Baker v. Yahoo Inc. and Yahoo Ad Tech LLC

Background

Six individuals brought a proposed class action against Yahoo Inc. and Yahoo Ad Tech LLC, which the opinion collectively calls “Yahoo.” The plaintiffs allege that Yahoo violated privacy laws by collecting information about them after they signed up for websites using Yahoo’s targeted-advertising technology.

The second amended complaint alleges that Yahoo’s targeted-advertising products use identifiers, including Yahoo ConnectID, to track individuals across internet activities and devices. The plaintiffs allege that, when they logged into CBS Sports, US Magazine, Realtor.com, or FanDuel using their email addresses, Yahoo intercepted their email addresses and assigned or attributed their information to a ConnectID. They further allege that Yahoo used that identifier and other technology to intercept searches, full-string website addresses, internet-protocol addresses, and device identifiers without their consent.

The complaint asserts claims under New York General Business Law § 349; the common-law tort of intrusion upon seclusion; the California Constitution; the California Invasion of Privacy Act; California’s Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act; unjust enrichment; and a request for injunctive relief. The plaintiffs seek to represent an identifier class and a communications class, but this opinion does not state that either class was certified.

Yahoo’s Motion

Yahoo renewed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. Yahoo argued primarily that the plaintiffs consented to the challenged practices when they signed up for the four websites. Yahoo asked the court to take notice of 25 policies and 10 sign-up pages, including multiple versions of materials associated with those websites.

The court explained that online agreements can bind a user when the user had adequate notice of the terms and objectively showed agreement through conduct. Whether the plaintiffs consented could depend on the specific sign-up pages and policies in effect when they created their accounts. The complaint did not identify when any plaintiff created an account with the relevant websites. As a result, Yahoo could not determine which pages and policies the plaintiffs had encountered, and the court could not properly decide which materials were relevant.

Order for More Definite Statement

Under Rule 12(e), a court may require a more definite statement when a pleading is so vague or ambiguous that the opposing party cannot reasonably prepare a response. Although no party had filed a Rule 12(e) motion, the court ordered the plaintiffs to provide a more definite statement. The amended pleading must identify when each plaintiff created an account with CBS Sports, Realtor.com, US Magazine, or FanDuel, along with other available information necessary for Yahoo to identify the applicable interfaces and referenced policies.

Disposition

The court denied Yahoo’s September 26, 2025 motion to dismiss and request for judicial notice without prejudice to renewal. After the plaintiffs submit the amended pleading, Yahoo may renew its motion to dismiss. The court denied the plaintiffs’ November 5, 2025 request to file a sur-reply as moot. The opinion did not decide whether the plaintiffs consented to Yahoo’s conduct or whether their claims ultimately succeed.