Sealed forensic record · Report #507

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: Michigan

Nat'l classCalif. statewide — CIPA is state law

ArbitrationArb risk — mass-arbitration target

ClaimsCIPA § 631 / Smith v. LoanMe (Cal. 2021) / Javier v. Assurance IQ (9th Cir. 2022) / In re Meta Pixel Healthcare Litig.

**BROKEN COOKIE BANNER — Health/Supplement Brand** CIPA § 631 claim under *Smith v. LoanMe* (Cal. 2021), *Javier v. Assurance IQ* (9th Cir. 2022), and *In re Meta Pixel Healthcare Litig.* framework. Health/supplement-sector defendant's website fired 56 third-party trackers without compliant cookie consent mechanism. Site also contained 1 accessibility violation. No verbatim consumer-facing representations were captured during the 12-turn agent run. 14 screenshots with chain-of-custody seals document tracker behavior across ~15–25 sealed PDF pages.

Case theory: CIPA § 631 — consent-defect

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: caution. No lane query terms defined for broken_cookie_banner; editor must review manually.
Full match list included in the sealed PDF appendix; buyer should review before filing. Checked .