Sealed forensic record · Report #473

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: Illinois

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 32 third-party trackers across user-facing pages, capturing and transmitting user activity data without explicit opt-in consent. Two accessibility violations documented. No verbatim representations of tracking disclosures or data-handling policies were captured during the run. Agent completed 12 turns across ~15–25 sealed pages with 10 chain-of-custody screenshots. Sealed PDF: 15–25 pages, 10 screenshots, full chain-of-custody.

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.