CIPA: “File If You Must”
In the modern legal landscape, plaintiffs' firms often operate volume-litigation models. They scan hundreds of websites, invent a privacy violation, and send out mass demand letters threatening class-action lawsuits. Their goal isn't to go to trial; their goal is to extract a quick $10,000 to $15,000 "nuisance fee" from companies too afraid to fight back.
This is a case study on how we completely dismantled a California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) shakedown, refused a $15,000 settlement demand, and forced the plaintiff's firm to abandon their own claim.
The Setup: The "Trap and Trace" Shakedown
A plaintiff's firm (Tauler Smith LLP) sent our tech client a demand letter alleging their website violated CIPA. The firm claimed that by using a "LinkedIn Insight Tag," our client was illegally deploying a "trap and trace" wiretap device to intercept user data. They demanded a settlement, threatening a class action seeking $5,000 per violation.
The Tactic: The Technical and Legal Audit
We don't pay extortion fees. We immediately ran a forensic audit of the client’s website and discovered a fatal factual flaw: the LinkedIn tracking pixel the plaintiff built their entire case around didn't even exist on our client's site.
But we didn't stop at the facts; we dismantled their legal theory. We weaponized recent, merits-stage court decisions (Sanchez v. Cars.com and Aviles v. LiveRamp) to prove that routine IP address routing is a basic function of the internet, not an illegal wiretap.
The Hammer: "File If You Must"
We declined the firm’s invitation to discuss or negotiate by phone. Realizing their leverage was evaporating, opposing counsel tried to pressure us, offering a "best and final" $15,000 settlement and threatening that the offer would be pulled the second they filed the lawsuit. We responded simply:
"Thanks, Matt. Same answer. File if you must."
They filed, hoping the reality of a filed lawsuit would force capitulation. It didn't. We continued ignoring until legal process was served. But process never arrived. Months later, we discovered the firm abandoned the claim and quietly discontinued the action.
