In Re Meta Pixel Tax Filing Cases
5:22-cv-07557
| N.D. Cal. | Aug 6, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs brought a class action against Meta Platforms, Inc., alleging Meta’s Meta Pixel tracking tool violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) by operating as a pen register and as a wiretap.
- The Meta Pixel is a JavaScript tool provided by Meta to third-party websites, including prominent tax-filing services, and it transmits user data back to Meta when users interact with those sites.
- Plaintiffs allege the Pixel sent sensitive tax-related user data (e.g., filing status, income, refund amounts) from services like TaxAct, H&R Block, and TaxSlayer to Meta, enabling the linkage of users and their private data to their Facebook profiles.
- Plaintiffs amended their complaint to add a claim that the Meta Pixel violated CIPA’s pen register provisions, which prohibit installing or using a pen register without a court order.
- Meta moved to dismiss the pen register claim, arguing the Pixel could not legally be both a wiretap and a pen register, and that Meta did not "use" or "install" the Pixel within CIPA’s meaning.
- The matter was before the court on Meta’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule 12(b)(6).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Meta "use" a pen register under CIPA section 638.51? | Meta used the Pixel, which records and transmits user data directly to Meta's servers, constituting use of a pen register. | Third-party websites install/use Pixel; Meta only uses received data, not the device. | Plaintiffs plausibly allege Meta used the Pixel as a pen register. |
| Can the Pixel be both a wiretap and a pen register under CIPA? | Pixel has capabilities of both; CIPA’s purpose is to protect privacy, so both claims can proceed for same device. | Statute precludes dual liability; device cannot be both under CIPA’s definitions. | A device can be both; CIPA should be construed to maximize privacy protections. |
| Does the exclusion of “contents of communication” bar the claim? | Pixel collects dialing/routing (metadata) as well as contents; functionalities are separate within the Pixel. | Statute excludes devices recording contents from pen register definition—collecting contents disqualifies. | Pixel’s functionalities can be distinct; collecting both does not preclude pen register liability. |
| Is Meta liable if only the data, not the device, is used by Meta? | Meta is directly involved in the real-time collection/transmission, not a passive recipient; integral to data flow. | Only tax services directly interact with/operate the Pixel; Meta just receives and uses resultant data. | Meta’s involvement in real-time collection means plausible use of the pen register is alleged. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (sets federal pleading standard for plausibility on motions to dismiss)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleading under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Flanagan v. Flanagan, 27 Cal. 4th 766 (2002) (CIPA should be interpreted to maximize privacy protection)
- Rowe v. Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp., 559 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2009) (pleading standards for Rule 12(b)(6) motions)