CIPA / ECPA / VPPA / WESCA / FSCA
got pixels?
Preserve Section 631 facts. Keep each CIPA theory distinct.
For defense counsel reviewing a California Invasion of Privacy Act claim, preserve the consent path, request timing, contents, recipients, and browser steps. Separate Section 631 from Sections 632 and 638.51.
Try it yourself. Open the app.
What left the browser after a California visitor rejected tracking?
The short answer
For a CIPA pixel lawsuit, preserve the California user context, consent interface and choice, communication or user action, request timing, script initiator, recipient, payload contents, identifiers, screenshots, and reproduction steps. Tie each transmission to the browser state that produced it.
CIPA contains distinct provisions. Section 631 addresses tapping, unauthorized connections, and learning the contents or meaning of a communication in transit. Section 632 addresses eavesdropping upon or recording a confidential communication without all-party consent. Section 638.51 addresses pen registers and trap-and-trace devices, subject to statutory exceptions.
The browser record does not decide whether a tracker satisfies a statutory definition, whether the communication was confidential, whether a participant or service-provider defense applies, or whether consent was legally sufficient. Counsel applies those questions to the preserved facts and current authority.
Evidence ledger
The test should isolate the provision-specific facts instead of applying one CIPA label to every request.
The tested user location, browser state, page, and journey relevant to the asserted California theory.
Banner text, no-choice, accept, reject, and GPC paths, plus the moment the visitor's choice changed.
Search, chat, form, checkout, page view, or other interaction that allegedly produced the disputed request.
Sequence between the user action, script execution, and network request, including which code initiated it.
URLs, event names, search or form values, payload fields, identifiers, and addressing or signaling data.
Third-party destination, request chain, screenshots, agent steps, and a workflow that can be rerun.
Controlled browser workflow
A provision-specific audit compares what the site does before and after consent choices while preserving the same user action.
Name the provision, communication, tracker, California user context, consent path, and journey the run is meant to test.
Record initial scripts, requests, cookies, banner state, and page conditions before the visitor makes a choice.
Make the specified choice, complete the search, chat, form, checkout, or page journey, and preserve every outgoing request.
Repeat accept, reject, no-choice, and applicable GPC paths. Separate observed facts, inconsistent results, defenses, and open legal questions.
Limits and defenses
A technical record can confirm or contradict factual assumptions. It cannot decide every CIPA element or defense.
The same request may present different questions under Sections 631, 632, and 638.51. One result should not be generalized across all three.
Request timing can support an in-transit analysis, but the report does not determine the legal meaning of interception under current authority.
A captured search, chat, or form value does not by itself establish confidentiality, contents, intent, party status, or lack of consent.
Section 638.51 includes statutory exceptions, including specified service-provider uses and user consent. The test should preserve facts relevant to them.
A present-day run does not establish the site's historical behavior, every California visitor state, or the result in another browser or account condition.
Questions counsel ask
Direct answers about the evidence record. Legal conclusions still depend on the statute, jurisdiction, parties, exceptions, defenses, and current authority.
The evidence depends on the provision and theory. A useful record can preserve the California user context, consent state, communication or interaction, request timing, initiator, recipient, payload contents, identifiers, screenshots, and the steps needed to reproduce the transmission.
Preserve the communication or user action, request timing, script initiator, recipient, payload contents, party roles, and consent state. Those facts help counsel evaluate the asserted Section 631 theory, including whether a third party learned contents or meaning while a communication was in transit. The browser record does not establish a violation or resolve statutory exceptions and defenses.
Section 632 addresses intentional eavesdropping upon or recording a confidential communication without all-party consent. Section 631 contains separate language concerning tapping, unauthorized connections, and learning the contents or meaning of a communication in transit. The browser test should match the specific theory.
The statute restricts installing or using a pen register or trap-and-trace device without a court order, subject to listed exceptions that include user consent for certain service-provider uses. Whether a website tool fits those definitions is a legal question; the browser record preserves addressing, signaling, consent, and request facts for that analysis.
Continue the evidence review
See the software in action
Got Pixels
Set the user path once, inspect what fires along the way, and reuse the workflow when the site changes. Start in the app.
Product findings support legal analysis. The software does not determine liability or compliance.
Product demo
Book a demo and bring a CIPA provision, California user context, consent path, or tracker relevant to your work. We'll show how Got Pixels configures the browser test and presents the resulting requests and evidence.
