If you’ve received a privacy lawsuit from Jarrett Charo, founder of Jarrett Charo APC, please reach out to us right away as we can help get your business compliant against the privacy claims that Charo Law is claiming. As Jarrett Charo has emerged as one of California’s most active privacy litigation attorneys, particularly in cases involving the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA). Based in San Diego, Charo is one in a long list of privacy litigators in Southern California that have been extremely active in suing business owners. He stands in the circle with Swigart Law, Shay Legal, and Pacific Trial Attorneys. As Jarrett has built a sophisticated practice focused on protecting consumer privacy rights in the digital age, filing numerous lawsuits against major corporations for allegedly unauthorized tracking and data collection practices.
With over $100 million recovered for consumers, investors, and injured parties throughout his career, Charo brings extensive trial experience and a proven track record to his privacy litigation practice. His work represents a significant shift in how consumer privacy rights are enforced in California, utilizing decades-old wiretapping laws to address modern digital surveillance concerns.
Understanding California Invasion of Privacy Act Pixel Lawsuits
What is CIPA?
We have covered in depth with over 100 pieces around pixel litigation and how you can protect your business. The California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) is a statute originally enacted in 1967 to prevent eavesdropping on telephone calls. The law was designed to protect Californians from unauthorized wiretapping and surveillance during an era when privacy concerns centered on telephone communications. However, modern plaintiffs’ attorneys like Charo have successfully argued that CIPA’s protections extend to digital tracking technologies used on websites.
The “Pen Register” Legal Theory
Charo’s CIPA cases rely on a novel legal theory: that common website tracking technologies—including cookies, pixels, session replay software, and analytics tools—constitute illegal “pen registers” or “trap and trace devices” under California Penal Code § 638.50-638.52. These terms historically referred to law enforcement devices that captured metadata about telephone calls.
The argument asserts that when companies install tracking technologies that capture users’ IP addresses, browsing behavior, device information, and other data, they are deploying unauthorized pen registers without user consent or court order. Because trackers collect “routing, addressing, or signaling information,” plaintiffs argue they meet CIPA’s definition of prohibited devices.
Statutory Penalties and Incentives
CIPA’s power as a litigation tool stems from its significant statutory penalties: up to $5,000 per violation. This creates substantial potential liability when alleged violations are asserted on behalf of large classes of website visitors. The high penalty amount, combined with a private right of action and potential for class certification, makes CIPA an attractive vehicle for privacy litigation compared to newer privacy laws like the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which carries lower statutory penalties.
Types of Privacy Violations Litigated
Website Tracking Technologies
Charo’s CIPA cases consistently target specific tracking technologies that companies deploy on their websites. The complaints identify these technologies by name and allege they transmit user data to third parties without consent:
- Google Analytics and Tag Manager – comprehensive website analytics platforms
- Meta Pixel (Facebook Pixel) – social media advertising and tracking
- Microsoft Bing Ads – advertising platform tracking
- LinkedIn Insight Tag – professional network tracking
- TikTok Pixel – social media advertising tracking
- Snapchat Pixel – social media platform tracking
- The Trade Desk – advertising exchange platform
- Pinterest Tag – visual discovery platform tracking
- Akamai mPulse and Technologies – performance monitoring and content delivery
- Quantum Metric – digital analytics and session replay
- Tealium – customer data platform
- Shopify and Klaviyo – e-commerce and marketing platforms
Data Collection Allegations
The complaints typically allege that these tracking technologies collect specific categories of user information without consent:
- IP addresses – used to identify and geolocate users
- Device information – browser type, operating system, device fingerprints
- Browsing behavior – pages visited, time spent, click patterns
- User interactions – form inputs, mouse movements, scroll depth
- Referral sources – where users came from before visiting the site
The legal theory posits that this data is then transmitted to third parties—advertising platforms, analytics companies, and data brokers—who can “deanonymize” users and monetize their information through targeted advertising and data sales.
Companies and Industries Targeted
Charo’s privacy litigation practice demonstrates a systematic approach, targeting companies across diverse industries. Working frequently in partnership with Manning Law APC, Charo has filed CIPA lawsuits against both large corporations and smaller businesses. The cases span multiple sectors:
Major Corporations
- AT&T Inc. – telecommunications giant accused of deploying Google Tag Manager, Microsoft Bing Ads, and Akamai tracking
- The Home Depot Inc. – major home improvement retailer
- Texas Instruments – semiconductor and technology company
- Sherwin-Williams Company – paint manufacturer using Adobe, Google, and Akamai tracking
- Aldi Inc. – supermarket chain accused of deploying Pinterest, Trade Desk, Snapchat, Meta, and TikTok trackers
- Fanatics LLC – sports merchandise retailer using Google, Meta, and Akamai tracking
Retail and E-Commerce
- Big Agnes Inc. – outdoor products company allegedly sharing data with Shopify and Klaviyo
- Lakeshore Learning Materials LLC – educational materials company
- Purple Innovation LLC – mattress retailer
- Brilliant Earth LLC – jewelry company (also includes website accessibility claims)
- Nautica Retail USA LLC
- Undefeated Inc. – streetwear retailer
- Gachee Corporation
- Jeni’s Splendid Ice Creams LLC
This diverse targeting demonstrates that Charo’s practice is not limited to a single industry but rather pursues any company allegedly using common tracking technologies without proper consent mechanisms.
Plaintiff Profiles and Case Patterns
Ramy Eden / Ramy Kaufler Eden
Ramy Eden (also known as Ramy Kaufler Eden) serves as the named plaintiff in the vast majority of Charo’s CIPA cases. Eden appears as plaintiff in lawsuits against AT&T, The Home Depot, Texas Instruments, Fanatics, Aldi, Big Agnes, Sherwin-Williams, Purple Innovation, and numerous other defendants. The consistency of this plaintiff across dozens of cases filed in San Diego County Superior Court is notable and follows a pattern common in serial privacy litigation.
Beyond CIPA cases, Eden also appears as plaintiff in Charo’s Proposition 65 litigation, including cases against gas stations and restaurants for allegedly failing to provide proper warnings about exposure to chemicals like unleaded gasoline and alcoholic beverages.
Michael Sandoval
Michael Sandoval appears as the named plaintiff in a subset of Charo’s cases filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, typically combining CIPA privacy claims with website accessibility allegations under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. Sandoval is listed as plaintiff in cases against Brilliant Earth, Gachee Corporation, Undefeated Inc., and Jeni’s Splendid Ice Creams.
Rebecca Castillo
Rebecca Castillo serves as plaintiff in the case against Nautica Retail USA LLC, which also combines privacy and accessibility claims.
Other Plaintiffs
A plaintiff named Paterno appears in the case against Lakeshore Learning Materials LLC.
Case Status and Legal Outcomes
Recent Filings
The majority of Charo’s CIPA cases were filed in August and September 2025, with additional filings continuing through December 2025. Most cases remain in early stages, with status listed as “Pending” or “Open” in court records. Cases have been filed primarily in:
- San Diego County Superior Court – the majority of CIPA tracking cases
- Los Angeles County Superior Court – privacy cases combined with accessibility claims
Judicial Developments
While specific outcomes in Charo’s individual cases are still developing, the broader CIPA litigation landscape has produced mixed results for plaintiffs:
Favorable Precedent: Some courts have allowed CIPA claims based on tracking technologies to survive motions to dismiss, particularly when plaintiffs allege that pixels and cookies captured user information and transmitted it to third parties. The case of Greenley v. Kochava, Inc. (S.D. Cal. 2023) is frequently cited in complaints for holding that software identifying consumers and correlating data through fingerprinting could constitute a pen register.
Recent Setbacks: However, courts have begun pushing back against expansive CIPA theories. In April 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted summary judgment for defendants in Torres v. Prudential Financial, Inc., holding that CIPA requires evidence that a party actually read or attempted to read the contents of a communication while in transit—not merely that data was collected. The court found that session replay technology did not violate CIPA because the third-party vendor did not read the communication contents while in transit.
Standing Challenges: Multiple recent decisions have dismissed CIPA claims for lack of Article III standing. In Gabrielli v. Insider, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2025), the court found that sharing an IP address with a third party did not constitute a concrete harm analogous to privacy interests protected under common law. California state courts have similarly begun dismissing cases where plaintiffs allege only a statutory violation without demonstrating concrete injury.
Proposition 65 Environmental Litigation
Beyond CIPA privacy cases, Charo maintains an active practice under California’s Proposition 65 (Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act). This work involves serving 60-day notices of violation and negotiating settlements with businesses alleged to have failed to provide proper warnings about exposure to listed chemicals.
Typical Proposition 65 Cases
Charo’s Proposition 65 practice focuses on two main categories:
- Gas Station Cases: Allegations that gas stations failed to warn about unleaded gasoline exposure
- Alcohol Warning Cases: Allegations that restaurants and bars failed to warn about alcoholic beverage exposure
Settlement Patterns
Public records show numerous Proposition 65 settlements negotiated by Charo’s firm, with typical settlement structures including:
- Civil penalties split between the plaintiff, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), and other state agencies
- Attorney fees and costs, typically ranging from $7,000 to $19,000 per case with dozens of other attorneys trailing with bigger demands
- Agreements by defendants to post appropriate Proposition 65 warnings
Documented settlements include cases against gas station operators, petroleum companies, and restaurant establishments, with Eden again appearing as the plaintiff in many of these matters.
The Evolving Legal Landscape
Legislative Response
The surge in CIPA litigation has prompted calls for legislative reform. California State Senator Anna Caballero authored Senate Bill 690 in February 2025, aimed at ending what some characterize as abusive lawsuits under CIPA based on cookies and online tracking technologies. The bill reflects growing concern that a 1960s-era wiretapping statute is being weaponized against standard website practices that were never contemplated when the law was enacted.
Judicial Skepticism
Courts have expressed skepticism about applying CIPA to modern website analytics. In Doe v. Eating Recovery Center, LLC, Judge Vince Chhabria noted that “using a third-party company to perform data analytics for web traffic is worlds different from wiretapping and eavesdropping.” The court encouraged California’s legislature to update CIPA for the modern internet age rather than allow its application to routine business practices.
Similarly, the Ninth Circuit has reviewed multiple CIPA cases involving session replay and chatbot technologies, questioning whether the statute should apply to these modern tools when California has enacted the more comprehensive California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) specifically to address digital privacy concerns.
The Consent Defense
A critical defense in CIPA litigation involves user consent. Courts have found that consumer consent is the gold standard defense against CIPA claims. However, recent decisions scrutinize how consent is obtained:
- Footer Privacy Policies: Courts have found that merely placing privacy policy links in website footers may be insufficient to establish consent
- Affirmative Action: Consent is more likely to be established when users must affirmatively agree to terms, such as clicking a button to create an account or complete a purchase
- Cookie Banners: Implementation of explicit cookie consent mechanisms may help establish user consent
Partnership with Manning Law APC
Jarrett Charo APC frequently partners with Manning Law APC, led by Joseph R. Manning, Jr., in both CIPA privacy litigation and Proposition 65 environmental cases. This collaboration appears strategic, combining resources and expertise to handle the volume of cases filed. Manning Law is based in Foothill Ranch, California, and the firms appear to divide responsibilities in case management and settlement negotiations.
The partnership is evident in court filings where both attorneys are listed as counsel of record, with contact information for both firms provided on legal documents and settlement agreements.
Implications for California Businesses
Risk Exposure
The proliferation of CIPA cases filed by attorneys like Charo creates significant exposure for any company operating a website accessible to California consumers. The breadth of defendants—from major telecommunications companies to small e-commerce retailers—demonstrates that no business is too large or too small to face liability claims under this litigation strategy.
With statutory penalties of up to $5,000 per violation and the potential for class certification, even businesses with relatively standard tracking implementations face substantial financial risk.
Compliance Recommendations
Legal experts advising businesses on CIPA exposure recommend several proactive measures:
- Audit Website Technologies: Regularly review all tracking tools, analytics platforms, and third-party integrations to understand what data is being collected and transmitted
- Implement Consent Frameworks: Consider cookie consent banners and other mechanisms that require affirmative user action before tracking technologies are deployed
- Update Privacy Policies: Ensure policies accurately describe all data collection practices and are presented in a way that establishes user awareness and consent
- Coordinate with Vendors: Work with third-party tracking and analytics providers to ensure their implementations comply with California law
- Monitor Legal Developments: Stay informed about evolving case law and potential legislative reforms that may impact CIPA liability
Jarret Charo Privacy Litigation Help
Jarrett Charo has established himself as a leading figure in California privacy litigation through his aggressive pursuit of CIPA claims against companies using website tracking technologies. His practice represents a significant trend in how privacy rights are being enforced, applying a decades-old wiretapping statute to modern digital practices.
While courts have begun to push back against some CIPA theories—particularly regarding standing and the requirement that defendants actually read communication contents—the litigation continues to create substantial exposure for California businesses. The ultimate resolution of these legal questions may come through legislative reform rather than judicial decision-making, as California lawmakers consider whether to update CIPA for the digital age or clarify that it does not apply to standard website analytics.
For businesses operating in California, the message is clear: website tracking and data collection practices must be carefully reviewed and potentially restructured to minimize CIPA exposure. Whether through enhanced consent mechanisms, privacy policy updates, or technology audits, companies must take proactive steps to address the risks created by this evolving area of privacy litigation.
As this legal landscape continues to develop, Jarrett Charo’s practice will likely remain at the forefront of efforts to expand privacy protections for California consumers, while defense attorneys and businesses work to establish clearer boundaries around what tracking practices are permissible under current law.
Contact Information
Jarrett Charo APC
4079 Governor Dr., No. 1018
San Diego, CA 92122
Phone: (619) 345-0810
Email: nov@charolaw.com
Website: charolaw.com
Attorney Background and Qualifications
Education and Bar Admissions
Jarrett Charo earned his J.D. cum laude from Boston University School of Law in 2002 and his B.A. magna cum laude from the University of Southern California in 1999, where he was inducted into Phi Beta Kappa. He is admitted to practice in California (2003), New York (2009), and before multiple federal courts including the U.S. District Courts for the Central, Northern, and Southern Districts of California, as well as the Southern District of New York.
Professional Experience
Charo’s legal career trajectory demonstrates a consistent commitment to plaintiff-side litigation:
- Deputy District Attorney with the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office, where he gained trial experience prosecuting criminal cases
- Attorney at Robbins Geller, one of the nation’s top-rated plaintiff’s securities litigation firms, helping defrauded teachers, nurses, firefighters, and others recover over $100 million from large corporations
- Partner at Thorsnes Bartolotta, one of San Diego’s premier plaintiff’s firms
- Founder of Jarrett Charo APC, focusing on consumer privacy, Proposition 65, and personal injury litigation
Charo holds a 5.0 Peer Rating from Martindale-Hubbell, reflecting recognition from fellow attorneys for his professional excellence and ethical standards.
