Judge Chen's Crypto.com ruling makes cookie plaintiffs prove the data was sensitive

The two reports disagree on whether any case is left. News.bitcoin.com dates the order Oct. 6, 2026 ^[1]. Cryptobriefing dates it Oct. 7 and says the ruling "closed the case entirely" ^[13]. The leave-to-amend version is internally consistent, since Oct. 6 plus 30 days is Nov. 5 ^[15]. News.bitcoin.com also gives the reason for leave: Chen could not conclude that a further amendment would be futile ^[14].

Chen's test is short. "The key is the sensitivity of the information collected," he wrote ^[9]. The alleged broken promise was weighed separately. According to news.bitcoin.com's account, deceptive tracking can be a "plus factor" that lifts conduct toward a "highly offensive" intrusion, but deceit alone does not turn routine web tracking into an injury ^[8]. That leaves the complaint's strongest fact, a consent choice the site allegedly overrode, counting only as a broken promise ^[4][8].

News.bitcoin.com's summary says the ruling enforces a high hurdle for Ninth Circuit tracking suits without sensitive-data exposure ^[10]. Enforces is the accurate verb. Chen is a U.S. district judge in the Northern District of California, applying circuit precedent such as In re Facebook, Inc. Internet Tracking Litigation ^[1][13][7]. Cryptobriefing ties the result to the Ninth Circuit's 2025 decision in Popa v. Microsoft, after which alleging a violated privacy statute has not been enough on its own ^[11]. The bar was set by the circuit, and this order shows where a cookie-banner case lands against it. Cryptobriefing also pointed out that a standing dismissal decides whether these plaintiffs can sue in federal court, not whether the tracking was acceptable ^[2].

Follow the spending. Cryptobriefing reported that Crypto.com avoided a fight on the merits of its cookie practices ^[3], and the order came 354 days after the suit was filed ^[12]. The next round of legal cost falls on the plaintiffs. It has to pay for a fact they did not plead the first time: what specific, sensitive information a third party collected from Crypto.com's site ^[7]. Their profiling theory, that trackers built consumer profiles of preferences and behavioral trends, did not supply it ^[5][7].

The plaintiffs can file by Nov. 5 with specific sensitive-data allegations and restart the case, let the deadline pass and leave the dismissal standing, or find that Cryptobriefing's reading was right and there was never anything to amend ^[14][13]. I'd expect the second outcome for this complaint. Its theory rests on the overridden banner click, and Chen held that deceit cannot carry standing by itself ^[8].

The case against that view is the defendant's business. Crypto.com is an exchange ^[1], and if the plaintiffs can show trackers picked up account or transaction details, the "materially more sensitive" test looks reachable ^[7]. Neither report says what data the trackers touched. An amended complaint that survived on that ground would show the hurdle is high but passable for financial sites, and the order would then be less useful to the next company sued over a cookie banner.