Skip to content
Court Rules on GoFundMe Cookie Consent Case

Court Rules on GoFundMe Cookie Consent Case

First seen 28 Oct 2026, 02:21 UTC • •
API

Article Content

Browse articles
ThreatCluster AI
ThreatCluster •October 28, 2026 at 08:18 UTC
  • •Court dismissed case due to lack of concrete injury.
  • •Plaintiffs alleged violations of CIPA against GoFundMe.
  • •Tracking data sent to third parties despite cookie rejection.

In the case of Shirley Vanasch et al. v. GoFundMe Inc., the Northern District of California ruled that plaintiffs Sal Munoz and Shirley Vanasch lacked Article III standing, despite alleging violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) due to GoFundMe's use of third-party tracking technologies after they opted out of cookie consent. The plaintiffs claimed that their information was sent to various third parties, including Google and Meta, without their consent. However, the court found no concrete injury resulting from this data sharing, leading to the dismissal of the case. This ruling highlights the challenges plaintiffs face in proving harm in privacy-related lawsuits.

Start a free Starter trial for enhanced analysis

Ask AI about this cluster

Updated just now How this analysis works

Timeline

2026-10-14
Court ruling issued
The Northern District of California ruled on the dismissal of the case, stating plaintiffs lacked standing.
Pogowasright
2026-10-27
Article published
Pogowasright reported on the court's decision and the implications for privacy lawsuits.
Pogowasright
2026-10-28
Article published
Natlawreview.com provided a summary of the case and its significance in privacy law.
natlawreview.com

More articles in this cluster (2)

Following this threat?

Track GoFundMe in your own feed — you're alerted when they show up in new reporting, leak sites or exploitation.

Free account · no card needed

Extracted Entities (2)

1 / 2

Common questions

What was the main legal issue in this case?
The main issue was whether the plaintiffs had suffered a concrete injury to establish standing under Article III.
What does this ruling mean for privacy lawsuits?
The ruling indicates that proving concrete injury may be a significant hurdle for plaintiffs in privacy-related cases.
What tracking technologies were involved?
The case involved third-party tracking technologies, including cookies and scripts that sent user data to companies like Google and Meta.