Broken Cookie Banner
Flagship
$1,000
Captured Jun 8, 2026 · FRE 901 chain of custody ·
Site state has likely changed
Sealed forensic record · Report #524
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
ArbitrationClass-viable — browsewrap, likely unenforceable
ClaimsCIPA § 631 / Smith v. LoanMe (Cal. 2021) / Javier v. Assurance IQ (9th Cir. 2022) / In re Meta Pixel Healthcare Litig.
**Broken Cookie Banner – Consumer Platform**
This matter alleges violations of CIPA § 631 and the precedents established in *Smith v. LoanMe* (Cal. 2021), *Javier v. Assurance IQ* (9th Cir. 2022), and *In re Meta Pixel Healthcare Litig.*, arising from cookie-consent and tracking-disclosure failures on a consumer-facing digital platform.
The investigation captured 160 third-party tracker fires across the scanned domain. Three accessibility violations were documented. Ten screenshots with chain-of-custody seals support the findings. The sealed PDF runs 15–25 pages and contains the complete technical record.
No verbatim consumer-facing representations regarding cookie consent or data sharing were extracted during the run. The evidence remains unclassified pending buyer review and supplemental investigation.
**Sealed PDF: ~15–25 pages, 10 screenshots, full chain-of-custody documentation.**
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 .
Full match list included in the sealed PDF appendix; buyer should review before filing. Checked .