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
- Tauler Smith
- Type
- Law firm
- Base
- Los Angeles, California
- Publicly reported focus
- Website tracking claims under CIPA; demand letters over chat widgets, pixels, and session-replay tools
- Reported vehicle
- Pre-suit demand letters
- Reported amounts
- Commonly reported in the $3,000–$15,000 range — lower than most other high-volume senders
Published commentary reports Tauler Smith demand letters over website tracking technologies at amounts generally below other high-volume senders — figures in the $3,000–$15,000 range appear repeatedly. Defense commentary notes that demands in this range are calibrated to sit below the cost of mounting a defense, which is a business observation about settlement pressure, not a statement about the merits of any claim.
Sources: Captain Compliance on Tauler Smith tracking demand letters · Tucker Ellis: the CIPA demand letter tsunami.
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 Tauler Smith. 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.