Sealed forensic record · Report #1181

What's for sale here is a dated, hashed snapshot of a defendant's live tracking behavior, marketing representations, and consent UX, sealed under FRE 901 chain of custody on the day we captured it. Defendants rewrite their policies and pull their pixels the moment a complaint lands — this record is the only proof of what the site was doing before.

Case at a glance

LocationHQ: California

Nat'l classCalif. statewide — CIPA is state law

ArbitrationArb risk — mass-arbitration target

ClaimsCIPA / California Wiretap Act / Pen-Trap / VPPA

**PIXELS & WEB PRIVACY — CIPA / CALIFORNIA WIRETAP ACT / PEN-TRAP / VPPA** An AI services platform deployed 236 third-party trackers across its web properties, capturing user interaction data without explicit consent mechanisms. The scale and breadth of tracker deployment raises questions under California's wiretap statute (Penal Code § 631) and the Video Privacy Protection Act (18 U.S.C. § 2710) regarding interception and disclosure of user viewing activity. No verbatim user-facing representations were recovered. Accessibility audit yielded no violations. Chain-of-custody sealed PDF contains ~15–25 pages and 21 screenshots documenting tracker fire events across the crawl.

Case theory: CIPA / Wiretap / VPPA

What you receive

Sealed PDF report (typical 15–28 pp) with full chain of custody — SHA-256 + RFC 3161 timestamps on every artifact
Verbatim binding representations with Wayback-anchored class-period bounds
Full network capture: every tracker fire, sensitive transmission, identity-sync event
Wrap classification: BROWSEWRAP / CLICKWRAP / SIGN-IN-WRAP verdict + Specht-line alignment
Per-circuit case-law alignment (LIKELY_UNENFORCEABLE / LIKELY_ENFORCEABLE / JURISDICTIONALLY_DEPENDENT)
Defendant name + domain — revealed at purchase