Internet Litigation

Lawson represents technology platforms, logistics providers, and e-commerce companies in accessibility litigation, data-tracking litigation, including claims brought under California’s CIPA “trap-and-trace” provisions and the expanding wave of pixel, cookie, and metadata-collection lawsuits.

Representative Matters

Defended multiple SaaS and e-commerce companies against CIPA §§638.50–638.51 trap-and-trace claims arising from standard marketing tags; secured early dismissals or no-payment resolutions.
Responded to pixel/cookie demand letters involving LinkedIn Insight Tag, Meta Pixel, TikTok Pixel, GA4, and various SDKs; achieved non-litigation outcomes through technical and statutory rebuttals.
Advised global platforms on analytics governance, tag-management configurations, and privacy disclosures to minimize exposure to ad-tech litigation.
Structured litigation strategy leveraging statutory construction argument, metadata forensics, and lack of content interception to defeat improperly privacy claims.

FAQs

Are LinkedIn Insight, Meta Pixel, GA4, or TikTok SDKs trap-and-trace devices?

No. They collect outbound, browser-initiated metadata—not the incoming signaling information the statute governs.

Does capturing an IP address or referrer make a tag a “trap-and-trace device”?

No. Every webserver collects that same metadata as part of standard HTTP operation. CIPA requires a device that captures incoming impulses identifying the origin of a communication, which analytics tags do not do.

Why do so many plaintiff firms send these letters?

Because violations cost $5,000 and the threat of litigation costs scare innocent businesses into extortion posture.

Is there any content interception in these claims?

No. Pixels and SDKs do not intercept message content, user communications, or free-text fields. They log standard, browser-generated metadata that falls outside CIPA’s surveillance scope.

Are website analytics or marketing tags considered “surveillance devices” under CIPA?

Not typically. CIPA’s trap-and-trace provisions regulate law-enforcement tools that capture incoming signaling information, not routine browser-initiated analytics requests.

Internet Litigation

Lawson represents technology platforms, logistics providers, and e-commerce companies in accessibility litigation, data-tracking litigation, including claims brought under California’s CIPA “trap-and-trace” provisions and the expanding wave of pixel, cookie, and metadata-collection lawsuits.

Representative Matters

Defended multiple SaaS and e-commerce companies against CIPA §§638.50–638.51 trap-and-trace claims arising from standard marketing tags; secured early dismissals or no-payment resolutions.

Responded to pixel/cookie demand letters involving LinkedIn Insight Tag, Meta Pixel, TikTok Pixel, GA4, and various SDKs; achieved non-litigation outcomes through technical and statutory rebuttals.

Advised global platforms on analytics governance, tag-management configurations, and privacy disclosures to minimize exposure to ad-tech litigation.

Structured litigation strategy leveraging statutory construction argument, metadata forensics, and lack of content interception to defeat improperly privacy claims.

FAQs

Are LinkedIn Insight, Meta Pixel, GA4, or TikTok SDKs trap-and-trace devices?

No. They collect outbound, browser-initiated metadata—not the incoming signaling information the statute governs.

Does capturing an IP address or referrer make a tag a “trap-and-trace device”?

No. Every webserver collects that same metadata as part of standard HTTP operation. CIPA requires a device that captures incoming impulses identifying the origin of a communication, which analytics tags do not do.

Why do so many plaintiff firms send these letters?

Because violations cost $5,000 and the threat of litigation costs scare innocent businesses into extortion posture.

Is there any content interception in these claims?

No. Pixels and SDKs do not intercept message content, user communications, or free-text fields. They log standard, browser-generated metadata that falls outside CIPA’s surveillance scope.

Are website analytics or marketing tags considered “surveillance devices” under CIPA?

Not typically. CIPA’s trap-and-trace provisions regulate law-enforcement tools that capture incoming signaling information, not routine browser-initiated analytics requests.