CIPA Case — LAWSONESQ

Staredown Forces Discontinuance

Modern privacy litigation has created a volume-based settlement model. Plaintiffs' firms scan websites, identify privacy technologies, and send demands threatening class-action litigation. Their objective is often straightforward: make settlement cheaper than defense.
During the surge in California Invasion of Privacy Act litigation, global brands found themselves trapped in precisely that calculation. Industry leaders including Kaiser Permanente, L.A. Times, and GameSpot paid substantial settlements as the legal consensus shifted toward containment.
Then the same playbook reached our client.
The $15,000 Demand
The plaintiff's firm alleged that our client's website violated CIPA by using a LinkedIn Insight Tag—technology it characterized as an illegal wiretap intercepting user data.
Its demand followed the familiar pattern: pay $15,000 or face litigation.
We reviewed the industry's surrender and advised the client not to follow it.
“File If You Must”
Our response was simple: file if you must.
We would not engage in settlement negotiations.
We would instead contest the plaintiff's theory under Sanchez v. Cars.com and Aviles v. LiveRamp and argue that routine IP-address routing is a basic function of the internet, not an unlawful wiretap.
The economics of the demand depended on avoiding that fight.
The Staredown
The plaintiff's firm requested a telephone conference.
We declined.
Opposing counsel then increased the pressure, offering a “best and final” settlement of $15,000 and warning that the offer would be withdrawn once suit was filed.
Our answer remained the same.
File if you must.
They Filed
They filed.
The filing was supposed to change the economics—to convert a settlement demand into litigation exposure and force capitulation.
It didn't.
We maintained the same zero-concession position.
Then They Walked Away
Months later, we discovered that the plaintiff had abandoned the claim and quietly discontinued the action.
No settlement payment. No negotiated compromise.
By maintaining a position that the market considered impossible—a voluntary dismissal of the complaint with neither a formal court appearance nor a settlement—we achieved exactly that result.

Staredown Forces Discontinuance

Modern privacy litigation has created a volume-based settlement model. Plaintiffs' firms scan websites, identify privacy technologies, and send demands threatening class-action litigation. Their objective is often straightforward: make settlement cheaper than defense.

During the surge in California Invasion of Privacy Act litigation, global brands found themselves trapped in precisely that calculation. Industry leaders including Kaiser Permanente, L.A. Times, and GameSpot paid substantial settlements as the legal consensus shifted toward containment.

Then the same playbook reached our client.

The $15,000 Demand

The plaintiff's firm alleged that our client's website violated CIPA by using a LinkedIn Insight Tag—technology it characterized as an illegal wiretap intercepting user data.

Its demand followed the familiar pattern: pay $15,000 or face litigation.

We reviewed the industry's surrender and advised the client not to follow it.

“File If You Must”

Our response was simple: file if you must.

We would not engage in settlement negotiations.

We would instead contest the plaintiff's theory under Sanchez v. Cars.com and Aviles v. LiveRamp and argue that routine IP-address routing is a basic function of the internet, not an unlawful wiretap.

The economics of the demand depended on avoiding that fight.

The Staredown

The plaintiff's firm requested a telephone conference.

We declined.

Opposing counsel then increased the pressure, offering a “best and final” settlement of $15,000 and warning that the offer would be withdrawn once suit was filed.

Our answer remained the same.

File if you must.

They Filed

They filed.

The filing was supposed to change the economics—to convert a settlement demand into litigation exposure and force capitulation.

It didn't.

We maintained the same zero-concession position.

Then They Walked Away

Months later, we discovered that the plaintiff had abandoned the claim and quietly discontinued the action.

No settlement payment. No negotiated compromise.

By maintaining a position that the market considered impossible—a voluntary dismissal of the complaint with neither a formal court appearance nor a settlement—we achieved exactly that result.