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.
Demand letters / Swigart Law Group
Demand-letter sender file · public record as of July 2026

Received a CIPA demand letter from Swigart Law Group?

What public court records and published commentary report about this sender, and the steps recipients typically take first. A demand letter is an allegation, not a finding of liability — and nothing on this page is legal advice.

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
Swigart Law Group
Type
Law firm
Base
San Diego, California
Publicly reported focus
Website tracking claims under CIPA §631 (wiretap) and §638.51 (pen register/trap-and-trace)
Reported vehicle
Demand letters and individual arbitration "notice of dispute" filings, at volume
Reported amounts
Pre-arbitration notices commonly reported in the $10,000–$30,000 range; published settlement reports run $10,000–$200,000+ per claim
Documented method
Fresh browser session with the developer-tools network tab open, logging third-party requests that fire before consent

Defense-side and vendor commentary consistently identify Swigart Law Group as among the most active senders of CIPA website-tracking demands, and note the firm’s reported preference for individual arbitration over court filings — a posture in which non-refundable arbitration filing fees (roughly $3,000 per case in published estimates) create settlement pressure independent of the merits.

The firm’s documented evidence method is the same capture any recipient can reproduce: load the site in a fresh browser session and log every third-party request that fires before the consent banner is touched. That is also exactly the artifact a recipient should preserve about their own site — dated — before changing anything.

Sources: Enzuzo: Swigart Law Group CIPA lawsuits & how to respond · Klein Moynihan Turco: CIPA arbitration demands · Traverse Legal on Swigart Meta Pixel demands · DarrowEverett: CIPA mass-arbitration claims defense.

What recipients typically do — none of it legal advice
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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 Swigart Law Group. 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.