A federal court in the Southern District of California declined to dismiss wiretapping and eavesdropping claims tied to Skullcandy Inc.’s alleged use of online trackers on its retail website, allowing the lawsuit to move forward. Plaintiff alleges that Skullcandy used tracking tools from Meta Platforms and Google to collect browser and purchase data. Jones v. Skullcandy, Inc., No. 3:2025cv01759 (S.D. Cal. 3/12/26).
The allegations include the use of the Meta Pixel, Google Analytics, and DoubleClick in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. Skullcandy argued the California court lacked jurisdiction, but the district court judge was persuaded that it could exercise specific jurisdiction, focusing on the allegation that Skullcandy aimed its conduct at California through the use of the tracking technologies at issue. Skullcandy sought to transfer the case to Utah, where it has its principal place of business—the court was not convinced. The court focused on the fact that the plaintiff chose to sue in California where the alleged conduct took place, and that the plaintiff expected that class members would be in that state. This decision highlights that venue and jurisdiction defenses may be difficult to win when plaintiffs tie the alleged tracking conduct to the forum state. Even if your website terms of use call out governing law as the state in which you have your principal place of business, you may still be stuck in California court.
