This is a technical scan report, not legal advice. It documents third-party network activity observed on your site and maps it to publicly-filed litigation patterns. It makes no compliance guarantee and no prediction about any legal outcome. Consult a qualified attorney for legal questions.
Don’t ignore the deadline, don’t respond directly, and don’t
change your site before preserving dated evidence of its current state. Then talk to a privacy or
defense attorney. Everything below exists to make that conversation faster.
The sender, per the public record
- Name
- Pacific Trial Attorneys
- Type
- Law firm
- Base
- Newport Beach, California
- Publicly reported focus
- Website tracking claims under CIPA §631 and §638.51; also ADA/accessibility litigation
- Reported vehicle
- Court filings and mass individual arbitration demands
- Reported amounts
- Pre-arbitration notices commonly reported in the $10,000–$30,000 range
- Scale context
- Published analyses attribute roughly three-quarters of active CIPA web-tracking claims to four firms; Pacific Trial Attorneys is consistently named among them
Privacy-litigation roundups place Pacific Trial Attorneys among the small group of firms responsible for most CIPA website-tracking claims, active in both court and arbitration. Published mass-arbitration analyses describe the mechanics: many individual demands filed at once, each carrying non-refundable filing fees for the respondent, which creates settlement pressure regardless of how any single claim would fare on the merits.
Serial or “tester” plaintiffs recur across CIPA filings generally, and courts have begun engaging with standing challenges to such plaintiffs — an issue your attorney can evaluate against the specific claim in your letter.
Sources: Privacy World: 2025 mass-arbitration year in review · Inside Class Actions: 2025 website wiretapping roundup · DarrowEverett: CIPA mass-arbitration claims defense.
What recipients typically do — none of it legal advice
- Talk to a privacy or defense attorney before responding or paying. Many letters
settle below the ask, some claims get dismissed, and courts are split on the underlying theories —
an attorney can evaluate which posture fits your facts.
- Don’t let the deadline pass unexamined. Published examples give 14–30
days; defense commentary treats silence past the deadline as the worst-documented option.
- Preserve everything, before changing anything. The letter itself, your tag-manager
and consent-banner configuration, and dated evidence of what the site transmits today. If you carry
cyber insurance, written carrier notice within the policy window is repeatedly described as
coverage-critical.
- Find out what your site actually fires right now. The letter describes a scan
from weeks or months ago. You and your attorney need the current picture — including whether the
named trackers actually transmit anything.
Accuracy over fear: a tracker firing pre-consent is what demand letters allege — it is not, by itself, a finding of liability, and courts have gone both ways.
- Courts are split on §638.51 (pen register). Plaintiff wins: Heiting v. IHOP, Price v. Entravision, Camplisson v. Adidas (Nov 2025). Defense wins: Sanchez v. Cars.com, Rodriguez v. Plivo (IP address alone insufficient), Licea v. Hickory Farms.
- Session-replay §631 is split too. Torres v. Prudential granted summary judgment for the defense (replay readable only after transmission ≠ real-time interception); Licea v. Caraway Home survived dismissal.
- A tracker firing pre-consent is what these letters allege — it is not, by itself, a finding of liability.
If the letter already arrived: preserve the evidence first
The Defense File is a one-time $299 capture of your site’s real network behavior — a
fact-check of each tracker the letter names, timestamped HAR logs, screenshots, and a SHA-256
manifest, kept 365 days and packaged for your attorney and carrier.
Get the Defense File — $299
Technical evidence preservation, not legal advice. We never assess claims or advise on settlement.
Not sure what your site fires? Start with the free scan
A free scan runs the same fresh-session, pre-consent capture a claimant’s scanner runs — plus reject-flow and GPC tests — and shows you the timestamped request log for your own site.
Run a free scan
Free scan, no signup to start. This is a technical scan report, not legal advice. Scan only sites you own or advise.
Related reading
CIPA Scanner is a technical scanning tool with no
affiliation to Pacific Trial Attorneys. This page summarizes publicly available court records and published
commentary, linked above, for the benefit of letter recipients; it makes no statement about the merits
of any particular claim, and nothing here is legal advice.