McClung v. AddShopper, Inc., 3:23-cv-01996

Plaintiffs alleged that AddShoppers, through tracking technology, collected detailed browsing information from visitors to certain retail websites and sent marketing emails, even though these individuals had not provided personal information to those sites.
The central claim focused on AddShoppers' "SafeOpt" program, which partners with online retailers to track shopping activity and link it to potential email addresses in order to send targeted marketing emails.
Plaintiffs' class certification effort was hindered by credibility and evidence preservation problems: one plaintiff deleted her phone history after discovery requests; another gave conflicting testimony and did not appear to actually receive marketing emails.
The procedural history was complicated: original plaintiffs dropped out, claims were narrowed from multiple statutes to a single California privacy claim (CIPA), and class scope was shifted from all brand partner websites to only Dia and Peet’s.
Key factual issues emerged over whether the named plaintiffs were typical and adequate class representatives, and even if they were actual class members under the narrow class definition.
The court ultimately denied class certification, dismissed certain claims for lack of standing (specifically against Peet's), and expressed concern over plaintiff vetting practices within the plaintiffs’ bar.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Article III Standing (Cordero on Peet's)	Cordero argued he was tracked during Peet’s visit	No evidence of detailed browsing tracked or emails sent	Cordero lacked standing; Peet’s dismissed
Typicality and Adequacy (Rule 23(b)(3))	Lineberry & Cordero typical/adequate for class	Unique credibility/defense issues undermine adequacy	Neither typical nor adequate; class not certified
Evidence Preservation/Spoliation	Deletion innocuous and doesn't impact class role	Destruction raises unique defenses, credibility issues	Deletion further erodes typicality and adequacy
Scope of Class Definition	Narrow class helps predominance	Narrow class means named plaintiffs not members/typical	Plaintiffs’ strategic narrowing backfired; class denied
Rule 23(b)(2) Injunctive Relief	Sought broad injunctive class for all CA visitors	Credibility and evidence issues undercut adequacy again	Failed Rule 23(a); same typicality/adequacy failings

Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497 (9th Cir. 1992) (typicality and adequacy are undermined by individualized defenses)
Wal-Mart Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (Rule 23(b)(2) classes require indivisible injunctive relief)
Campbell v. Facebook, Inc., 951 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2020) (standing for injunctive relief requires likelihood of future harm)
Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2012) (plaintiffs aren’t required to change lawful conduct to avoid future injury)
Sali v. Corona Regional Medical Center, 909 F.3d 996 (9th Cir. 2018) (named plaintiff must be a member of the class they seek to represent)