawsuits over website monitoring.

The Court's Ruling

The court ruled that the plaintiffs lacked concrete injury to pursue their claims, citing Article III of the US Constitution, which limits federal courts to hearing actual cases and controversies. The court reaffirmed that plaintiffs must demonstrate a tangible harm before a judge will weigh whether the defendant did anything wrong.

Implications for Crypto.com and the Industry

The ruling means that Crypto.com avoided a fight on the merits of its cookie practices, but it also highlights the challenges of enforcing user choice in federal court when the alleged harm is the tracking itself rather than some downstream damage. For consumers, the practical takeaway is sobering, as it shows how difficult it can be to enforce user choice in federal court.

Implications for the Plaintiffs' Bar

The ruling sends a clear message to the plaintiffs' bar: future website-tracking suits against crypto platforms or anyone else will likely need to lead with concrete injury rather than leaning on the language of privacy statutes.