CIPA
Cal. Penal Code §§ 631, 632, 638.51
Interception, confidential communications, and pen-register theories
Consent state, in-transit timing, third-party role, request data, addressing signals
CIPA / ECPA / VPPA / WESCA / FSCA
got pixels?
Test the journey behind the allegation.
For pixel litigation defense, describe the site, consent choice, and user path. Got Pixels builds the browser tests, follows the journey, and records requests, payloads, and screenshots at the steps that matter.
Try it yourself. Open the app.
byPapaya Privacy Co.Evidence technology, not legal advice.
Example journey test
After rejecting cookies and reaching checkout, did cart details reach a third party?
JourneyProduct, cart, checkout
Consent stateEssential cookies only
RecipientThird-party analytics endpoints
ContentsProduct + size + cart value
EvidenceRequests + screenshots
How it works
From journey to evidence.
Describe the disputed user path. Composer builds the browser tests, runs the journey, and records what happened at each step. Reuse the workflow when the site changes.
Illustrative workflow
Composer
What do you want to audit?
Audit example.com for CIPA exposure from California. Test the checkout journey after rejecting cookies.
Describe the site, law, consent path, and journey.
Step 1 of 4: Describe the journey
Evidence record
Beyond page load.
A homepage check cannot show what fired after a visitor searched, watched a video, submitted a form, or checked out. Got Pixels ties requests and screenshots to those actions and the consent path. Counsel applies the law.
View sample reportJurisdiction + consent
Location, banner state, consent choice, GPC, and when consent changed
Communication + journey
Video, search, chat, checkout, or form actions behind the disputed event
Timing + initiator
When the request fired relative to the user action, and which script initiated it
Recipient + identifiers
Third-party endpoints, cookies, identifiers, and the request chain
Contents + payload
URLs, events, search terms, form values, video data, and request parameters
Visual + repeatable record
Screenshots, agent steps, network logs, and rerunnable journeys
Pixel litigation landscape
One pixel. Different legal questions.
One browser request can raise different legal questions. Got Pixels preserves the facts counsel needs to assess each theory.
Read the pixel litigation evidence guideFrameworkAuthorityQuestionBrowser evidence
ECPA
18 U.S.C. §§ 2511, 2520
Interception, use, or disclosure of electronic communications
Contents, contemporaneous acquisition, recipient, consent, party and service-provider facts
VPPA
18 U.S.C. § 2710
Disclosure of video-viewing information tied to a consumer
Video title or URL, watch event, user or device identifier, recipient, consent record
WESCA
18 Pa.C.S. § 5703
Interception, disclosure, or use of electronic communications
Pennsylvania user context, contents, timing, consent, tracker and website roles
FSCA
Fla. Stat. §§ 934.03, 934.10
Interception of electronic communications and substantive contents
Searches, health details, form fields, chat text, consent state, third-party requests
STATE + HEALTH
MD, WA, IL, MA and other statutes
State interception, health-data, privacy, and consumer-protection theories
Jurisdiction, data sensitivity, authorization, custom events, identifiers, disclosed recipients
Scope, defenses, standing, remedies, and statutory definitions vary by jurisdiction and current case law. Got Pixels captures evidence for counsel to review. It does not determine liability.
Audit method
Pressure-test the facts, not a generic risk score.
Got Pixels turns each legal question into a repeatable browser test with preserved evidence.
What communication occurred?
A video watch, search, chat, checkout, or form entry can create a different record.
When was it acquired?
Compare before consent, after accept or reject, and with GPC. Match each request to the user action.
What left the browser?
Inspect URLs, events, identifiers, form values, cookies, payloads, and recipients.
Which legal context applies?
Record location, consent, content, and party roles so counsel can apply the relevant law.
Outside counsel and defense consultants
Test a client's disputed journey.
Describe the alleged consent path and user flow without scripting every click. Review what was sent, who received it, when it fired, and what remains unknown.
In-house defense teams
Recheck your own site after changes.
Rerun the saved journey after a site or tag change. Compare consent states, then share the evidence with outside counsel.
Questions about the software
What defense counsel needs to know.
Got Pixels preserves the browser record. Counsel applies the law.
What does the evidence record include?
The tested jurisdiction, consent state, browser journey, requests, payloads, screenshots, recipients, and agent steps.
Can the same journey be run again?
Yes. Reuse the workflow to compare consent states or check a fix without designing the path again.
Which pixel-litigation theories can it investigate?
The record can inform CIPA, ECPA, VPPA, WESCA, FSCA, state wiretap, and health-data analysis. Counsel decides what law applies.
Does Got Pixels determine liability?
No. Got Pixels preserves technical evidence. Counsel evaluates liability under the applicable law, consent record, parties, and defenses.
What happens in a demo?
We run a scenario relevant to your work, then show how to inspect the browser evidence and report. Bring a site or use case if you have one.
Got Pixels pricing
Plans for repeat testing.
Each run tests a consent choice and user journey, with requests, screenshots, and a report for review. Plans reflect how many runs and seats you need. For a walkthrough, bring your site or legal question to a demo.
Start without a subscription
4 free runs per user.
Try a user journey before choosing a plan. Each audit execution uses one run.
01 / plan
Professional
For an individual running focused audits.
$180/ month
or $2,000 annually
- 1 seat
- 25 runs / month
02 / planRecommended
Organization
For a team sharing an audit allowance.
$720/ month
or $8,000 annually
- Unlimited seats
- 120 shared runs / month
03 / plan
Unlimited
For one person running tests without a run-count cap.
$2,400/ month
or $24,000 annually
- 1 seat
- Unlimited runs
04 / plan
Enterprise
For organizations needing custom terms or capacity.
Custom
Monthly or annual terms by agreement
- Custom seats
- Custom usage
Accept All, Reject All, and GPC each count as a run. Paid plans include Composer, screenshots, reports, PDF and Markdown export, sharing, API and MCP access, and scheduled runs. See the app for full terms.
Got Pixels
Build and rerun journey tests.
Set the user path once, inspect what fires along the way, and reuse the workflow when the site changes. Start in the app.
- Set a site, jurisdiction, consent choice, and journey
- Reuse the journey across consent states and site changes
- Inspect requests, payloads, and screenshots
- Share the report for legal review
Product findings support legal analysis. The software does not determine liability or compliance.
Product demo
See a full user journey tested.
Bring a site, consent path, or legal question. We'll show how Got Pixels builds the test, runs the journey, and reports the evidence.
- A walkthrough using your site and user journey
- The consent path, jurisdiction, and tracker you choose
- How to inspect requests, screenshots, and limitations