Crunchyroll has renewed its attempt to push a proposed class action over its use of the Braze SDK out of the courtroom. On the evening of 22 July, the anime streaming service filed a renewed motion to compel arbitration and a renewed motion to transfer the case to the Southern District of New York, according to the court docket. Both motions are set for hearing on 2 October 2026 before Judge Josephine L. Staton in the Central District of California.
The filings are the latest turn in Cabonios et al. v. Crunchyroll, LLC, which alleges the Sony Pictures Entertainment-owned service’s mobile app shared subscribers’ video viewing information with customer engagement platform Braze without the consent required under the US Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), 18 U.S.C. § 2710.
What the case alleges
According to the original complaint, filed on 5 March 2026, Crunchyroll’s mobile app used Braze’s software development kit (SDK) to transmit users’ email addresses, persistent device identifiers, and the titles of the videos they watched. The complaint describes the data flowing through the integration in four categories: persistent device identifiers, user profile information such as email addresses, in-app behavioural data covering which content users view, and event data tracking specific user actions.
One allegation deserves particular attention from marketing teams. The plaintiffs argue Crunchyroll knew the identifying data and viewing data were being connected precisely because it used Braze to send targeted push notifications and marketing messages based on users’ specific viewing history. In other words, the marketing use case itself is presented as the evidence of knowledge. That framing, if it survives, has implications for any brand running behaviour-triggered campaigns on sensitive content categories.
The plaintiffs also claim the SDK was active for both free and premium subscribers, meaning the alleged disclosures occurred regardless of whether users paid for an ad-free experience. Two of the original named plaintiffs bring a minors dimension to the case: one is a minor child suing through a court-appointed guardian, and the lead plaintiff subscribed while still a minor. The plaintiffs are represented by Abiri Law, Custodio & Dubey and Don Bivens PLLC.
The allegations have not been proven, and no court has ruled on the merits.
Why Braze is mentioned
Braze is not a defendant in the lawsuit.
The company provides a customer engagement platform used to deliver email, push notifications, in-app messaging, SMS and personalised customer journeys. Like many streaming services, Crunchyroll uses customer engagement technology to communicate with users across the lifecycle, from onboarding and subscription reminders to recommendations and retention campaigns. To support those experiences, developers integrate Braze’s SDK into mobile applications, allowing customer activity to trigger marketing and engagement campaigns.
The lawsuit challenges Crunchyroll’s alleged implementation of the SDK, not Braze’s technology itself.
Not the first VPPA case
In 2023, Crunchyroll and parent company Sony Pictures agreed a $16 million settlement to resolve a proposed class action alleging the company disclosed subscribers’ viewing information to third-party technologies including Meta Pixel, Google Analytics and Adobe Analytics. The companies denied any wrongdoing as part of the settlement, which paid roughly $30 per claimant.
The current lawsuit centres on different technology, and that difference is the story. Earlier VPPA litigation largely targeted website tracking pixels. More recent cases are examining how customer data is collected and shared through the mobile SDKs used by customer engagement and marketing platforms. The consent question has moved from the analytics layer into the heart of the martech stack.
The case has drawn wide coverage in the anime press, where the focus has been on fans’ viewing privacy. The implications for how customer engagement platforms are implemented have received far less attention.
How the case got here
Crunchyroll first moved to compel arbitration, transfer the case to New York and dismiss the complaint on 29 May 2026. On 11 June, following a joint stipulation, Judge Staton denied those motions without prejudice and set a new schedule: the plaintiffs would amend their complaint, and Crunchyroll would renew its arbitration and transfer motions by 22 July.
The plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint on 22 June, adding a sixth consumer plaintiff, Oscar Castaneda. Crunchyroll then filed its renewed motions on the 22 July deadline. Notably, the renewed filings cover arbitration and transfer only; no renewed motion to dismiss accompanied them, consistent with the June order.
Under the court’s schedule, the plaintiffs’ oppositions are due by 24 August and Crunchyroll’s replies by 10 September, ahead of the 2 October hearing. The docket is available via PacerMonitor and Justia. The amended complaint is not yet publicly posted outside PACER; the allegations described here are drawn from the original complaint.
Why email and CRM teams should pay attention
The VPPA allows statutory damages of up to $2,500 per affected person, plus attorneys’ fees and other relief if plaintiffs prevail. For organisations with large user bases, that arithmetic has sharpened attention on how customer data moves through marketing technology stacks.
For email marketers, CRM administrators and marketing operations teams, the case is a reminder that customer engagement platforms often process far more than contact information. Depending on implementation, mobile SDKs may collect the behavioural events that power personalisation, lifecycle marketing, segmentation and automated journeys. That is precisely the data at issue here.
The arbitration question matters commercially too. If Crunchyroll succeeds on 2 October, the class action route closes and the dispute fragments into individual arbitrations, a pattern that increasingly shapes how privacy claims against consumer platforms are resolved. If it fails, a VPPA class action built on a customer engagement SDK proceeds in federal court, with discovery into how the integration was configured.
The practical review for senders is straightforward. Understand what customer data your mobile SDKs collect. Map which identifiers and behavioural events flow to your customer engagement platform. Check that privacy notices accurately describe that collection and sharing. Where sensitive behavioural data is involved, review consent practices with legal, privacy and engineering together, because the configuration decisions at issue in this case were made by developers, not marketers.
Case status
No court has ruled on the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims, and no findings have been made regarding the allegations. The renewed motions are pending, with a hearing set for 2 October 2026. Emailexpert will continue to monitor the docket and report developments relevant to email marketers, CRM professionals and customer engagement teams.
