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?
Browser evidence for the statute in front of you.
Got Pixels reproduces consent paths, video events, searches, chats, and form journeys. It shows privacy counsel what fired, when it fired, which third party received it, and what left the browser.
View sample reportbyPapaya Privacy Co.Evidence technology, not legal advice.
Example legal question
Did a third-party pixel receive form contents after the visitor rejected tracking?
Consent stateReject all
JourneyTreatment search → form
RecipientThird-party pixel endpoint
ContentsURL + event + form fields
EvidenceRequests + screenshots
Pixel litigation landscape
One pixel. Different legal questions.
A request can implicate different statutes depending on the user, the communication, the timing, the recipient, and the data transmitted. Got Pixels preserves the facts counsel needs to test the theory.
FrameworkAuthorityQuestionBrowser 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.
The legal theory changes. The browser questions remain concrete. Got Pixels turns those questions into repeatable journeys and preserves the resulting evidence.
What communication occurred?
A page view, video watch, treatment search, chatbot exchange, checkout field, or contact-form submission creates a different factual record.
When was it acquired?
Run the same journey before consent, after accept, after reject, and with GPC. Preserve the sequence between the user action and the network request.
What left the browser?
Inspect URLs, event names, identifiers, form values, search terms, video data, request payloads, cookies, and the destination that received them.
Which legal context applies?
Capture the user location, website role, third-party role, consent record, content type, and repeatable journey so counsel can apply the relevant statute and current precedent.
Evidence record
The facts behind the claim or defense.
Got Pixels does not collapse the result into one score. It preserves the browser record so counsel can evaluate statutory definitions, consent, party status, causation, defenses, and current precedent.
Jurisdiction + consent
User location, banner state, reject or accept path, GPC signal, and the moment consent changed
Communication + journey
Video watch, search, chat, checkout, account, or form sequence that created the disputed event
Timing + initiator
Whether acquisition occurred before, during, or after the user action, and which script initiated it
Recipient + identifiers
Third-party endpoint, cookies, device or account identifiers, and the request chain behind the transfer
Contents + payload
URLs, event names, search terms, form values, video data, and other request parameters available for review
Visual + repeatable record
Screenshots, agent steps, timestamps, network logs, and a journey that can be run again after remediation
Plaintiff counsel
Investigate the transmission before pleading it.
Reproduce the alleged consent state and user journey. Identify the recipient, timing, contents, identifiers, and jurisdictional facts that need legal and technical analysis under CIPA, ECPA, VPPA, WESCA, FSCA, or another theory.
Defense + in-house counsel
Run the allegation against the actual site.
Compare accept, reject, no-choice, and GPC paths. Test whether the alleged event occurred, what the request contained, which party initiated it, and whether remediation changed the browser record.
Matter review meeting
Review a matter with Papaya Privacy Co.
Book a meeting to walk through the statute or jurisdiction, the website, and the consent or user journey at issue. We can discuss the browser test and evidence record that would help your review.
- The statute, jurisdiction, and legal theory you are evaluating
- The website, tracker, consent state, and user journey at issue
- The browser evidence and report structure that would help your review
Got Pixels Pro
Build the statute-specific audit yourself.
Composer turns your legal or compliance question into a browser audit suite. Change the jurisdiction, consent state, journey, or tracker, then compare the resulting evidence.
- Natural-language legal and compliance questions
- Live browser journeys across consent states
- Video, search, chat, checkout, and form tests
- Cookies, pixels, payloads, screenshots, and agent steps
Product results require legal interpretation and do not determine liability or compliance.