• by Ray Schultz , Columnist, April 8, 2026

Publishers who use tracking tools to get basic data on visitors to their sites can breathe easier. A federal judge has tossed a class action suit filed against USA Today Co., alleging that it gathered IP addresses and device and browser types and violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA). 

It is “well-established in the Ninth Circuit that there is no legally protected privacy interest in IP addresses,” wrote U.S. District Judge Maxine M. Chesney, discussing the prior throwing out of a CIPA claim against a company. “Similarly, it is well-established that there is no legally protected privacy interest in information such as device type and browser type.”

It sounds like a small thing, but this victory may help other publishers avoid or beat annoying suits that cost time and money to fight. Clearly, the data collected by USA Today Co. did not include personally identifiable information. 

The case was filed in 2024 against Gannett, USA Today’s name prior to rebranding. The name of the case was amended to reflect that change. 

The plaintiffs include Ryan Wu, Saber Khamooshi and John Deddeh. 

The suit alleges that USA Today Co. “has embedded and implemented several third-party trackers on the USA Today website,” without the consent of visitors. These trackers “collect information about internet users as those users are browsing the web.” 

And the suit charges that USA Today violated several state measures.

But the judge rejected the case, failing to see any concrete damages. 

“For purposes of a privacy claim, a concrete injury arises only where the alleged harm involves personal information,  i.e., information the disclosure of which “would be highly offensive to a reasonable [person],” Chesney observed, citing other precedents.   

In addition, the plaintiffs did not document “a legally protected privacy interest and, consequently, fail to allege any profit earned therefrom was unjust,” Chesney continued.

When it comes to CIPA, “a plaintiff, for purposes of alleging ‘a concrete injury,’ is required to “demonstrate more than just a statutory violation,” the judge wrote. 

The plaintiffs can file an amended action, but have to do so by April 28.  

The case is on file with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District.