Pixels & Web Privacy
Premium
$500
Captured Jun 3, 2026 · FRE 901 chain of custody ·
Site state has likely changed
Sealed forensic record · Report #478
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: Massachusetts
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**
Consumer-facing platform defendant. Agent run captured 77 third-party tracker fires across ~15–25 pages of sealed PDF documentation. Four accessibility violations identified during scan. Zero verbatim user-facing representations were secured in this run. Chain-of-custody maintained across 16 screenshots with forensic seals.
Tracker activity documented but no contractual language or privacy policy language was captured to establish knowledge or consent. Accessibility findings present but operate independently of privacy claims. Sealed PDF ready for expert review.
16 screenshots, ~15–25 pages, chain-of-custody sealed.
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 4 active suit(s) on a DIFFERENT theory — disclose: Solo Insurance Services, Inc. v. this defendant, Inc.; Hossfeld v. this defendant, Inc
⚠ Note: this defendant has 4 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 4 active suit(s) on a DIFFERENT theory — disclose: Solo Insurance Services, Inc. v. this defendant, Inc.; Hossfeld v. this defendant, Inc
⚠ Note: this defendant has 4 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.