Pixels & Web Privacy
Premium
$500
Captured Jun 3, 2026 · FRE 901 chain of custody ·
Site state has likely changed
Sealed forensic record · Report #482
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
ArbitrationClass-viable — browsewrap, likely unenforceable
ClaimsCIPA / California Wiretap Act / Pen-Trap / VPPA
**PIXELS & WEB PRIVACY — CIPA / CALIFORNIA WIRETAP ACT / PEN-TRAP / VPPA**
A dating and matchmaking platform operator. Agent completed 12 turns without scope obstruction. Run captured 24 third-party tracker fires during user session activity. No verbatim user-facing representations were logged; no accessibility violations detected. Seven screenshots with chain-of-custody seals document the tracker behavior across approximately 15–25 pages in the sealed PDF.
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
✓ Prior-litigation check: clear.
No prior plaintiff-class filing found against this defendant on this theory
(CourtListener federal + web search of state courts, checked 2026-06-07).
Safe to list (theory not yet litigated), but defendant has 1 active suit(s) on a DIFFERENT theory — disclose: CIAPINSKA v. this defendant, INC.
⚠ Note: this defendant has 1 active class action(s) on a different legal theory (not this lane) — named and cited in the sealed report so you can assess coordination / related-case rules.
Safe to list (theory not yet litigated), but defendant has 1 active suit(s) on a DIFFERENT theory — disclose: CIAPINSKA v. this defendant, INC.
⚠ Note: this defendant has 1 active class action(s) on a different legal theory (not this lane) — named and cited in the sealed report so you can assess coordination / related-case rules.