Fregosa v. Mashable Inc.
3:25-cv-01094
N.D. Cal.Apr 10, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Dawn Fregosa sued Mashable, Inc., alleging violation of California's Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) for installing trackers on her computer without consent.
- Mashable operates a digital news website, was initially incorporated in California but since 2013 is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York; it maintained some California offices at least until 2023.
- Fregosa claimed Mashable’s trackers harvested users' device information and shared it with third parties for targeted advertising, including to users in California.
- The complaint sought statutory damages for Fregosa and a putative class.
- Mashable moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
- The court granted Mashable’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, with leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over Mashable in California | Mashable targeted Californians through trackers and ads | No express aiming at California; only general website access | No personal jurisdiction; no purposeful direction shown |
| Express aiming required for specific jurisdiction | Data collection and ads demonstrate targeted conduct | Generic website use is not aiming at California specifically | Plaintiff failed to allege forum-specific targeting |
| Effect of advertising targeted at CA users | Geo-targeted ads show direct commerce with CA residents | Geo-targeting insufficient under 9th Circuit precedent | Geo-targeting does not establish specific jurisdiction |
| Relevance of Mashable's California connections | Former incorporation, offices, and CA privacy policy matter | Such facts are not forum-specific at relevant times | Prior California contacts do not establish jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (limiting general personal jurisdiction to where a corporation is essentially at home)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (distinguishing general and specific personal jurisdiction)
- Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (requiring purposeful direction for tort-based specific jurisdiction)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (contacts must be with the forum state itself, not just forum residents)
- Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Techs., Inc., 647 F.3d 1218 ("something more" than generic internet presence required for express aiming)