NO STANDING, BUT NOT SO FAST: NerdWallet CIPA Case Heads Back to State Court After Popa

Wednesday, October 7, 2026

Hi CIPAWorld, grab your popcorn because we’ve got another Popa development.

On October 5, 2026, the Northern District of California remanded Davis v. NerdWallet, Inc., a putative privacy class action involving website tracking technologies, back to Alameda County Superior Court after the parties agreed that the plaintiff lacked Article III standing under the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Popa v. Microsoft Corp., 153 F.4th 784 (9th Cir. 2025). 

Plaintiff Fatima Davis alleged that NerdWallet invaded her privacy, and the privacy of other proposed class members, through its use of website tracking technologies. Her complaint asserts claims under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, the California Constitution, and California’s Unfair Competition Law.

NerdWallet removed the action to federal court based on federal-question jurisdiction and the Class Action Fairness Act. Then Popa entered the picture.

On September 22, the court ordered the parties to explain why Davis had Article III standing in light of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Popa. The answer? Both parties agreed that she didn’t.

Davis argued that 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) required the action to be remanded to state court. NerdWallet, meanwhile, did not take a position on whether the appropriate result was remand or dismissal.

The court sided with Davis. Under Section 1447(c), when a federal court determines that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction before the final judgment, “the case shall be remanded.” The court also relied on Ninth Circuit precedent holding that a federal court ordinarily must remand a removed action when subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking rather than dismiss it.

There is a narrow exception—but it didn’t save NerdWallet from remand.

Under Ninth Circuit precedent, dismissal rather than remand may be appropriate where there is “absolute certainty” that the state court would dismiss the action following remand. The court found no such certainty here.

In fact, the court pointed to another recent Northern District of California decision, Robinson v. Snap-On Inc., which likewise remanded a putative class action asserting the same claims to state court.

With no basis to conclude that Alameda County Superior Court would necessarily dismiss Davis’s claims, the court remanded the case.

Davis highlights an increasingly important wrinkle in the post-Popa world: a lack of Article III standing may get a CIPA defendant out of federal court without getting the defendant out of the lawsuit.

For defendants removing privacy cases to federal court, a successful standing argument could be a double-edged sword. If the federal court lacks jurisdiction, Section 1447(c) may send the case right back to where it started.

So while Popa continues to provide defendants with a powerful Article III argument, Davis is a reminder that winning on standing does not always mean winning the case. Sometimes, it’s just changing the courtroom.