De v. Edmunds.com
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:26-cv-08720
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Gayatri De v. Edmunds.com, Judge Corley ordered Edmunds.com to explain why the case should not return to state court for lack of standing.
The order directly affects Gayatri De and Edmunds.com, Inc.; Edmunds.com must explain in writing by September 28, 2026, why the case should not be returned to state court.
What happened
Gayatri De v. Edmunds.com, Inc. is a proposed class action alleging that Edmunds.com installed third-party trackers on visitors’ browsers in violation of federal and California privacy laws. Edmunds.com removed the case from state court to federal court.
The court questioned whether De had standing, meaning a personal injury sufficient to allow a federal court to hear the case. The complaint generally alleged that trackers collected identifying information, internet activity, IP addresses, and other behavior data, but it did not specify what information was collected from De or how the collection caused a concrete harm.
Judge Corley did not yet order the case returned to state court. Instead, the judge ordered Edmunds.com to explain in writing by September 28, 2026, why the case should not be remanded because De lacked the required standing.
The detailed version
- De v. Edmunds.com · No. 3:26-cv-08720
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Sept. 14, 2026
Background
Gayatri De filed a proposed class action against Edmunds.com, Inc. The complaint alleges that Edmunds.com installs third-party trackers on internet browsers when people visit www.edmunds.com. It asserts a claim under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and claims under various California laws.
De originally filed the action in Contra Costa County Superior Court. Edmunds.com removed it to federal court, citing federal-question jurisdiction and the Class Action Fairness Act.
Court’s Concern About Standing
Federal courts may hear only qualifying cases or controversies. Article III standing is the requirement that a plaintiff show a concrete and personal injury, that the defendant likely caused the injury, and that a court order would likely remedy it. In a proposed class action, at least one named plaintiff must have standing. Because Edmunds.com removed the case, it bears the burden of showing that removal was proper, including that De has standing.
The complaint alleges that De visited the Edmunds website multiple times per week in June 2026 to research and compare vehicle prices and information. It alleges that the website’s code caused trackers to be installed on her browsers. The complaint generally states that the trackers collected identifying information, website activity, IP addresses, and other user-behavior data. It does not state what data was collected and shared about De, whether she received targeted advertising as a result, or how the alleged collection was highly offensive.
The court explained that privacy-related intangible harms can sometimes support standing, including disclosure of private information and intrusion upon seclusion. It also discussed a Ninth Circuit decision involving session-replay technology, where the plaintiff lacked standing because the alleged tracking did not involve information sufficiently private, invasive, or embarrassing. The court stated that De had not alleged enough facts to allow an inference that she suffered a concrete personal injury.
Order
The court ordered Edmunds.com to show cause in writing by September 28, 2026, why the action should not be remanded—returned—to Contra Costa County Superior Court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, specifically because De allegedly lacks Article III standing. The order is an order to show cause, not a final remand order. Judge Aline Scott Corley signed the order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.