From family law to privacy litigation and consumer protection claims against businesses. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act lawsuits we have covered previously about how they can become very expensive if not remediated or fixed. That is why we ask anybody reading this to contact us right away for a free privacy audit to protect your assets against multi-million dollar claims.
A New Wave of Digital Privacy Litigation by Kevin Lemieux
The proliferation of lawyers like Kevin Lemieux joining established firms like Swigart Law Group (Also located in San Diego) and Tauler Smith LLP in filing privacy claims signals that this litigation wave is entering a new phase of expansion. For businesses, the message is clear: proactive compliance is no longer optional. For defense attorneys, staying current on the rapidly evolving case law and developing technical expertise in web analytics is critical to effective representation.
If you’ve received a demand letter, certified mail, or notice of arbitration regarding CIPA or ECPA violations, immediate action is required. Connect with a data privacy specialist to audit your website, remediate vulnerabilities, and develop a comprehensive defense strategy.
Business owners and defense attorneys across the country are increasingly encountering demand letters and certified mail alleging violations of privacy laws related to common website tracking technologies. These claims, brought under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), represent a rapidly growing area of litigation that shows no signs of slowing down. Depending on the plaintiff’s attorney some cases move right into litigation if the demand letter is ignored and the amount of money being asked continues to rise.
Among the newest attorneys filing these claims is Kevin Lemieux, a California-based lawyer whose firm is now entering the privacy litigation space from family law. On the LawyerKevin.com website there are numerous accolades for being a Top 10 Attorney. Now the shift from family law into the more lucrative privacy law is one that we expect to see from other lawyers until enough businesses are using privacy software like Captain Compliance’s to protect against and prevent these type of claims.
The Legal Foundations For ECPA & CIPA Claims
The California Invasion of Privacy Act, enacted in 1967 during concerns about Cold War-era wiretapping, prohibits the interception of communications without the consent of all parties. CIPA is a “two-party consent” law, meaning all participants in a communication must agree to its recording or interception. The statute provides for statutory damages of $5,000 per violation, plus potential criminal penalties.
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act, passed by Congress in 1986, updated federal wiretap laws to encompass electronic communications beyond traditional telephone calls. The ECPA prohibits the intentional interception of electronic communications and, unlike CIPA, operates under a “single-party consent” framework at the federal level. However, plaintiffs that retain law firms like Kevin Lemieux frequently bring CIPA and ECPA claims together, creating dual compliance obligations and enhanced penalties for defendants.
The Technologies Under Attack
Modern privacy litigation primarily targets three categories of tracking technology:
Meta Pixel and Similar Tracking Pixels: Meta’s Facebook Pixel is a code snippet embedded on websites to track user interactions for advertising purposes. Since 2022, Meta has faced dozens of class action lawsuits alleging the tool unlawfully collects private data particularly sensitive health information from healthcare provider websites—and shares it with Meta without user consent.
LinkedIn Insight Tag: Similar to Meta Pixel, LinkedIn’s tracking tool has been the subject of recent class action lawsuits alleging it intercepts users’ personal and healthcare information by matching website visitors with their LinkedIn accounts and providing companies with consumer analytics.
Session Replay Technology: Software that records and recreates users’ journeys through websites including mouse movements, keystrokes, clicks, and scrolling—has become a major litigation target. Companies use this technology to improve user experience, but plaintiffs allege it constitutes illegal wiretapping when third-party vendors have real-time access to user interactions without consent.
The Privacy Plaintiff Firms Leading the Charge
While Kevin Lemieux represents a new entrant into this litigation arena, two law firms have established themselves as the dominant forces in CIPA privacy lawsuits:
Swigart Law Group: Also based in San Diego, Swigart Law Group has become synonymous with CIPA enforcement. The firm regularly sends demand letters, initiates arbitration claims, and files lawsuits on behalf of consumers alleging privacy violations. Swigart has been particularly aggressive in challenging Meta Pixel usage, arguing that the technology constitutes digital eavesdropping and operates as an illegal wiretap. The firm’s strategy often involves seeking settlements in the $10,000-$30,000 but we have started to see these numbers more than double over the last couple of months. This new range is the figure before formal litigation, leveraging the economic pressure of arbitration fees and statutory damages exposure.
Tauler Smith LLP: Operating out of Los Angeles, Tauler Smith LLP has carved out a significant presence in privacy litigation, particularly focusing on trap-and-trace device claims under CIPA Section 638.51. The firm is a higher quality version of Swigart in the fact that they file lawsuits and has won important pre-trial victories establishing that tracking technologies can constitute illegal pen registers under California law. Tauler Smith’s litigation portfolio spans diverse industries, from healthcare to retail to food distribution.
Both firms have contributed to the evolution of digital privacy case law, with mixed results in court for defendants who often just settle to avoid really expensive claims (see Google and Facebook’s 9 figure multi-million dollar and billion dollar settlements over privacy violations). While some judges have dismissed their claims—particularly where plaintiffs are identified as “testers” who deliberately visit websites to generate lawsuits others have allowed cases to proceed, creating inconsistent precedent that fuels continued litigation.
Kevin Lemieux is the Newest California Lawyer Entering the Space
Kevin Lemieux, operating through his San Diego-based firm at lawyerkevin.com, represents a rising trend of California attorneys expanding into privacy litigation. While Lemieux’s practice has traditionally focused on family law, juvenile dependency cases, and CPS matters—areas where he holds certification as a specialist in child welfare law—his entry into CIPA and ECPA litigation signals the growing attractiveness of this practice area for California attorneys.
This expansion reflects a broader phenomenon: as privacy litigation proves lucrative and relatively formulaic, more attorneys are entering the space, multiplying the volume of demand letters and lawsuits businesses face. For defense attorneys, this means more diverse opponents with varying levels of experience in these specialized claims.
Why This Trend Will Only Increase
Several factors guarantee the continued growth of privacy litigation:
Judicial Inconsistency: California courts remain split on fundamental issues, such as whether tracking pixels constitute pen registers, whether session replay data is “intercepted in transit,” and whether companies can be liable for “aiding and abetting” third-party vendors. This lack of consensus emboldens plaintiff attorneys to continue filing cases.
Economic Incentives: The $5,000-per-violation statutory damages under CIPA, combined with the threat of costly arbitration and class certification, create powerful settlement pressure. Many businesses settle quickly rather than incur six-figure defense costs, reinforcing the litigation model.
Universal Website Exposure: Nearly every business with a public-facing website uses some form of analytics, tracking, or marketing technology. This creates an almost limitless pool of potential defendants.
Professional Plaintiff Networks: The emergence of “tester” plaintiffs who systematically visit websites to generate claims has industrialized privacy litigation, allowing law firms to scale their operations dramatically.
What Business Owners and Defense Attorneys Should Know
If you receive a demand letter or certified mail regarding a CIPA or ECPA violation:
Do Not Ignore It: These claims can escalate quickly to arbitration or litigation, with mounting costs and exposure.
Evaluate Your Technologies: Immediately use our privacy audit tool for your website for Meta Pixel, LinkedIn tags, session replay software, chatbots, and other tracking technologies. Understanding what’s deployed and how it operates is critical to mounting a defense.
Review Your Disclosures: Assess whether your privacy policy adequately discloses tracking practices and whether you’re obtaining proper consent before technologies fire. Recent decisions emphasize that vague privacy policies are insufficient—explicit, prior consent is increasingly required.
Install a Captain Compliance Consent Mechanisms: Implementing proper cookie consent banner from Captain Compliance. Most solutions don’t work in the reality that they just don’t actually block cookies and are more just a notice and a dark pattern. A good banner can block tracking until users opt in can significantly reduce exposure, though this must be done correctly to be effective.
Understand the Defense Landscape: Successful defenses often hinge on technical arguments about whether data is “intercepted in transit,” whether your company is a “party” to the communication (and thus exempt), and whether plaintiffs have standing as genuine consumers versus professional testers.
Consult Privacy Specialists: These cases require expertise in both technology and evolving privacy law. Working with attorneys experienced in CIPA/ECPA defense and with data privacy compliance professionals who can remediate technical issues—is essential. We have a list of preferred privacy lawyers that we can refer you to and help guide them with what we’re seeing first hand.
The Path Forward if Kevin Lemieux Served You a Privacy Lawsuit
For assistance with CIPA/ECPA compliance and dispute resolution, contact a data privacy protectionist at Captain Compliance.
Businesses facing specific privacy claims should consult with us right away as we can help offer expert witness services to defend against privacy litigation claims while also getting your business compliant to protect against privacy litigation and regulatory actions. The official website for the law firm filing these lawsuits is Lawyerkevin.com
