Give a Mouse a Cookie – California Court Partially Dismisses Cookie Tracking Case Against Capitol One Under “No Harm, No Foul” Doctrine

The article analyzes the Northern District of California's 2026 decision in Ingraham v. Capital One, explaining how courts evaluate standing in privacy suits involving third-party tracking technologies. It highlights key holdings on whether transmitted data was individually identifiable, whether disclosures were sufficiently offensive or sensitive (e.g., credit-application results, employment, citizenship, income/FICO bands), and how plaintiffs’ conduct can undercut a claimed expectation of privacy. The piece concludes with practical guidance: plaintiffs need technical specificity and evidence of harm, while companies must inventory and understand what their tracking tools actually disclose.