CIPA Trap-and-Trace Action Discontinued With No Payment
A privacy plaintiff's firm demanded $15,000 over a LinkedIn Insight Tag, then filed suit. A zero-concession defense ended in a voluntary discontinuance — no settlement, no court appearance.
$0
paid, against six-figure exposure
- Resolved
- Public court
- Year
- 2026
The situation
During the surge in California Invasion of Privacy Act litigation, a plaintiff's firm scanned longtime client Easyship Inc.'s website, identified a LinkedIn Insight Tag, and characterized it as an illegal wiretap intercepting user data. The demand followed the familiar volume-settlement pattern: pay $15,000 or face litigation carrying six-figure statutory exposure and mandatory attorney's fees. Industry leaders including Kaiser Permanente, the L.A. Times and GameSpot had paid substantial settlements as the consensus shifted toward containment.
The approach
The client was advised not to follow the industry's surrender. The response was 'file if you must' — no settlement negotiations, a declined telephone conference, and a stated intention to contest the theory under Sanchez v. Cars.com and Aviles v. LiveRamp, arguing that routine IP-address routing is a basic function of the internet rather than an unlawful wiretap. A 'best and final' $15,000 offer, said to be withdrawn once suit was filed, was met with the same answer.
The outcome
The plaintiff filed, and the economics still did not change. Months later the plaintiff abandoned the claim and quietly discontinued the action — a voluntary dismissal with no settlement payment, no negotiated compromise, and no formal court appearance.
The full write-up
This page keeps the figures and the holding. The firm's own account of the matter, in full, is here:
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Each matter is different, and the results described here were achieved on the specific facts of those matters.