The plaintiffs voluntarily dropped one claim, but the record summarized here does not identify which one. It also does not say whether the dismissal was with leave to amend, so whether the plaintiffs can refile on the same theories remains open. The court's reasoning on economic loss, device harm, and whether browsing data qualifies as "contents" is still unresolved, since the plaintiffs will have to address those points in any amended pleading. Separately, California's SB 690, enacted while the case was pending, bars section 638.51 pen register suits brought by anyone other than the Attorney General. It applies retroactively to pending claims in actions filed within two years before its effective date.
For attorneys handling health-website tracking cases, the ruling sets a concrete pleading standard. Plaintiffs must identify the specific health-related searches tied to real users, not just allege that a health site was tracked. Courts in the same district have reached different results: a June 2025 Eastern District decision held that browsing history on a public, non-health-specific site is not actionable, while a separate 2025 case involving a provider's tracking pixels let unjust enrichment and UCL claims proceed. Defense counsel should look at whether a complaint names actual searches before relying on the consent or privacy-policy arguments. Plaintiff counsel should check whether section 638.51 claims survive SB 690 and whether an amended complaint in Rose follows.