N.D. Cal. Rejects Non-Specific Tolling Arguments in Shah v. Politico LLC

In Shah v. Politico LLC, 5:25-cv-05213 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2026), the Court addressed plaintiffs’ attempts to invoke equitable tolling, delayed discovery, and fraudulent concealment to save untimely claims under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”).  

Defendant Politico LLC (“Politico”) had filed a motion to dismiss allegations that, despite presenting a cookie banner that ostensibly allowed visitors to opt out of third-party cookies and tracking technologies, Politico permitted tracking anyway.  The Court permitted certain claims to proceed but dismissed plaintiffs’ CIPA wiretap and pen register claims as untimely under CIPA’s one-year statute of limitations.  The Court rejected each of plaintiffs’ arguments for tolling the statute of limitations, holding that “the tolling doctrines Plaintiffs advance are either insufficiently pleaded or inadequate to cover the time required by the statute of limitations.” 

The Court’s analysis highlights the specificity required to toll CIPA’s one-year statute of limitations.  The Court first rejected plaintiffs’ efforts to invoke the delayed discovery exception to the statute of limitations, concluding that plaintiffs did not plead sufficient facts concerning the time and manner of discovery, nor their inability to have made an earlier discovery with reasonable diligence.  The Court agreed with Politico that, even if plaintiffs lacked the technical expertise to ascertain the tracking on their own, they still failed to plead reasonable diligence because they did not allege any affirmative steps they took to determine if they were being tracked.  The Court next held that plaintiffs failed to plead fraudulent concealment.  The Court reasoned that because no additional conduct “above and beyond the wrongdoing upon which the plaintiff’s claim is filed” was alleged, there was no fraudulent concealment.  Plaintiffs could not merely rely on the claimed deception from the cookie banner as the fraudulent concealment; a distinct fraudulent act was required.  Finally, the Court rejected plaintiffs’ equitable tolling argument based on their co-plaintiff’s demand letter and arbitration proceeding.  The Court explained that even if equitable tolling applied, at least 420 un-tolled days elapsed between the injury and the filing of the action, which still exceeded CIPA’s one-year limitations period.