Sealed forensic record · Report #479

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

LocationU.S. · operates nationally

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. Agent run captured 76 third-party tracker fires across ~15–25 pages of sealed PDF documentation. No verbatim user-facing representations were extracted during the 16-turn session. Zero accessibility violations detected. Chain-of-custody seals affixed to all 14 screenshots. Tracker activity logged without corresponding privacy disclosures in scope. Third-party data transmission patterns documented. No wrap evidence identified. Sealed PDF: ~15–25 pages, 14 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 2026-06-07).
No same-kind case against this defendant (federal RECAP + web, <3yr).