Broken Cookie Banner
Premium
$500
Sealed by May 30, 2026 · FRE 901 chain of custody ·
Site state has likely changed
Sealed forensic record · Report #523
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: California
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 — CIPA § 631 / Smith v. LoanMe / Javier v. Assurance IQ / In re Meta Pixel Healthcare**
Consumer-facing platform. Agent captured 84 third-party tracker fires across the scan. One accessibility violation detected. No verbatim user-facing representations were secured during the run. Six screenshots with chain-of-custody seals document the tracker activity and page structure. Sealed PDF spans approximately 15–25 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: 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 1 active suit(s) on a DIFFERENT theory — disclose: Chehal v. this defendant Markets, Inc.
⚠ Note: this defendant has 1 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 1 active suit(s) on a DIFFERENT theory — disclose: Chehal v. this defendant Markets, Inc.
⚠ Note: this defendant has 1 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.