Thursday, September 24, 2026
Page 3
Complaint Says Website Shares Information Provided by Expectant Mothers, New Parents
Contention Is Put Forth in Putative Class Action That Cookies Are Planted Even Where User Expressly Declines to Consent to Gathering, Sharing of Data
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A putative class action has been filed alleging that an interactive website aimed at expectant mothers and parents plants cookies that allows the collection and dissemination of sensitive information about the user even if she clicks on a button that says “Do Not Consent” to data sharing.
The complaint was filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California with Amanda Reimer of Ventura as plaintiff and would-be class representative. She sues Babycenter, LLC and others in connection with the website at www.babycenter.com.
A box, known as a “cookie banner,” pops up upon entering the site. It says:
“Your privacy is important to us.
“This website uses cookies to personalize content, analytics and ads. We also share information about the way you interact with our website, including health information interests, with our advertising and analytics partners who may aggregate this data with other information they have about you. Please click I Consent below to give us permission to do this. If you do not wish to consent please click Do Not Consent For more information see our Privacy Policy.”
Data Transmitted
The complaint, signed by West Los Angeles attorney Victor J. Sandoval of Almeida Law Group LLC, alleges:
“The Website incorporates resources and programming scripts from third parties—including Google LLC…and LiveRamp Holdings, Inc….and the additional entities…—that use cookies and similar tracking technologies on users who visit the Website. These cookies and tracking technologies transmit data to third parties.”
It goes on to say:
“Website users, including Plaintiff, reasonably expected that their communications with Defendants would remain confidential between themselves and Defendants. California law prohibits the recording or eavesdropping upon confidential communications without consent….Health-related communications give rise to a reasonable expectation of confidentiality….That expectation was heightened here: the Website invites users to disclose pregnancy status, due dates, fertility and health information, and details about their children, and users reasonably understood that such sensitive family and health information would not be routed to advertising and analytics companies—particularly after they rejected cookies. This expectation is further supported by Plaintiffs explicit indication that she did not consent to the sharing of her information when she selected ‘Do Not Consent’ on the Website’s cookie banner.”
Use of Data
The pleading explains:
“The Third Parties use the data they collect from users to analyze and track behavior across different websites and over time. They use this information to build and monetize detailed consumer profiles that include users’ interests, preferences, and demographic characteristics. These profiles are used to group individuals into audience segments—such as ‘expectant parents,’ ‘new mothers,’ or ‘baby product shoppers’—for targeted advertising and marketing analysis.”
It adds:
“Website users sought to avoid this type of tracking and data sharing when they rejected cookies. Defendants falsely told Website users that it respected their privacy and that they could avoid tracking and data sharing when they browsed the Website.”
California Subclass
Reimer pleads claims on behalf of herself and a proposed California subclass under the state’s Invasion of Privacy Act and Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, as well as for invasion of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion, fraud/deceit/misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and intentional misrepresentation. She also pleads, on behalf of herself and a proposed nationwide class, a violation of the Federal Wiretap Act and breach of contract.
The plaintiff seeks general damages, treble damages, and punitive damages, along with injunctive relief, restitution, and disgorgement, plus attorneys’ fees, interest and costs.
The case is Reimer v. Babycenter, LLC, 2:26-cv-10783.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company