Sealed forensic record · Report #423

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: New York

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** Consumer-facing platform defendant fires 74 third-party trackers across its web properties. Agent captured 2 accessibility violations during scan. No verbatim representations of tracking consent or data-handling disclosures were secured. Four screenshots with chain-of-custody seals document tracker behavior. Sealed PDF contains approximately 15–25 pages of technical findings and screenshots.

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 2026-06-08).
No prior plaintiff-class filing found against this defendant in this lane.