Key facts
- Case: Reimer v. BabyCenter, LLC, et al., No. 2:26-cv-10783
- Court: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
- Filed: September 22, 2026
- Defendants: BabyCenter, LLC; Everyday Health, Inc.; and Ziff Davis, Inc.
- What is alleged: The complaint says advertising and analytics tracking continued after visitors rejected some or all cookies
- Proposed groups: A nationwide class and a California subclass, neither certified
- Current status: Complaint filed; the public docket reviewed for this article shows no ruling on the allegations
- Money or claims process: None. There is no settlement, certified class, claim form, or court-approved payment
In this article
- What the lawsuit says happened
- Who the parties are
- How cookies and consent controls work
- What information the complaint says was transmitted
- What laws the plaintiff invokes
- Who may be affected
- Case timeline and current status
- Evidence boundaries and what remains disputed
- What happens next
- Frequently asked questions
What the lawsuit says happened
A California woman has filed a proposed class action accusing the companies behind BabyCenter.com of continuing to send pregnancy, parenting and browsing information to advertising and analytics providers after visitors selected “Do Not Consent” on the site's cookie banner.
Amanda Reimer filed the 72-page complaint on September 22, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The defendants are BabyCenter, LLC, Everyday Health, Inc. and Ziff Davis, Inc. The filing says BabyCenter offers articles, videos, community groups and tools such as due-date and ovulation calculators for expectant and new parents.
The complaint alleges that the site's banner told California visitors that BabyCenter shared information about how they used the site, including health-information interests, with advertising and analytics partners. According to the quoted banner, visitors could click “I Consent” to permit that activity or “Do Not Consent” if they did not wish to consent.
Reimer says she rejected cookies but that third-party network requests and cookies continued. Her lawyers say they used browser network-inspection tools to record communications with outside domains after a refusal. The complaint focuses on alleged transmissions to Google services and LiveRamp, while also listing dozens of other advertising, measurement and technology companies. Those outside companies are not defendants in this case.
Allegations, not findings
The complaint describes the plaintiff's testing and legal theories. The court has not ruled that the defendants violated privacy or wiretap laws, and the public docket reviewed for this article does not show a response from the defendants.
Who the parties are
BabyCenter is a pregnancy and parenting media service. Its website provides editorial content, calculators, trackers, baby-name tools, registry resources and online communities. People may encounter it while researching fertility, pregnancy, birth, infant health or child development.
The complaint says BabyCenter, LLC is a Delaware company that operates within Everyday Health Group's Pregnancy & Parenting division. It describes Everyday Health, Inc. as a wholly owned subsidiary of Ziff Davis and Ziff Davis as BabyCenter's ultimate parent. BabyCenter's current privacy policy states that BabyCenter.com and its related app are operated by Everyday Health.
Reimer is a Ventura County, California resident. The complaint says she used BabyCenter while pregnant and after giving birth, entered information about her pregnancy and infant, and selected “Do Not Consent” when the cookie banner appeared. She seeks to represent other visitors, but no judge has appointed her to represent a class.
How cookies and consent controls work
A cookie is a small data file stored by a web browser. A first-party cookie comes from the site a person is visiting. A third-party cookie comes from another domain whose code or service is embedded in the page, such as an advertising or analytics provider.
Web pages also make network requests. When a browser loads an article, video, calculator, advertisement or measurement script, it may send information to the domain providing that resource. A request can include the page address, an internet protocol address, device details, identifiers or other parameters. The information carried by a particular request depends on the site's implementation and the receiving service.
A consent-management platform is software used to display privacy choices and control which tags may run under those choices. The complaint alleges that the defendants configured the consent system and therefore controlled whether advertising and analytics tags fired before consent, after consent or after a refusal.
The central dispute is not simply whether BabyCenter used cookies. The lawsuit argues that the site offered a clear refusal choice and then allegedly continued the activity the visitor had rejected. The defendants have not yet presented their position in the public docket reviewed for this article.
The case turns on the refusal choice
The proposed class definitions focus on people who rejected some or all cookies. They do not cover every BabyCenter visitor merely because the site used advertising or analytics technology.
What information the complaint says was transmitted
The complaint alleges that third-party requests began before the cookie banner appeared and continued after a visitor clicked “Do Not Consent.” It says the observed requests went to Google-controlled domains, LiveRamp domains and other advertising or analytics services.
The filing claims that an event named zdconsent_RejectedAll was sent to Google within milliseconds of the refusal. The plaintiff argues that this event shows the site's systems recorded the rejection while other third-party communications continued.
The complaint also alleges that Google ad requests carried a publisher-provided identifier assigned by BabyCenter. It says page addresses and custom parameters could identify the article or video viewed, pregnancy stage, child age, calculator results or on-site search terms. The filing gives particular attention to BabyCenter's pregnancy due-date calculator and ovulation calculator because the subject matter could reveal sensitive reproductive or health interests.
LiveRamp is described in the complaint as an identity-resolution company. Identity resolution links identifiers used across websites, devices or datasets. The filing alleges that LiveRamp cookies could connect pregnancy-related browsing to a persistent profile rather than treating each visit as an isolated page load.
These descriptions come from the complaint and its attached screenshots. They have not been tested through discovery, expert testimony or a court ruling. The article does not independently claim that every listed third party received every category of information from every visitor.
What laws the plaintiff invokes
The complaint brings 11 claims. They include invasion of privacy and intrusion upon seclusion, two provisions of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the federal Wiretap Act, California's computer-data access law, fraud and misrepresentation theories, unjust enrichment and breach of contract.
The California Invasion of Privacy Act is a state law that regulates certain interception, wiretapping and recording conduct. The federal Wiretap Act addresses the interception of electronic communications. Whether web-tracking technology meets those laws' technical definitions often depends on how the communication occurred, when a third party received it, what consent existed and which party controlled the technology.
The complaint also relies on contract and misrepresentation theories. In plain English, the plaintiff argues that the banner and privacy statements promised a meaningful choice, that visitors relied on the refusal option, and that the alleged continued tracking conflicted with that promise.
Reimer asks the court for class certification, damages, restitution, an order stopping the challenged practices and other relief. The complaint cites statutory-damages provisions, but those requested figures are not awards. No money has been ordered, and no individual payment can be calculated from a complaint.
Who may be affected
The proposed nationwide class includes people who browsed BabyCenter.com after rejecting some or all cookies during the applicable legal time period. The proposed California subclass covers people who did so while in California.
Those definitions are only the plaintiff's proposal. A class action does not become a certified class action merely because a complaint uses that label. The judge would need to decide whether the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 are met. The definitions could change, narrow or be rejected.
People who selected “I Consent” do not appear to fit the proposed definitions as written. Neither does every person who visited BabyCenter without making a cookie choice. The current filing focuses on visitors who rejected at least some cookies and allegedly experienced continued tracking.
There is nothing to file now
No class has been certified and no settlement exists. BabyCenter users do not have a claim form or payment deadline at this stage.
Case timeline and current status
- December 5, 2024: The effective date displayed on BabyCenter's current privacy policy.
- September 18, 2026: The complaint says counsel last visited the privacy policy and technical sources cited in the filing.
- September 22, 2026: Reimer filed the class action complaint, civil cover sheet, summons request and notice of interested parties.
- September 25, 2026: The public docket reviewed for this article still showed the case at the initial complaint stage, with no merits ruling listed.
The complaint says Reimer did not learn of the alleged tracking until her lawyers' investigation in July 2026. That statement may become relevant to disputes over timing or statutes of limitation, but it is presently the plaintiff's allegation.
The docket classifies the matter as a federal civil case and lists the complaint as the first substantive filing. It does not show a certified class, preliminary settlement, final settlement or judgment.
Evidence boundaries and what remains disputed
The strongest primary source currently available is the filed complaint. It establishes what the plaintiff alleges, which parties she sued, the legal claims she invokes and the relief she requests. It does not establish that the allegations are true.
The complaint includes descriptions of browser testing, network requests, cookies and identifiers. The defendants may dispute the testing method, the interpretation of the data, whether a request contained private communications, whether the alleged activity continued after a legally effective refusal, whether consent existed under other disclosures, whether the outside services acted as separate interceptors, or whether the statutes apply to the technology described.
BabyCenter's privacy policy confirms that the service is operated by Everyday Health and explains how information may be processed. The current policy is useful context, but it does not by itself prove the alleged transmissions or resolve how the banner worked for a particular visitor on a particular date.
No defendant response was listed on the public docket page reviewed for this article. Class Action Pulse therefore cannot fairly describe a defendant argument beyond noting that the companies have not been found liable and will have an opportunity to respond.
What happens next
The defendants must be served and given time to answer or otherwise respond. They may ask the court to dismiss some or all claims. If claims survive, the parties may exchange documents, technical records and testimony through discovery.
Class certification is a later and separate step. Reimer would need to ask the judge to certify the proposed groups and show that the claims can be managed together under Rule 23. If certification is denied, her individual claims could continue even without a class.
The case could also settle, be amended or end before certification. A future settlement would require its own court review and notice process. Until one of those developments occurs, there is no action for BabyCenter users to take through a claims administrator.
A person concerned about privacy can preserve their own records, such as screenshots of the banner and browser settings, but this article does not provide legal advice or promise that anyone qualifies for a future class.
Frequently asked questions
Is the BabyCenter lawsuit a settlement?
No. It is a newly filed proposed class action. There is no settlement, certified class or claim form.
Who sued BabyCenter?
Amanda Reimer, a California resident, sued BabyCenter, LLC, Everyday Health, Inc. and Ziff Davis, Inc. She seeks to represent proposed nationwide and California groups.
What does the complaint allege?
It alleges that advertising and analytics communications continued after visitors rejected some or all cookies, including on pages and tools related to pregnancy and parenting.
Did a court find that BabyCenter violated privacy laws?
No. The case is at the complaint stage. The allegations have not been decided, and the defendants have not been found liable.
Can BabyCenter users claim money now?
No. The requested damages are part of the plaintiff's legal demand, not an available fund. There is no claim process.
Who is included in the proposed class?
As written, the proposed nationwide class covers people who browsed BabyCenter.com after rejecting some or all cookies during the applicable limitations period. The proposed California subclass applies to people who did so in California. A judge has not certified either group.
What is the case number?
The case is Reimer v. BabyCenter, LLC, et al., No. 2:26-cv-10783, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.