The lawsuit, filed in the Northern District of California as Case No. 3:25-cv-02873-RFL, centers on claims that Experian violated California Penal Code section 638.51(a), the California Invasion of Privacy Act section 631(a), and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, as well as a common-law intrusion upon seclusion claim. The plaintiff, Logan Mitchell, brings the case as a putative class action.

Experian moved to stay the case on the ground that the California Court of Appeals is set to decide whether California Penal Code section 638.51 applies to internet technology in Variety Media, LLC v. The Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, Case No. B350578. Experian argued that ruling could be dispositive of Mitchell's section 638.51(a) claim.

Judge Rita F. Lin denied the motion. Applying the balancing framework from CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265 (9th Cir. 1962), she concluded that Experian had not established a stay was needed. The court noted that Experian conceded Variety Media would not be dispositive of the intrusion upon seclusion, CIPA section 631(a), or ECPA claims — meaning a stay would indefinitely delay resolution of most of Mitchell's claims while resolving none of them.

The court also found that Experian identified no specific hardship from continuing litigation in the near term. Discovery on the section 638.51(a) claim, the court reasoned, would likely overlap significantly with discovery on the remaining claims. With class certification expert disclosures not due until November 20, 2026, and class certification briefing not set to begin until January 2027, the court concluded that even if a Variety Media ruling arrives shortly — as Experian predicted — a stay is unnecessary to avoid prejudice or to simplify the class certification proceedings.

In the same order, the court granted Mitchell's motion to file a limited sur-reply addressing Drummer v. CoStar Group, Inc., Case No. 26-1160 (9th Cir. 2026), a case Experian raised for the first time in its reply brief.

No merits ruling on any of the privacy claims has been issued.