A federal court in the United States has dismissed a digital privacy class action against Foris Dax, the operator of crypto exchange Crypto.com, ruling that allegations of online profiling and broken privacy promises do not establish constitutional standing.

In an order issued Oct. 6, 2026, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (FAC), while giving the plaintiffs 30 days to file an amended version of their claims.

Allegations of Comprehensive Profiling

The lawsuit centers on claims that Foris Dax deployed third-party tracking cookies to monitor user behavior, share data with outside parties, and build comprehensive consumer profiles reflecting user preferences and behavioral trends. The plaintiffs argued that these tracking practices violated their reasonable expectation of privacy, particularly in light of alleged assurances by the company that such tracking would not occur.

Judge Chen rejected those arguments, emphasizing that Article III standing requires an actual, concrete injury resulting from the collection of sensitive personal information. That requirement is a common early checkpoint in digital privacy litigation: federal courts assess whether a complaint alleges a concrete harm before the merits are reached, so the specificity of allegations about what data was collected and how sensitive it is can determine a case at the pleading stage.

Addressing the profiling claims, the court acknowledged that data disclosures enabling "cradle-to-grave" tracking can establish standing under Ninth Circuit precedent, such as In re Facebook, Inc. Internet Tracking Litigation. However, Judge Chen found that the plaintiffs failed to allege that third parties actually collected or deanonymized data that was "materially more sensitive" than general, non-sensitive site activity.

Deception Alone Is Not Enough

The court also considered the plaintiffs' claims regarding misrepresentation and broken privacy pledges. While deceptive tracking can serve as a "plus factor" elevating conduct to a "highly offensive" privacy intrusion, Judge Chen held that deceit alone does not transform routine web tracking into an actionable injury.

"The key is the sensitivity of the information collected," Judge Chen wrote, citing recent Ninth Circuit jurisprudence. Because the complaint did not demonstrate that particularly sensitive personal information was gathered, the court concluded that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue in federal court.

Because the court could not determine that further amendment would be futile, the dismissal was granted with leave to amend, meaning the dispute is not closed outright but continues while the plaintiffs attempt to cure the identified deficiencies. The plaintiffs have until Nov. 5, 2026 to file an updated complaint addressing the standing deficiencies identified by the court. The revised filing will indicate whether they can plead the collection or deanonymization of materially more sensitive data, the showing absent from the current complaint and the benchmark the court set for the claims to proceed.