People who browsed brilliantearth.com may be covered by a proposed class action alleging Brilliant Earth let Meta, Google, TikTok and OpenAI intercept their identities and jewelry purchase details through tracking code, despite a cookie banner that said its targeting cookies store no directly personal information. No class has been certified and there is nothing to file yet.
Allegations Only · No Settlement Yet
This article describes a class action complaint. The statements below are unproven allegations. Brilliant Earth, LLC has not been found liable, there is no certified class, and nothing to claim at this time. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
What Is the Brilliant Earth Tracking Lawsuit?
A proposed class action filed on September 9, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California accuses online jewelry retailer Brilliant Earth of letting four advertising-technology companies watch what shoppers did on brilliantearth.com. The case is Eguiarte v. Brilliant Earth, LLC, No. 4:26-cv-10118, and Brilliant Earth, LLC, which the complaint describes as a Delaware company headquartered in San Francisco, is the only defendant.The complaint alleges that tracking code from Meta, Google, TikTok and OpenAI captured visitors’ names, email addresses, phone numbers, social media IDs and the products they viewed, added to their carts and bought, and that Brilliant Earth never obtained consent for that sharing. The four tech companies are not defendants. The plaintiff, a California resident who says she bought rings and gemstones on the site in November 2025, demands a jury trial. No court has ruled on any of the allegations.
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
What the Cookie Banner Said
According to the complaint, a visitor arriving at brilliantearth.com sees a cookie banner, and anyone who opens its settings finds the site’s “Targeting Cookies” described as cookies that “do not store directly personal information.” The lawsuit argues that this description is what makes the tracking unlawful: the trackers it describes fall into that targeting category, and, the plaintiff alleges, they did store and pass on directly personal information.The complaint also argues that visitors had to go looking for the banner’s settings to learn which advertising technologies the site used, and quotes academic writing on how cookie banners can make privacy choices harder to exercise.
What the Complaint Says the Trackers Collected
The plaintiff’s lawyers say they captured the site’s network traffic and include screenshots of transmissions to each company. The complaint alleges that page addresses and page titles were shared for every page a visitor opened, through checkout, and that those addresses reveal the specific product a shopper was looking at. It describes each tracker separately:- Meta: when a shopper viewed a product and added it to the cart, the Meta Pixel allegedly sent the product, price and the shopper’s Facebook ID cookie, plus hashed first name, last name, address, email and phone number.
- Google: Google’s advertising and analytics tags allegedly received the same browsing and cart activity along with Google’s own identifiers.
- TikTok: the TikTok Pixel allegedly transmitted page activity alongside TikTok’s “_ttp” tracking cookie.
- OpenAI: the OpenAI Ads Measurement Pixel allegedly sent the full page address of each event, the visitor’s IP address and browser details, and persistent OpenAI cookie identifiers.
The complaint also takes aim at “hashing,” the scrambling of email addresses and phone numbers before they are sent. It argues that hashed values are not anonymous, because the receiving company can match them against the same details it already holds for its own account holders.
Why the OpenAI Pixel Stands Out
Website tracking lawsuits over Meta, Google and TikTok pixels have been common for several years. The Brilliant Earth complaint adds OpenAI, which, according to the filing, began selling ads inside ChatGPT in 2026 and launched a tracking pixel so advertisers could measure what ChatGPT users did after leaving the chatbot. The complaint says conversion-optimized ad bidding, introduced in June 2026, was available only to advertisers that installed the pixel or OpenAI’s server-side conversion tool.The lawsuit alleges the pixel sets an “__obref” cookie on every visitor to a site that carries it, whether or not the visitor ever clicked a ChatGPT ad, and that the identifier can follow a person across time and across websites. It further alleges that the pixel can scan pages for email addresses and send hashed versions to OpenAI when a site turns on that matching feature. Those are allegations about how the technology works, made in a lawsuit to which OpenAI is not a party, and none has been tested in court.
Who Is in the Proposed Class?
The complaint proposes two groups:- Nationwide Class: all individuals residing in the United States who accessed and navigated brilliantearth.com during the class period.
- California Subclass: all individuals residing in California who did the same.
The complaint does not give a start date. It defines the class period as beginning on whatever date the court sets under the applicable statute of limitations and running until judgment. Unlike some website tracking cases, the definition does not depend on whether a visitor made a purchase or rejected cookies. Both definitions are proposals only. A judge would have to certify a class before anyone is formally part of the case, and the definitions can change before then.
Legal Claims and What the Lawsuit Seeks
The complaint brings five claims:- Violation of the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (nationwide class)
- Violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, Penal Code § 631 (California Subclass)
- Violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, Penal Code § 632 (California Subclass)
- Violation of the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, Penal Code § 502 (California Subclass)
- Invasion of privacy under the California Constitution (California Subclass)
The lawsuit asks the court to certify the classes, declare the conduct unlawful and order it changed. It seeks statutory, compensatory and punitive damages, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The complaint notes that the California Invasion of Privacy Act allows suits for $5,000 per violation. Those are the plaintiff’s requests, not amounts anyone has been awarded; any recovery would depend on the outcome of the case or the terms of a settlement.
What Happens Next
Brilliant Earth will respond to the complaint. In website tracking cases that response is often a motion to dismiss, and courts in California have reached different results on whether ad pixels amount to wiretapping under the California Invasion of Privacy Act. If the case survives, the parties exchange evidence and the plaintiff can ask the court to certify the classes. The case could also settle at any stage.Shoppers do not need to do anything now. There is no claim form, and nothing is required to stay within a proposed class. If the case settles or a class is certified, class members are normally notified and told how to file a claim or opt out. Similar complaints accuse BabyCenter of tracking visitors who clicked “Do Not Consent” and the Fender website of ignoring rejected cookies.
Questions
Can I get money from the Brilliant Earth lawsuit right now?
No. The case was filed on September 9, 2026 and is at the complaint stage. No class has been certified, there is no settlement or judgment, and there is no claim form. Brilliant Earth has not been found liable. Money would only become available if the case later settles or the plaintiff wins, and a court would then set out who qualifies and how to claim.
Who is in the proposed Brilliant Earth class?
The complaint proposes a nationwide class of everyone in the United States who accessed and navigated brilliantearth.com during the class period, and a California Subclass of California residents who did the same. The class period has no fixed start date in the complaint; it would run from whatever date the court sets under the applicable statute of limitations. These are proposed definitions only, and a judge has not certified either group.
What does OpenAI have to do with the Brilliant Earth case?
OpenAI is not a defendant. The complaint alleges that Brilliant Earth installed OpenAI’s advertising measurement pixel, which OpenAI introduced in 2026 for companies that advertise in ChatGPT, and that the pixel sent page addresses, IP addresses and persistent cookie identifiers from brilliantearth.com to OpenAI. The complaint treats OpenAI as one of four third parties, alongside Meta, Google and TikTok, that allegedly received shoppers’ information.
What did the Brilliant Earth cookie banner say?
According to the complaint, the cookie settings on brilliantearth.com described the site’s targeting cookies as cookies that do not store directly personal information. The lawsuit alleges that the trackers in that category in fact transmitted names, email addresses, phone numbers, social media IDs and purchase details to the four ad-tech companies.
What happens next in the Brilliant Earth case?
Brilliant Earth will respond to the complaint, and in website tracking cases that response is often a motion to dismiss some or all of the claims. If the case survives, the parties exchange evidence and the plaintiff can ask the court to certify the proposed classes. The case could also settle at any stage. People who shopped on brilliantearth.com do not need to do anything to remain within the proposed class.
Sources
• Class Action Complaint, Eguiarte v. Brilliant Earth, LLC, No. 4:26-cv-10118 (N.D. Cal., filed September 9, 2026), Document 1: Brilliant Earth class action complaint (PDF).• Eguiarte v. Brilliant Earth, LLC docket on CourtListener.
