[Enforcement library](/enforcement)

# Smith v. Rack Room Shoes

The court allowed Wiretap Act and computer-access claims to proceed on allegations of tracking without permission. It dismissed the UCL and CLRA claims without leave to amend.

US District Court, Northern District of California · Federal Wiretap Act and CDAFA

- Case record
- What this record establishes
- Checks for your own systems
- Sources and limits

## Case record

| Fact | Record |
| --- | --- |
| Authority or court | US District Court, Northern District of California |
| Law or issue | Federal Wiretap Act and CDAFA |
| Case number | 3:24-cv-06709-RFL |
| Procedural record | Motion to dismiss granted in part and denied in part |
| Opinion or order | 4 August 2025 |
| Source reviewed | 16 October 2026 |

[Court opinion or order](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_24-cv-06709/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-3_24-cv-06709-0.pdf)

## What this record establishes

This page describes the cited opinion or order. A dismissal, pleading decision, standing ruling or jurisdiction decision has a different scope from a merits judgment. Later proceedings and appeals may change the position. Unpublished and nonprecedential decisions are identified in the status where applicable.

## Checks for your own systems

Inth’s technical interpretation: use this case to choose what evidence to collect in your own implementation. These checks are not instructions issued by the court or regulator.

- Record the first request or capture alongside the time a user makes a choice.
- Check client scripts, tag-manager rules and server events for collection before the consent decision.
- Repeat after refusal, withdrawal, navigation and a fresh session.
- Inventory browser destinations, server relays, exports and partner integrations.
- Trace which fields leave the service, when, and for which stated purpose.

> **Limits of technical evidence**
> A browser capture can show a transfer. It cannot establish every server operation, the terms of a contract or whether a law applies. Compare observed behaviour with the relevant disclosures and legal assessment.

## Sources and limits

[Court opinion or order](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_24-cv-06709/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-3_24-cv-06709-0.pdf)

Source review: 16 October 2026. This record covers the cited source and procedural stage. It does not audit the organisation’s present implementation or establish every later legal development.

[Browse the enforcement library](/enforcement)