A new complaint says code from a vendor called Powerfront recorded what shoppers searched, clicked, and typed on dolcegabbana.com in real time — even after they clicked "Continue without Accepting" cookies. Any Pennsylvania visitor who declined cookies could fall within the proposed class, but there is nothing to claim yet.
Allegations Only · No Settlement Yet
This article describes a class action complaint. The statements below are unproven allegations. Dolce & Gabbana S.r.l. has not been found liable, there is no certified class, and there is nothing to claim at this time. This page is general information, not legal advice.
What Is the Dolce & Gabbana Privacy Lawsuit About?
The Italian luxury fashion house Dolce & Gabbana is facing a proposed class action alleging that its online store quietly recorded what visitors did on the site. The case is Rudnick v. Dolce & Gabbana S.r.l., filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, Pennsylvania (No. 2026-00902-TT) and later removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (No. 2:26-cv-03916-GJP). The named plaintiff, a Chester County resident, filed the amended complaint on March 2, 2026, through the law firm Lynch Carpenter LLP.According to the complaint, Dolce & Gabbana embedded JavaScript code from a third-party vendor called Powerfront on dolcegabbana.com, and that code intercepted and recorded visitors' interactions with the site in real time — page views, the URLs of pages visited, searches, mouse clicks, keystrokes, information typed into form fields, IP address, and browser and device details — then transmitted that activity to Powerfront's servers. The complaint alleges this occurred even when a visitor clicked "Continue without Accepting" on the site's cookie banner, which the suit says told users that non-technical cookies would not run without their consent. None of the claims has been proven, and no court has ruled on the merits.
Who Is Powerfront, and What Is the "INSIDE" Code?
The complaint centers on a software vendor rather than a familiar advertising tracker:• Powerfront, Inc. — a Los Angeles-based company that describes itself as a "SaaS [software-as-a-service] company built to enrich the conversations between brands and online customers." The complaint quotes Powerfront marketing its core product, INSIDE, as an "AI Chatbot & video solution [that] enables brands to visually see their online customers in real-time."
• The INSIDE code — the complaint alleges Powerfront instructs retailers like Dolce & Gabbana to install a snippet of JavaScript on their sites, and that this snippet "fires" as soon as a page loads and then sends each action a visitor takes — IP address, unique ID numbers, pages visited, buttons clicked, keystrokes typed, and products searched for — to Powerfront's servers, where the suit says it is stored, processed, and used to match website activity to individuals.
Powerfront is described as the recipient of the data; it is not named as a defendant. The allegations about how the INSIDE code operated on dolcegabbana.com remain unproven.
The Cookie Banner at the Center of the Case
A key part of the complaint is what the site allegedly told visitors. According to the suit, dolcegabbana.com displayed a pop-up telling users that cookies — other than technical cookies — would be used "only once we have received your consent," and that visitors could click "Continue without Accepting" to keep browsing without installing cookies used to "personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic."The complaint alleges that, despite that assurance, Dolce & Gabbana still allowed the Powerfront code to capture visitors' activity after they declined — meaning, the suit says, that a visitor who expressly refused non-technical tracking was recorded anyway. The complaint says the code "works the same for all Website visitors who chose to continue without accepting cookies." Dolce & Gabbana has not responded to these characterizations in the record, and they remain allegations the court has not ruled on.
What the Named Plaintiff Alleges Happened
The named plaintiff says that while in Pennsylvania she visited dolcegabbana.com and chose to continue without accepting cookies, then browsed products and typed content into the site, including product names in the search bar. She alleges that her interactions were intercepted by the Powerfront code and transmitted in real time without her consent, and that afterward she began seeing Dolce & Gabbana advertisements on her Facebook and TikTok accounts featuring items similar to those she had browsed — which, the complaint alleges on information and belief, resulted from the capture of her activity during the visit. These are allegations; the defendant has not admitted them.What Laws Does the Complaint Invoke?
The complaint asserts three causes of action:• Pennsylvania Wiretap Act (Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act), 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5701 et seq. — alleging Dolce & Gabbana intercepted, or procured Powerfront to intercept, the contents of visitors' electronic communications with the site, contemporaneously with their transmission and without consent. The Act allows a civil action for actual damages (not less than liquidated damages of $100 per day for each violation or $1,000, whichever is higher), punitive damages, and attorneys' fees under 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5725.
• Invasion of Privacy — Intrusion Upon Seclusion (Pennsylvania common law) — alleging the secret recording of visitors' activity intruded on a reasonable expectation of privacy in a manner highly offensive to a reasonable person.
• Breach of Contract — alleging the site's cookie notice formed a contract, that declining non-technical cookies was the visitor's acceptance of an offer not to run such tracking, and that Dolce & Gabbana breached that promise by allowing the Powerfront code to run anyway.
Pennsylvania is a "two-party consent" wiretap state, and plaintiffs' firms have increasingly used its Wiretap Act to challenge website session-recording and chat tools. Whether the statute and these common-law theories reach the conduct alleged here is exactly what the litigation will test.
Who Could Be Affected?
The complaint proposes a class of all Pennsylvania citizens who visited dolcegabbana.com and rejected cookies while the Powerfront code was embedded on the site. It excludes the company's officers and directors, its affiliates and counsel, and the judiciary assigned to the case. The exact class definition and the applicable time period would be decided later if the case advances past the pleading stage. This particular complaint is limited to Pennsylvania visitors.What Are Plaintiffs Seeking?
The complaint seeks class certification, a declaration that the challenged conduct was and is unlawful, an injunction stopping it, and statutory, actual, compensatory, punitive, and nominal damages, along with restitution and/or disgorgement of profits, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. A jury trial is demanded. Because the case is unresolved, no money is available now and any recovery is uncertain unless and until plaintiffs prevail or a settlement is reached.What Should You Do Now?
There is nothing to file at this stage — no settlement and no claim form exist. If you are a Pennsylvania resident who has shopped on dolcegabbana.com and are following the case, you can keep your own records (order confirmations and the dates you used the site). If you want legal advice, consult a privacy or consumer-protection attorney licensed in your state; you can find one through your state bar association's lawyer referral service. OpenClassActions.com is a consumer news site, not a law firm, and does not provide legal advice or process claims.Session-recording and pixel-based wiretap suits are a fast-growing corner of consumer privacy litigation. For related examples, see our coverage of the Crocs website tracking class action, the JetBlue website tracking class action, the Fender website cookie-tracking class action, and the Kalshi website tracking class action.
Read the Complaint
You can read the full amended class action complaint below:Rudnick v. Dolce & Gabbana S.r.l. — Amended Class Action Complaint (PDF, filed March 2, 2026)
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Dolce & Gabbana privacy lawsuit about?
A proposed class action, Rudnick v. Dolce & Gabbana S.r.l., alleges that Dolce & Gabbana embedded JavaScript code from a third-party vendor, Powerfront, on dolcegabbana.com and that this code intercepted and recorded visitors' activity — including their searches, clicks, keystrokes, form entries, IP address, and browser information — in real time and transmitted it to Powerfront without consent. The complaint alleges this happened even after visitors clicked "Continue without Accepting" on the site's cookie banner. The suit claims this violates the Pennsylvania Wiretap Act and common law. These are unproven allegations; Dolce & Gabbana has not been found liable.
Is there a Dolce & Gabbana settlement or claim form yet?
No. The case is at the pleading stage. There is no certified class, no settlement, and no claim form. The amended complaint was filed March 2, 2026 in Chester County, Pennsylvania, and the case was later removed to federal court. Nothing can be claimed at this time.
Who could be affected by the Dolce & Gabbana tracking lawsuit?
The complaint proposes a class of all Pennsylvania citizens who visited dolcegabbana.com and rejected cookies while the tracking code was embedded on the site. The exact class definition and time period would be decided later if the case advances. Only Pennsylvania visitors are covered by this particular complaint.
What is Powerfront and how is it involved?
Powerfront, Inc. is a Los Angeles-based software company whose "INSIDE" product is described as an AI chatbot and live-monitoring tool that lets brands watch their online customers in real time. The complaint alleges Dolce & Gabbana installed Powerfront's INSIDE JavaScript code on dolcegabbana.com, and that the code captured shoppers' communications with the site and sent them to Powerfront's servers. Powerfront is described as the recipient of the data but is not named as a defendant. The allegations remain unproven.
What laws does the Dolce & Gabbana complaint invoke?
Three causes of action: the Pennsylvania Wiretap Act (Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act), 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5701 et seq.; invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion under Pennsylvania common law; and breach of contract, based on the theory that the site's cookie notice was a promise not to run non-technical tracking after a visitor declined. The Wiretap Act claim seeks liquidated damages of $100 per day for each violation or $1,000, whichever is higher, plus punitive damages and attorneys' fees under 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5725.
Is this a Dolce & Gabbana data breach?
No. This is not a hacking or data-breach case — no one is accused of breaking into Dolce & Gabbana's systems or stealing data. The complaint is a website-tracking (wiretap) case: it alleges Dolce & Gabbana itself installed Powerfront's INSIDE code on dolcegabbana.com and let it capture and record shoppers' activity without consent. These are unproven allegations.
Sources
• Rudnick v. Dolce & Gabbana S.r.l., No. 2026-00902-TT (Chester County Court of Common Pleas, Pa.) — Amended Class Action Complaint, filed March 2, 2026; removed to No. 2:26-cv-03916-GJP (E.D. Pa.)• Powerfront, "About Us" and product pages describing the INSIDE tool — powerfront.com (cited in the complaint)
• Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5701 et seq.
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.
