trick ‘for unique user identification,’”62 and that “Media’s ‘id’ cookie is just that—an ‘ID’ or ‘identification’ cookie.”63 Just as the operative allegations in the complaint tend to support the inference that the cookies enabled the defendants to identify, and thus associate, information that the plaintiffs sent directly to them in the ordinary course, the operative allegations tend to negate any inference to the contrary. This is because, if the information at issue was not sent to the defendants in the ordinary course, mere identification cookies would not be sufficient for the defendants’ scheme. To accomplish their tracking in that instance, the defendants would have needed not an associative device, but one capable of capturing communications sent by the plaintiffs and intended for firstparty websites, and then transmitting them to the defendants.64 There is no pleading of any such device, nor is 62 Compl. ¶ 151 63 Compl. ¶ 156 64 Cf. Pharmatrak, 329 F.3d at 22 (“[Pharmatrak’s code] automatically duplicated part of the communication between a user and a pharmaceutical client and sent this information to a third party (Pharmatrak).”); In re iPhone Application Litig., 844 F. Supp. 2d 1040, 1062 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (“The intended communication is between the users’ iPhone and the Wi-fi and cell phone towers, and Plaintiffs appear to allege that Apple designed its operating system to intercept that communication and transmit the information to Apple’s servers.”). 32