91视频

Website privacy demand letters and suits under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) have been perpetrated by professional pro se litigants, such as Vivek Shah, who claim the use of cookies, pixels and chatbots without opt-in consent amount to illegal wiretapping. In light of recent wins by small businesses against Shah, and some success in defending against CIPA elsewhere, representation by counsel amplifies the risk of meritless litigation becoming protracted.

Small companies among targets

Since December 2025, Juan Carlos and Aaron Tapia have filed dozens of lawsuits in California state courts alleging various small businesses of violating the CIPA. In each case, the two plaintiffs have been represented by Yao Mou of Mou Law PC.

One such small business owner turned civil defendant, Gytahnna Loffgren, co-owner of Element Electric, claims that more than 200 similar lawsuits have been filed by Mou. The small businesses targeted by Carlos and Mou share a common thread: they tend to be general contractors, plumbers, HVAC installers, roofers, electricians, and painters.

In one complaint, representative of those filed, the lawsuit alleges that in simply a visit to Cali Coast Electric鈥檚 website the company violated CIPA. There is no claim that Carlos ever used or intended to use the company鈥檚 services.

The complaint, filed five days after a visit to the website, seeks: $5,000 per violation of CIPA, injunctive relief from deploying or operating Meta鈥檚 Pixel without opt-in consent, deletion of event logs, and restitution or disgorgement.

Repeat players in state court

Between August and September 2025, Ramy Eden filed at least 19 lawsuits alleging violation of CIPA by various businesses. In each of these cases, Eden has been represented by Manning Law APC and/or Jarrett Charo APC. Defendants have responded to these cases by seeking removal to federal court or seeking dismissal.

One case was dismissed by the court. Eleven were requested to be dismissed with prejudice by Ramy Eden. Three of the cases were removed to federal court by defendants. Four remain open.

These cases are largely representative of results from various professional plaintiffs and firms that have filed mass CIPA complaints.

Other firms representing plaintiffs

Despite an overwhelming lack of plaintiff verdicts, firms that have filed a large volume of CIPA complaints include: Bursor & Fisher PA 鈥� various attorneys with at least 87 cases; Swigart Law Group APC and Ben Travis Law APC 鈥� attorneys Joshua Swigart and Ben Travis respectively with at least 15 cases; and Tauler Smith LLP 鈥� attorney Robert Tauler with at least seven cases.

Failures using class actions

In at least five cases since December 2022, Pacific Trial Attorneys has represented plaintiffs in class action litigation alleging violations of CIPA. Four cases resulted in dismissal:

• Garcia v. Sportsman鈥檚 Guide LLC, et al. 鈥� voluntarily dismissed with prejudice as to the named plaintiff, without prejudice for putative class.
• Jerry Aviles v. Intervet Inc., et al. 鈥� voluntarily dismissed without prejudice as to the named plaintiff and putative class.
• Daniel Kearney v. Vision Service Plan, et al. 鈥� voluntarily dismissed without prejudice as to the named plaintiff and putative class.
• Rebeka Rodriguez v. Ford Motor Company, et al. 鈥� stipulated dismissal of named plaintiff with prejudice, putative class without prejudice.

In one case, Emily Rodriguez v. Accident Funding Holdings Inc., Pacific Trial Attorneys has opposed a motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs argued there was a reasonable expectation of privacy and highly offensive infringement of CIPA sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss in federal court.

Conclusion

The best practice for any business with a website is to make any cookies, pixels and chat boxes opt-in only. Also, regularly audit website policies to ensure compliance with CIPA. If you receive a website privacy demand letter under CIPA, contact an attorney.

Max Kimberly is a summer clerk in the Portland office of Fisher Phillips, a national firm dedicated to representing employers鈥� interests in all aspects of workplace law. Contact him at 503-205-8088 or [email protected].

The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the preceding commentary are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the Daily Journal of Commerce or its editors. Neither the author nor the 91视频 guarantees the accuracy or completeness of any information published herein.