SALTO v. Auction.com

Background

Alexander Del Salto filed a proposed class action against Auction.com, LLC. He alleges that, when people visit www.auction.com, the website installs third-party trackers on their internet browsers. The complaint asserts a claim under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511, and claims under various California laws.

Article III Standing

Article III standing is the constitutional requirement that a plaintiff have a personal stake in a federal case. To establish standing, a plaintiff must show an injury that is concrete, fairly connected to the defendant’s conduct, and likely to be addressed by a court order. In a proposed class action, at least one named plaintiff must have standing.

The court discussed Ninth Circuit authority holding that some privacy-related harms, including disclosure of private information or intrusion into private activities, can be concrete injuries. It also discussed a decision involving session-replay technology in which the alleged tracking of ordinary browsing activity did not establish a concrete injury because the information was not embarrassing, invasive, or otherwise private in a way similar to harms recognized by traditional law.

The court found that Del Salto’s complaint alleges that he visited the website in or around May 2026 to research real estate and that the website caused trackers to be installed on his browsers. But the complaint did not allege what information was collected and shared, what targeted advertising he received as a result, or how the collection or use was highly offensive. The complaint instead generally alleges that the trackers collect identifying information, website activity, internet protocol addresses, and other user-behavior data. The court also stated that, even if collection of that information could support a claim, the complaint did not allege facts supporting an inference that such information was collected about Del Salto personally.

Order

Because the complaint raised concerns about subject-matter jurisdiction, the court ordered Del Salto to show cause in writing by August 25, 2026 why the court has Article III jurisdiction over the action. The court stated that he could alternatively pursue his claims in state court, where the constitutional Article III standing requirement does not apply. The order does not state that the case was dismissed or otherwise finally resolved.