A California federal judge has provided a pivotal boost to an ongoing class action lawsuit against Conde Nast Digital, denying the media company’s motion to dismiss and allowing a consumer privacy case to proceed. The suit shines a light on the use of website trackers that allegedly collect personal information without informed consent, an issue at the heart of privacy debates for digital media giants.
Background of the Class Action Lawsuit
The lawsuit was filed by Aaron Deivaprakash in California federal court, alleging that Conde Nast Digital‘s websites, including newyorker.com and wired.com, installed trackers on users’ browsers, capturing their personal information and tracking their internet activity without consent. According to court documents, Deivaprakash claims he visited Conde Nast’s properties multiple times between 2012 and 2024 and was tracked “without his knowledge or consent.”
These trackers, Deivaprakash argues, allow third-party advertisers to assemble comprehensive profiles of users, which are then sold for targeting ads. The lawsuit maintains that this practice constituted a violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), as none of the tracking was authorized by a court order.
Legal Arguments in Court
Conde Nast Digital sought to halt the proceedings, arguing that the trackers used on their sites do not count as “pen registers” under CIPA legislation is “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” and that users themselves consent to share the data with third parties.
The media company also claimed its trackers go beyond collecting just dialing, routing, addressing, or signaling information—the elements typically covered by CIPA.
Denial of Motion to Dismiss
Presiding over the case, District Judge Rita Lin ruled that the use of embedded trackers was sufficient to proceed with the lawsuit. The complaint alleged that these trackers recorded and stored users’ unique identifying information, such as cookies. It further asserted that by embedding this technology, the company enabled third parties to compile detailed profiles of its users.
Judge Lin’s decision is notable for the way it expands expectations of privacy, as she rejected Conde Nast’s argument that Deivaprakash lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the collected information. The judgment says that the company’s tracking went far beyond just collecting his basic online information. The company used this data to build a detailed personal profile about him, which seriously undermined his ability to stay anonymous on the internet.
The court concluded that Conde Nast’s installation of the trackers “caused Deivaprakash’s privacy violation, supplying the “[i]f the same third-party tracker is present on many sites, it can build a more complete profile of the user over time.”
Lin also clarified that applying CIPA in this case “did not require the interpretation of any ambiguities in the statute”.
The Implications for Web Tracking and Media Companies
This decision means the class action, officially titled Deivaprakash v. Conde Nast Digital, Case No. 3:25-cv-04021, will go forward in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California—potentially setting precedent for how media companies implement and disclose online tracking technologies.
The plaintiff is represented by L. Timothy Fisher, Philip L. Fraietta, and Joshua R. Wilner of Bursor & Fisher P.A.. Their focus on user transparency and privacy could influence how publishers utilize cookies and trackers in the future, especially as similar legal challenges mount across the country.
Privacy Law Trends and Recent Lawsuits
The Conde Nast case arrives at a moment when courts and regulators are taking a closer look at privacy violations in both media and healthcare sectors. Notably, several dermatology clinics have recently faced lawsuits for collecting users’ personal data without consent. If privacy concerns are proven, affected users of such clinics, or of sites like Conde Nast’s, may be eligible to join class action investigations.
What Comes Next for Consumers
For digital media users, this lawsuit highlights ongoing risks related to online trackers and third-party data sharing for advertising. The case signals that routine web browsing—even across prominent sites—can expose personally identifiable information for uses beyond the visitor’s knowledge. The outcome could change standards for privacy disclosures and for how consent must be obtained.
As the class action progresses, consumers tracking these developments need to stay informed. Those who believe their privacy was compromised by online tracking—whether on publisher sites or clinic websites—may have recourse through class action settlements.
Conde Nast now faces continued scrutiny over its data practices as this lawsuit remains active. The wider publishing and tech industries will watch closely, as a ruling in favor of plaintiffs could reshape privacy protocols for millions of users—and for the data-driven business models that run today’s digital world.
