record information that [c]lass [m]embers exchanged with first-party websites . . . which [the d]efendants intercepted while not a party to those communications (hence third-party tracking)[.]”53 It continues to plead that “the defendants’ third-party tracking intercepted the class members’ communications while they were in transit from the class members’ computing devices to the web servers of the firstparty websites the class members used their browsers to visit.”54 The highly specific allegations contained in the body of the complaint, however, give no credence to the complaint’s later allegations that the defendants acquired their internet history information from transmissions between the plaintiffs’ browsers and first-party websites. With respect to the mechanics of the defendants’ acquisition of web browsing information, the interior of the complaint says that, “[u]pon receiving a []GET[] request from a user seeking to display a particular webpage, the server for that webpage will subsequently respond to the browser, instructing the browser to send a []GET[] request to the third-party company charged with serving the advertisements for that particular webpage.”55 As to Google specifically, the complaint likewise pleads that “the server hosting the publisher’s webpage . . . instructs the user’s web browser to send a GET request to Google to display the relevant advertising information for the 53 Compl. ¶ 206. 54 Compl. ¶ 208. 55 Compl. ¶ 41. 29