CIPA LITIGATION TECHNICAL ANALYZER

Technical website analysis: Observe potential CIPA technical violations on litigation firm websites for educational comparison purposes.

🎯 TURNING THE TABLES ON LEGAL PARASITES

Number of California visitors per day (affects damage calculation). Default 100 is conservative - many sites have 1000+ daily CA visitors.

🎯 ANALYZE MAJOR LITIGATION FIRMS:

📊 LITIGATION FIRM TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

Bottom-feeder law firms ignore their own "privacy" standards while milking millions from others

The CIPA Shakedown Operation

Meet the vultures: A small cartel of law firms has weaponized California's Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) to create a legal extortion racket. They file identical lawsuits against businesses for using basic website analytics— while their own websites commit the exact same "violations" they sue others for.

The scam is simple: Target small businesses with cookie-cutter lawsuits claiming Google Analytics constitutes "wiretapping." Demand settlements of $50K-$500K to avoid $5,000-per-person statutory damages that could reach millions. Most businesses can't afford to fight, so they pay up.

THE SMOKING GUN: Every single one of these "privacy champion" law firms runs websites that violate their own lawsuit standards. They're legal hypocrites profiting off standards they themselves ignore.

🎯 THE LAWSUIT MILL STATS

1,700+ businesses extorted statewide
$5,000 per person = MILLIONS in threats
Google Analytics = instant lawsuit target
4 firms control the entire racket

💡 THESE SAME FIRMS USE GOOGLE ANALYTICS ON THEIR OWN SITES

🔍 TURNING THEIR WEAPONS AGAINST THEM

We got tired of watching these hypocrites get rich. So we turned their own legal analysis methods against them. Using the exact same technical standards they use to sue businesses, we scanned the websites of the biggest CIPA lawsuit mills.

🛠️ THEIR OWN METHODS USED AGAINST THEM:

  • • Automated browser scanning (same tools they use)
  • • Network request interception detection
  • • Third-party cookie and pixel identification
  • • Consent mechanism analysis (or lack thereof)
  • • Damage calculations using THEIR lawsuit formulas

🎯 RESULT: Every single lawsuit mill violates their own standards. They'd owe millions if sued by their own criteria.

🏛️ POLITICIANS: IMMUNE FROM THEIR OWN LAWS?

Here's the ultimate hypocrisy: The same politicians who wrote and defend California's privacy laws run campaign websites that commit the exact "violations" that have bankrupted thousands of businesses. Yet somehow,no lawsuit mills dare touch them.

Governor Newsom, Senate Judiciary Chair Tom Umberg, and virtually every CA legislator use Google Analytics and Facebook tracking on their campaign sites. Under the lawsuit mills' own theories, each politician owes millions in CIPA damages to California voters.

🎭 THE PROTECTION RACKET:

• SB 690 magically "fixes" the CIPA problem for future cases

• NOT RETROACTIVE - past violations remain actionable for businesses

• Perfect timing - protects politicians while keeping business lawsuits alive

• Selective enforcement - lawsuit mills avoid suing their political allies

🎯 DOUBLE STANDARD EXPOSED: Laws for thee, but not for me. Test any politician's website above to see their multi-million dollar CIPA violations.

All Analysis Categories:

📊 MAJOR PRIVACY LITIGATION FIRMS

🏢 ADDITIONAL LITIGATION FIRMS

🏛️ GOVERNMENT WEBSITES

🗳️ POLITICAL CAMPAIGN WEBSITES

🔪 USING THEIR OWN WEAPONS AGAINST THEM

  • • Network interception detection (their "wiretapping" claims)
  • • Third-party tracking exposure (Google Analytics = instant lawsuit)
  • • Consent mechanism failures (missing or buried consent)
  • • Session recording violations (Hotjar, FullStory, etc.)
  • • Damage calculations using THEIR lawsuit formulas

🎯 LAWSUIT MILL HYPOCRISY REPORT

We've exposed every major CIPA lawsuit mill using their own standards. See the damning evidence →

⚖️ FAIR IS FAIR: If they can sue businesses for Google Analytics, they should be held to the same standard. Every scan is timestamped evidence.

EDUCATIONAL DISCLAIMER

All information is for educational purposes only. Claims are hypothetical estimates based on technical observations. This site provides no legal analysis, theories, or conclusions.

Technical violation observations are based on automated website analysis. Litigation activity descriptions are based on publicly available information about firm specializations.

This is not legal advice. Consult qualified legal counsel for specific situations.