Farmers sued over targeting cookies, privacy law violations

A California resident has filed a class action lawsuit against Farmers Insurance Co. seeking over $5 million regarding allegations that, even after users elect to reject tracking cookies, multiple third parties track their website browsing activities and intercept private communications.

The complaint calls Farmers’ actions “egregious violations of consumer privacy and breach of consumer trust” in violation of California law.

“When consumers visit defendant’s website (www.farmers.com, the ‘website’), defendant displays to them a popup cookie consent banner,” the complaint states. “Defendant’s cookie banner discloses that the website uses cookies but expressly gives users the option to control how they are tracked and how their personal data is used. Defendant
assures visitors that they can choose to ‘reject’ cookies.”

According to the complaint, users see the following popup banner on Farmers’ website via which they can choose whether to accept or reject targeting cookies:

“Defendant designed the website to include resources and programming scripts from third parties that cause those parties to place cookies and other similar tracking technologies on visitors’ browsers and devices and/or transmit cookies along with user data. Unlike many websites, however, defendant affirmatively represented that users
could browse the website without being tracked, followed, or targeted by third-party data brokers and advertisers. Those representations were false.”

The plaintiff contends that Farmers’ website allows third parties to track and collect:

• • Browsing history
  • Visit history
  • Website interactions
  • User input data
  • Demographic information
  • Interests and preferences
  • Shopping behaviors
  • Device information
  • Referring URLs
  • Session information
  • User identifiers, and/or geolocation data, including whether a user is located in California

The plaintiff alleges that Farmers programmed its website to include third-party resources that utilize cookie-based tracking technologies.

“Plaintiff visited the website to seek information about Farmers insurance products, while located in California, on one or more occasions during the last four years, including in or around May or June 2025. In particular, Plaintiff visited the Website to obtain information regarding automobile insurance and to explore obtaining an insurance quote. Plaintiff navigated to the Website’s quote tool, entered information including his ZIP code, and completed portions of the quote questionnaire in order to receive pricing and coverage information.

“Plaintiff ultimately did not submit the quote request after learning that defendant would contact him by telephone rather than providing the quote directly through the website. Plaintiff visited the Website to seek information about Farmers insurance products, while located in California, on one or more occasions during the last four years,
including in or around May or June 2025. In particular, Plaintiff visited the website to obtain information regarding automobile insurance and to explore obtaining an insurance quote.”

In relation to invasion of privacy allegations, the complaint states that Farmers violated the:

• • California Invasion of Privacy Act
  • California Constitution
  • California Wiretap Acts
  • California Penal Code § 484(a)
  • Plaintiff’s and class members’ Fourth Amendment right to privacy

It also contends that Farmers has committed common law fraud, deceit and/or misrepresentation, been unjustly enriched, and alleges intrusion upon seclusion.

The suit class includes all users who browsed Farmers’ website in the U.S. after clicking the “reject” button in the popup cookies consent banner.

The suit seeks:

• • Compensatory, punitive, and nominal damages awards;
  • An order for full restitution;
  • An order requiring Farmers to disgorge revenues and profits allegedly wrongfully obtained;
  • An order temporarily and permanently enjoining Farmers from continuing the “unlawful, deceptive, fraudulent, and unfair business practices” alleged in the complaint.

A similar lawsuit is underway against Safelite Group, the owner of Safelite Auto Glass, also in California. It alleges “agregious violations of consumer privacy and breach of consumer trust.”

The complaint alleges the same aforementioned privacy law violations; common law fraud; deceit and/or misrepresentation; unjust enrichment, and intrusion upon seclusion.

Images

Featured image credit: Colleen Michaels/iStock

Popup banner screenshot provided in Stacy Penning v. Farmers Insurance Company