Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. just walked out of federal court with something CIPA defendants rarely get after years of litigation: complete finality.
In Asad v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-09366-WLH-MAA (C.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2026), the Central District of California did not revisit the merits of the plaintiff’s website-tracking claims. It didn’t reinterpret CIPA. It didn’t weigh the experts again. It did something much simpler and much more powerful.
It confirmed the arbitration award.
Let’s rewind.
Plaintiff Sandy Asad sued Dick’s under the Federal Wiretap Act and California’s Invasion of Privacy Act (Penal Code § 631), alleging that tracking software on the company’s website “intentionally acquired” her electronic communications without consent. This is familiar terrain in 2026: Meta Pixel allegations, “in transit” interception theories, expert battles over data flows, and arguments about what exactly gets transmitted, and when.
But there was a Terms of Use agreement. And inside that agreement was a binding arbitration clause.
Dick’s moved to compel arbitration in March 2023. The case left the courthouse and entered JAMS. What followed was not a quick dismissal on a technicality. The arbitrator, Hon. Gail Andler, conducted a full merits hearing across multiple days in April and May 2025. Experts testified. Technical architecture was dissected. Consent was analyzed.
On December 8, 2025, the arbitrator issued a final award in favor of the defendant.
The findings are worth pausing on.
First, the arbitrator concluded that the communications at issue were not intercepted “in transit,” which remains a recurring pressure point in both federal Wiretap Act and CIPA § 631 litigation. Second, plaintiff failed to establish that personally identifiable information was actually transmitted to relevant third parties in a manner that satisfied statutory requirements. Third and increasingly important in website cases, the arbitrator found constructive consent based on website use and notice of privacy practices. And finally, the defense expert was deemed more credible and persuasive.
Each side bore its own fees. The award was final. Non-appealable. Subject to confirmation in court.
Which brings us to the February 2026 order from Judge Wesley L. Hsu.
Under the Federal Arbitration Act, courts must confirm an arbitration award unless one of the narrow grounds in 9 U.S.C. §§ 10 or 11 applies. Fraud. Corruption. Evident partiality. Arbitrators exceeding their powers. Material miscalculation. Technical defect. That’s the list.
And it is a short list.
The Ninth Circuit has been clear for decades that judicial review of arbitration awards is “extremely limited and deferential.” Courts do not revisit factual findings. They do not correct legal errors. They do not second-guess credibility determinations. Even “erroneous interpretations of the law” are not enough.
Here, the plaintiff did not identify any of the statutory vacatur grounds. Instead, she argued there was “no live controversy.” The court rejected that position outright. The arbitration agreement expressly permitted entry of judgment in a court of competent jurisdiction. Defendant sought confirmation. That was procedurally proper. End of analysis.
Motion granted. Award confirmed.
Why does this matter for CIPA World readers?
Because website privacy litigation has largely centered on motions to dismiss, Article III standing fights, consent pleading standards, and class certification strategy. What we see less often is a full merits arbitration followed by confirmation in federal court.
This order reinforces three strategic realities:
First, arbitration clauses in website Terms of Use continue to be meaningful tools in pixel and session-replay cases, particularly where they are well drafted and clearly disclosed.
Second, once a defendant wins on the merits in arbitration, the odds of undoing that result in federal court are extraordinarily low. The FAA is not an appellate vehicle.
Third, technical defenses still matter. “In transit” remains a statutory threshold. Proof of actual transmission remains critical. And consent, constructive or otherwise, continues to be a central battlefield in CIPA § 631 claims.
In a litigation environment where privacy cases can stretch for years and rack up seven-figure defense costs, finality has value. Real value.
This wasn’t a pleading win. It wasn’t a jurisdictional dismissal. It was a merits victory that survived confirmation under one of the most deferential standards in federal law.
For companies facing CIPA website claims in the Central District of California and beyond, that is not just a procedural footnote.
It’s a roadmap.
CIPAWorld 