Most businesses do not give a second thought to Google Analytics. It is the default choice for website traffic measurement—ubiquitous, familiar, and seemingly benign. But for Swigart Law Group, a San Diego-based plaintiff firm led by attorney Josh Swigart, Google Analytics and similar tools have been at the center of a wave of California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) lawsuits alleging that collecting IP addresses from website visitors constitutes an illegal “pen register.”
Understanding Swigart Law Group’s litigation approach is essential for any business with a California web presence. Their strategy targets the core infrastructure of digital marketing—and that means virtually every company with a website could be a potential defendant.
About Swigart Law Group
Swigart Law Group is based in San Diego, California, and has developed a focused practice in digital privacy litigation. Josh Swigart, the firm’s namesake and lead attorney, has litigated extensively under CIPA’s pen register provisions (§ 638.51) and the federal Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA).
The firm is known for methodical case selection, targeting companies whose digital tracking practices fit clearly within their preferred legal theories. Unlike firms that cast wide nets with minimal case vetting, Swigart Law Group tends to file cases where the technology evidence is well-documented and the statutory theory is developed. This approach has made them a significant force in both CIPA and VPPA litigation.
Key Legal Theories
CIPA Section 638.51 — Pen Register and Trap and Trace
The pen register theory is the firm’s signature approach. Under CIPA § 638.51, it is unlawful to use or install a “pen register” or “trap and trace device” without consent. These terms traditionally referred to devices recording telephone numbers dialed to or from a specific line.
Swigart Law Group, alongside other CIPA plaintiff firms, has argued that when website analytics tools—Google Analytics, Meta Pixel, and similar technologies—record the IP address, browser characteristics, page URLs, and behavioral data of website visitors, they function as modern-day pen registers. Under this theory, each visit to a website that uses such tools without proper consent becomes a potential $5,000 statutory damages claim under CIPA.
Courts have been inconsistent in accepting this theory. Some early rulings allowed pen register claims to proceed, generating a wave of litigation. However, more recent decisions in 2024 and 2025 have pushed back significantly, with multiple federal judges finding that standard website analytics do not meet the statutory definition of a pen register. This legal evolution does not eliminate risk—it changes the nature of it.
Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) Claims
The Video Privacy Protection Act (18 U.S.C. § 2710) prohibits “video tape service providers” from disclosing consumers’ personally identifiable information in connection with their video viewing choices. Originally enacted to protect video rental records, plaintiff attorneys have reinterpreted the VPPA to cover online video content.
Swigart Law Group targets companies whose websites include video content alongside third-party pixels that transmit user data to advertising platforms. The theory: if a user watches a video on your website and Meta Pixel is running simultaneously, Meta may receive data identifying the user alongside information about the video content they consumed—a potential VPPA violation with statutory damages of $2,500 per affected subscriber.
How They Identify Targets
The firm focuses on companies that:
- Run Google Analytics, Meta Pixel, or similar tools on websites that also host video content
- Collect and transmit IP address data or browsing metadata without a clear opt-in mechanism
- Operate subscription, media, or content-delivery services where user video viewing can be correlated with identity
- Serve California residents without configuring analytics tools to anonymize IP addresses or restrict data collection
Healthcare providers, media companies, e-commerce retailers, streaming services, and news publishers are among the industries most frequently targeted under both the pen register and VPPA theories.
Recent Cases and Activity
Swigart Law Group has been active in California federal courts, filing numerous class action complaints citing both CIPA § 638.51 and VPPA. While the pen register theory has faced growing judicial resistance in 2024-2025, the firm has continued to adapt its legal arguments and has maintained activity in VPPA litigation, where the legal standards have been more receptive.
VPPA claims in particular have gained traction where plaintiffs can establish that the defendant both offers video content and uses pixels that transmit viewing data linked to authenticated user accounts. The interplay between user authentication states—logged-in versus anonymous visitors—has become a key battleground in determining VPPA applicability.
Courts finding in favor of plaintiffs on VPPA claims have awarded $2,500 in statutory damages per affected subscriber, with class sizes in the thousands or millions making these cases extremely high-stakes for defendants.
What Pen Register Lawsuits Means for Your Business
Even as pen register claims face headwinds in court, VPPA claims remain a live and growing threat. Companies should evaluate:
- Whether their websites contain video content alongside third-party advertising pixels
- Whether users are logged in (authenticated) when viewing video content, making them identifiable to advertisers
- Whether pixel data transmitted to third parties could link a user’s identity to their video viewing history
- Whether current cookie consent mechanisms distinguish between analytics and advertising pixel consent
The convergence of video content and advertising technology on a single website creates exactly the exposure that Swigart Law Group is designed to litigate.
Compliance Action Steps
- 1. Conduct a Pixel Audit: Identify every third-party pixel, tag, and analytics script running on your site. Understand exactly what data each transmits, to whom, and under what conditions.
- 2. Implement Granular Consent for Video Tracking: If your site hosts video content, ensure users have meaningfully consented to data collection before advertising pixels are allowed to fire—particularly for authenticated users.
- 3. Review Analytics Configuration: In Google Analytics and similar tools, enable IP anonymization settings to reduce the data transmitted. Consider server-side tagging to limit client-side data exposure.
- 4. Update Third-Party Data Sharing Disclosures: Your Privacy Policy must clearly and specifically describe what data is shared with advertising platforms, including whether video viewing behavior is part of that sharing.
- 5. Seek Legal Counsel on VPPA Exposure: Given VPPA exposure, particularly if your site has authenticated users and video content, a formal legal review with a qualified privacy attorney is warranted.
Pen Register Privacy Lawsuits
The pen register wave may be receding in the courts, but Swigart Law Group’s litigation strategy has permanently changed how businesses must think about even the most basic digital marketing tools. Google Analytics, video embeds, and advertising pixels are no longer compliance-neutral choices—they require deliberate governance, consent management, and documentation.
Businesses that act proactively to configure consent, update disclosures, and audit their technology stacks are substantially better positioned to avoid both litigation exposure and the reputational damage that comes with a class action filing.
