Skip to content

Class Action

Mikulsky v. Bloomingdale's

ActiveClass claims present

Mikulsky v. Bloomingdale's, LLC

Where it stands

The district court dismissed the CIPA § 631(a) claim (713 F. Supp. 3d 833 (S.D. Cal. 2024)). On June 20, 2025 the Ninth Circuit reversed (2025 WL 1718225), reinstating the § 631(a) claim and remanding, while affirming dismissal of the California common-law intrusion-upon-seclusion claim. The case is back before the district court.

Key ruling

Mikulsky v. Bloomingdale's, LLC (9th Cir. June 20, 2025) — session-replay capture of a user's keystrokes, form entries and product selections can constitute the 'contents' of a communication under CIPA § 631(a), not mere record information, and a retailer can be liable for aiding a vendor's interception. Decided the same term as Gutierrez v. Converse, which cut the other way on whether § 631's first clause reaches internet chats, producing the split signals now driving California website-wiretapping litigation.

Note on this record

Neither the Ninth Circuit docket number nor the district court case number could be verified from the sources reviewed; the reported Westlaw citation (2025 WL 1718225) and the district court's F. Supp. 3d citation are confirmed.

The record

Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California)
Case number
Docket number not established
Filed
Filing date not established
Defendants
Bloomingdale's, LLC
Plaintiffs
California website visitors whose interactions with bloomingdales.com — mouse movements, clicks, keystrokes, page views, names, addresses, credit card data and product selections — were captured in real time by embedded third-party session-replay software.
Technology at issue
Third-party session-replay software embedded on a retail e-commerce website
Relief sought
CIPA § 631(a) statutory damages of $5,000 per violation plus injunctive relief.

Claims pleaded

Sources (3)

This page describes a publicly filed case. This site is not counsel on this matter, nothing here is legal advice, and the allegations described are allegations unless a court has said otherwise.

Back to the docketClaim encyclopedia