Lawsuits targeting businesses’ use of website tools under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”) increasingly are filed by so-called “tester” plaintiffs. These plaintiffs seek out websites to “test” for potential CIPA violations and then file lawsuits seeking damages for those alleged violations. A California federal court recently confirmed that a CIPA plaintiff’s “status as a tester forecloses standing” for a simple reason: a tester “actively seeks out privacy violations” and therefore “cannot claim an injury when her expectations were ultimately met.” Rodriguez v. Autotrader.com, Inc., 2025 WL 1085787, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2025).
This lawsuit was filed by plaintiff Rebeka Rodriguez, a self-proclaimed “tester” plaintiff who previously filed at least two other unsuccessful CIPA suits, which we reported on here and here. Plaintiff alleged that she visited Defendant Autotrader’s website and “performed a search containing sensitive information,” and that Autotrader used a third-party tool installed on the website “to access, record, and disclose Plaintiff’s information” without consent. She claimed the website tool was a “pen register,” and that Autotrader’s use of that tool to allegedly collect her information violated CIPA’s pen register provision. See Cal. Penal Code § 638.51.
The Court dismissed plaintiff’s claim with prejudice, concluding that “dismissal is warranted for lack of standing[.]” For a claim brought under CIPA, standing requires plaintiff to demonstrate a “reasonable expectation of privacy” over the allegedly collected “sensitive information” entered on Autotrader’s website. Plaintiff’s status as a tester forecloses standing, the Court reasoned, because she “visited and entered information into Defendant’s website expecting the information to be accessed, recorded, and disclosed.” In other words, plaintiff “cannot claim an injury” sufficient to confer standing “when her expectations were ultimately met.” Plaintiff argued that she visited Autotrader’s website not only as a tester, but also to use Autotrader’s services, but the Court rejected this “dual motivations” argument as irrelevant. “[I]t does not change the fact that she expected her privacy to be invaded, thereby negating any injury.”