A recent decision from the Northern District of California reminds corporate defendants in Internet tracking cases that strategies to defeat class certification based on individualized issues can be just as critical as merit-based defenses.
In In re Meta Pixel Tax Filing Cases, No. 22-cv-07557-PCP (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2026), a group of plaintiffs sought to certify classes of individuals who visited tax-preparation websites where the Meta Pixel was deployed, alleging that user data—including URLs, browsing behavior, and potentially sensitive financial information—was transmitted to Meta in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), among other statutes. Plaintiffs’ original complaint defined the class to include individuals whose “tax filing information” was collected. But in their certification motion, plaintiffs sought to define the class as anyone whose data from visiting the websites appeared in Meta’s internal data tables—a significantly broader group.
The court held that by broadening the class, plaintiffs swept in putative class members whose claims were likely barred by CIPA’s one-year statute of limitations. Under American Pipe, class action filings toll the statute of limitations only for individuals who fall within the original class definition. Because the expanded classes included individuals from whom no tax-filing data was allegedly collected, those individuals were not entitled to tolling and their claims could be time-barred. Critically, resolving whether each class member fell within the original definition would require individualized inquiries—potentially a line-by-line review of terabytes of data—that would overwhelm common questions and defeat predominance under Rule 23(b)(3).
For companies facing internet tracking litigation, this decision underscores the importance of using discovery not only to support technical defenses but also to highlight individualized issues that might defeat class certification. Pay close attention to how plaintiffs define their proposed classes—particularly when definitions shift from the complaint to the certification stage. Expansions may create tolling gaps and undercut commonality arguments. Class certification is not a foregone conclusion in tracking technology cases, and rigorous attention to procedural requirements can yield significant results for defendants.