California residents who browsed LG’s U.S. website, lg.com/us, since October 30, 2025 may be covered by a proposed class action alleging LG let outside advertising and session-recording companies capture their browsing before they consented. 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. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. 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 This About?
A proposed class action filed on October 30, 2026 alleges that LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. let outside advertising, identity and session-recording companies capture what California shoppers looked at on its U.S. website, lg.com/us, before the shoppers had a chance to consent. The case, Munoz v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., No. 2:26-cv-12759, is in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. It brings a single claim under section 631(a) of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), the state’s wiretapping law.The plaintiff, a California resident, says she visited LG’s website several times in 2026 to research big-screen televisions and clicked through product images. She alleges that code LG placed on the site sent the pages she viewed, and in some cases the content displayed to her, to outside companies along with identifiers that let them recognize her across visits. LG has not yet responded in court.
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 Does the Complaint Allege?
The complaint relies on an expert’s analysis of the website’s network traffic. It says third-party code started running as soon as a page loaded, before a visitor could make an informed choice, and it names Google, Criteo, ID5, StackAdapt, Index Exchange, RTB House, Attentive, FullStory and iAdvize among the outside companies whose tools appeared on the site.According to the complaint, several of those tools received the full address of the page a visitor was on, the page before it and the page title, together with persistent identifiers. It alleges that FullStory, a session-recording service, received page titles, product text, image descriptions and links that could be used to reconstruct what a visitor saw, and that one tool sent a California ZIP code from the site’s settings to Attentive along with page addresses.
The complaint also alleges that tracking continued after a visitor used the site’s “Do Not Sell or Share” control, and that iAdvize, a customer-engagement tool, sent page information while reporting that cookie consent was false, then recorded consent as true a half-second later without any action by the visitor. The plaintiff argues that LG is liable for knowingly helping outside companies intercept shoppers’ communications with LG.
What the Law Says
Section 631(a) of the California Penal Code makes it unlawful to read or try to learn the contents of a communication while it is in transit without the consent of everyone involved, and to aid anyone in doing so. Section 637.2 lets a person harmed by a violation sue for the greater of $5,000 per violation or three times actual damages, and to seek an injunction. Courts in California have split on how these older wiretapping provisions apply to website tracking code, and many similar cases against retailers are pending.Who Could Be Covered?
The complaint proposes a class of California citizens who, while physically in California from one year before the October 30, 2026 filing through class certification, used lg.com/us and had their browsing captured through one of the third-party tools described in the complaint before consenting. It estimates more than 1,000 class members. LG and its officers, directors and employees, the assigned judges and their families, and automated bots are excluded. The plaintiff may also ask for subclasses for particular tools.What Happens Next?
LG will have a chance to respond to the complaint, which could include a motion to dismiss or to compel arbitration. The plaintiff, represented by Pacific Trial Attorneys, would later have to ask the court to certify the class. If the case settles or the plaintiff wins after certification, class members would be notified, and OpenClassActions.com will cover it.Questions
Who would be covered by the LG website tracking lawsuit?
The complaint proposes a class of California citizens who, while in California from October 30, 2025 onward, used lg.com/us and had their browsing captured by one of the third-party tools described in the complaint before consenting. No class has been certified.
What damages does California Penal Code section 637.2 allow?
Section 637.2 lets a person harmed by a violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act recover the greater of $5,000 per violation or three times actual damages, and seek an injunction. Whether LG violated the law has not been decided.
Is there an LG settlement or claim form?
No. The lawsuit was filed on October 30, 2026. There is no settlement, certified class or claim form.
Sources
• Class action complaint, Munoz v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., No. 2:26-cv-12759 (C.D. Cal., filed October 30, 2026)• Docket, Munoz v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., via CourtListener
