Crypto.com Privacy Case Dismissed, Plaintiffs Get Second Chance

Plaintiffs Alleged Comprehensive Profiling and Deceptive Tracking

A U.S. court dismissed a digital privacy class action against Foris Dax, the operator of the exchange Crypto.com, over third-party cookie tracking, ruling that allegations of online profiling and broken privacy promises do not establish constitutional standing.

In an order issued Oct. 6, 2026, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (FAC), but granted the plaintiffs 30 days to amend their claims.

The lawsuit centers on claims that the defendant used third-party tracking cookies to monitor user behavior, share data, and create comprehensive consumer profiles reflecting user preferences and behavioral trends. Plaintiffs argued that these tracking practices violated their reasonable expectation of privacy, particularly given alleged assurances by the defendant that such tracking would not occur.

Judge Chen rejected these arguments, emphasizing that Article III standing requires an actual, concrete injury resulting from the collection of sensitive personal information.

Addressing the plaintiffs’ profiling claims, the court acknowledged that data disclosures enabling “cradle-to-grave” tracking can establish standing under Ninth Circuit precedent, such as In re Facebook, Inc. Internet Tracking Litigation. However, Judge Chen noted that the plaintiffs failed to allege that third parties actually collected or deanonymized data that was “materially more sensitive” than general, non-sensitive site activity.

The court also addressed the plaintiffs’ claims regarding misrepresentation and broken privacy pledges. While deceptive tracking can serve as a “plus factor” elevating conduct to a “highly offensive” privacy intrusion, Judge Chen held that deceit alone does not transform routine web tracking into an actionable injury.

“The key is the sensitivity of the information collected,” Judge Chen wrote, citing recent Ninth Circuit jurisprudence. Because the complaint did not demonstrate that particularly sensitive personal information was gathered, the court concluded that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue in federal court.

Also, because the court found it could not determine that further amendment would be futile, the dismissal was granted with leave to amend. Plaintiffs have until Nov. 5, 2026, to file an updated complaint addressing the standing deficiencies identified by the court.