Manning Law, APC, founded by Joseph R. Manning, Jr., has emerged as a prominent force in California privacy litigation, combining traditional personal injury practice with aggressive digital privacy enforcement. Based in Foothill Ranch, California, the firm has positioned itself at the forefront of multiple privacy litigation trends, including California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) website tracking cases, participation in the landmark Google Incognito privacy settlement, and extensive ADA website accessibility litigation.
With over 100 years of combined legal experience across its team and millions of dollars recovered in verdicts and settlements, Manning Law has built a sophisticated practice that spans personal injury, disability rights, and privacy enforcement. The firm’s recent expansion into CIPA privacy litigation represents a significant shift in how the firm leverages California’s strict privacy laws to protect consumer rights especially as we’ve seen thousands of businesses get sued for privacy violations no matter how big or small of a company they are.
Firm Leadership and Background
Joseph R. Manning, Jr., the founder of Manning Law, APC, brings over 25 years of legal experience as a civil trial attorney. His legal journey demonstrates a commitment to representing injured and aggrieved individuals across multiple practice areas.
Education and Credentials:
- B.A., cum laude – Seattle University (1992)
- J.D., magna cum laude – University of San Diego School of Law (1996), member of San Diego Law Review
- LL.M. in Business and Corporate Law – University of San Diego
Manning holds the distinction of being Order of the Coif from the University of San Diego School of Law, an honor reserved for the top 10% of law school graduates. He is admitted to practice in California (State Bar No. 223381) and maintains offices in Foothill Ranch and Newport Beach.
Prior to founding Manning Law, APC, Manning worked for two preeminent law firms as a civil trial attorney, developing expertise across a broad range of disputes. He has received recognition including the Patriotic Employer Award from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and the firm has been named to the 2026 Elite Lawyer award.
Google Incognito Privacy Violation Investigation
Partnership with Mass Tort Alliance
Manning Law, APC has partnered with the Mass Tort Alliance to investigate potential claims related to Google’s alleged tracking of users in Incognito/private browsing mode between June 1, 2016, and December 1, 2023. This collaboration positions the firm to handle complex mass tort litigation involving potential privacy violations affecting millions of Google users.
The firm’s website prominently features information about the Google Incognito Privacy Violation, offering to evaluate eligibility for those who held a Google account and used Incognito mode during the relevant time period. This represents Manning Law’s entry into what could be one of the largest digital privacy cases in history.
The Underlying Google Settlement
The investigation stems from a landmark class action lawsuit that resulted in Google agreeing to a major settlement in December 2023. The original lawsuit, filed in 2020, alleged that Google continued tracking users’ internet activity even when they used Chrome’s “incognito” mode or similar private browsing modes in other browsers.
Settlement Terms:
- Data Deletion: Google agreed to delete billions of data records reflecting users’ private browsing activities
- Disclosure Changes: Google updated its disclosures to clarify that it collects private browsing data and that activity on third-party sites using Google services is collected regardless of browsing mode
- Cookie Blocking: Google must let users block third-party cookies by default for five years
- Individual Claims: While the class action settlement involved no monetary damages to class members, users can file individual claims in state court for potential compensation
The class action sought $5 billion in damages, and while the settlement terms were not publicly disclosed, the case was led by prominent attorney David Boies and was described as a “groundbreaking” and “historic step” in requiring tech companies to be transparent about data collection.
Individual Claims Process
Following the settlement, plaintiffs’ lawyers filed new individual damages claims on behalf of over a thousand users in California state court. This creates an opportunity for users who believed their privacy was violated to seek compensation outside the class action framework. Manning Law’s investigation focuses on helping eligible individuals pursue these individual claims.
The firm’s eligibility process involves:
- Assessing whether the individual had a Google account and used Incognito mode during the June 2016 to December 2023 period
- Evaluating the potential for unauthorized tracking of online activities
- Providing guidance on next steps for pursuing legal action and potential compensation
CIPA Website Tracking Litigation
Expansion into Privacy Enforcement
In October 2025, Manning Law announced its active pursuit of cases under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), positioning the firm as a major player in the rapidly growing field of digital privacy litigation. The firm’s blog post, titled “Now Filing California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) Cases,” emphasizes that the firm’s commitment to privacy and justice extends beyond personal injury practice to include unauthorized use of electronic devices.
Manning Law works frequently in partnership with Jarrett Charo APC on CIPA cases, combining resources and expertise to pursue claims against companies allegedly using website tracking technologies without proper consent. This collaborative approach has resulted in dozens of lawsuits filed across California state and federal courts. Ironically other privacy lawyers are also in Southern California that have made headlines for sending out demand letters and pro-se complaints en masse.
CIPA Legal Framework and Strategy
CIPA prohibits the unauthorized and secret recording of communications, including phone calls, text messages, and website interactions. Manning Law’s legal theory applies this 1967 wiretapping law to modern digital tracking technologies, arguing that companies cannot secretly record or monitor online activity without explicit consent.
Key Elements of CIPA Claims:
- Pen Register Theory: Website tracking tools like cookies, pixels, and analytics software allegedly function as illegal “pen registers” or “trap and trace devices” that capture user data
- Lack of Consent: Companies deploy these technologies without obtaining proper user consent or court authorization
- Third-Party Data Sharing: User information is transmitted to advertising platforms, analytics companies, and data brokers
- Statutory Penalties: CIPA provides for damages of up to $5,000 per violation, creating substantial potential liability
Notable CIPA Cases and Precedent
Manning Law’s CIPA practice references significant legal developments supporting their claims. In October 2025, the firm highlighted a jury verdict against Meta (Facebook’s parent company) in a CIPA case, describing it as a “monumental decision” that reinforced tech giants are not above the law and must be held accountable.
Prior to the Meta trial, defendants Google and Flo Health agreed to a $56 million settlement to resolve allegations that they violated California privacy laws by improperly collecting and sharing sensitive health information from users of a period-tracking app. According to the case, Flo Health’s application collected intimate details including menstrual cycles, fertility windows, pregnancy status, and sexual activity, which were then shared with Google.
These high-profile settlements and verdicts demonstrate that companies are taking CIPA claims seriously and are willing to pay significant amounts to avoid jury verdicts. Manning Law emphasizes this trend to potential clients, noting that the $56 million settlement reflects the seriousness of privacy violations and the value courts place on protecting consumer privacy.
Representative CIPA Cases Filed by Manning Law
Manning Law has filed numerous CIPA cases, often in partnership with Jarrett Charo APC. Representative cases include:
- Hanson v. Bloomingdale’s.com, LLC (C.D. Cal. Case No. 5:25-cv-00494, filed February 24, 2025) – Plaintiff Kirra Hanson alleged Bloomingdale’s deployed TikTok Pixel and other tracking technologies without consent
- Castillo v. Nautica Retail USA LLC (L.A. County Superior Court) – Combined CIPA privacy claims with website accessibility allegations under the Unruh Civil Rights Act
- Sandoval v. Eco-Chic LLC (C.D. Cal., filed December 4, 2025) – Privacy and accessibility lawsuit
- Multiple cases with Jarrett Charo APC – Partnership cases against retailers, e-commerce companies, and major corporations
These cases typically allege deployment of specific tracking technologies including Google Analytics, Meta Pixel, TikTok Pixel, Microsoft Bing Ads, LinkedIn Insight Tag, and session replay software without proper consent mechanisms.
Website Accessibility Litigation
Leading ADA Litigation Firm
Manning Law, APC has established itself as one of the most active law firms in ADA website accessibility litigation nationally. According to EcomBack’s 2025 Mid-Year ADA Website Accessibility Lawsuit Report, Manning Law emerged as the leading filer in the first half of 2025, accounting for over 14% of all ADA website lawsuits filed during that period.
Volume and Scale:
- 2025 (First Half): Leading firm with over 280 lawsuits filed
- 2023: 316 lawsuits filed, making Manning Law one of the top four most active firms
- Total: Thousands of lawsuits filed against small businesses and property owners over technical ADA violations
The firm’s ADA practice spans both physical accessibility barriers (parking lots, building entrances, interior accommodations) and digital accessibility (websites and mobile applications).
The Robles v. Domino’s Pizza Precedent
Manning Law achieved a landmark victory in Robles v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, a case that established critical precedent for website accessibility under the ADA and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling confirmed that the ADA applies to websites and mobile applications to ensure persons with disabilities are provided with “effective communication” and “full and equal access.”
This precedent-setting case has become the foundation for Manning Law’s extensive website accessibility practice. The firm emphasizes that there can “no longer be any doubt” that websites and mobile apps offered by public accommodations—including restaurants, retail stores, and hotels—must be accessible to persons with disabilities.
Serial Plaintiffs and Filing Patterns
Manning Law works with a consistent group of plaintiffs who file high volumes of accessibility lawsuits. According to industry reports and defense attorney analyses, the firm’s primary plaintiffs include:
- Michael Sandoval – Filed 114 lawsuits in the first half of 2025 alone, accounting for 5.66% of all ADA website lawsuits nationally. Sandoval is also the plaintiff in many of Manning Law’s combined CIPA/accessibility cases.
- Perla Mageno – Filed 55 lawsuits in first half of 2025, 172 lawsuits in 2023 (making her the most active filer that year), and 199 lawsuits in 2022. Court documents reveal Mageno typically does not return to websites or physical restaurants after settlement.
- Rebecca Castillo – Filed 52 lawsuits in first half of 2025. Also plaintiff in CIPA tracking cases.
- Other frequent plaintiffs: James Rutherford, Anthony Bouyer, James Shayler, Carmen John Perri, George Avalos, Suzanne Na Pier, Poupak Barekat, Kayla Reed, Jennifer Carbine, Cesar Cotto, and Biglang-Awa Castro Sheila
Defense attorneys have characterized some of these individuals as “serial litigants” who file hundreds of cases annually, with settlements often driven by desire to avoid mounting attorney fees rather than actual accessibility concerns.
Common Accessibility Violations Alleged
Manning Law’s accessibility lawsuits typically allege one or more of the following violations:
Website/Digital Barriers:
- Lack of proper screen-reader compatibility for visually impaired users
- Missing alt-text for images
- Insufficient keyboard navigation
- Inadequate color contrast
- Non-compliant form fields and error messages
Physical Barriers:
- Excessive slopes in parking spaces designated for persons with disabilities
- Inadequate accessible parking signage
- Obstructed paths of travel
- Non-compliant building entrances and interiors
Legal Claims and Statutory Framework
Manning Law’s accessibility cases invoke multiple legal frameworks:
- Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) – Federal law requiring public accommodations to provide equal access
- Unruh Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code § 51 et seq.) – California law providing for $4,000 minimum statutory damages per violation, plus attorney fees
- California Building Code – State construction standards for physical accessibility
The Unruh Act’s $4,000 minimum penalty creates significant liability even for minor technical violations, making California an attractive venue for accessibility litigation. When combined with attorney fees and costs, even small businesses face substantial settlement pressure.
Controversy and Legal Challenges
Riverside County District Attorney Action
Manning Law and its attorneys have faced significant legal scrutiny. The Riverside County District Attorney’s Office filed a civil action against James Rutherford (a frequent plaintiff), attorneys Joseph Manning Jr., Babak Hashemi, Craig Cote, and Michael Manning, as well as the Law Offices of Babak Hashemi and Manning Law, APC.
The DA’s complaint alleged two causes of action:
- Unfair Competition Law (Business and Professions Code § 17200)
- False Advertising Law (Business and Professions Code § 17500)
According to the DA’s office, the defendants filed more than 100 lawsuits against individuals and small businesses in Riverside County alleging ADA violations. The complaint accused the defendants of:
- Specifically identifying small businesses for the purpose of targeting them with fraudulent lawsuits
- Making misrepresentations in legal documents filed with courts
- Pursuing monetary settlements through allegedly illegitimate means
The DA’s office noted that Rutherford had been a party-plaintiff in more than 200 separate ADA lawsuits filed by these defendants against businesses in San Diego, Orange, Los Angeles, and San Bernardino counties. While acknowledging full support for accessibility rights for disabled persons, the DA stated that “individuals who make false statements in court and the attorneys who manipulate these laws do so for the purpose of illegitimate financial gain.”
Defense Attorney and Industry Criticism
Defense attorneys and business advocacy groups have characterized Manning Law’s practices as part of a broader “ADA shakedown” ecosystem. Common criticisms include:
- Serial Filing Patterns: Just 31 plaintiffs filed over 50% of ADA website lawsuits in first half of 2025, with Manning Law representing several of the highest-volume filers
- Settlement-Driven Model: Lawsuits allegedly designed to extract settlements rather than achieve meaningful accessibility improvements
- Small Business Targeting: Over three-quarters of 2023 ADA website lawsuits were against companies with less than $25 million in revenue
- Technical Violations: Focus on minor accessibility issues that may not prevent actual access
- Attorney Fee Recovery: Settlements driven by desire to avoid mounting legal costs rather than substantive accessibility concerns
Defense law firm JMBM warned businesses about Manning Law’s practices, noting the firm has filed “hundreds of Unruh/ADA suits” and providing specific defense strategies for companies sued by the firm. The firm Karlin Law described an “avalanche” of lawsuits that can “bankrupt many small and tiny businesses.”
Manning Law’s Response and Position
Manning Law maintains that its accessibility litigation serves an important public purpose in enforcing disability rights. The firm’s website states:
“We know that, like virtually everyone in the modern world, persons with disabilities use the internet as an indispensable tool to receive information about businesses and their services and we are dedicated to making equal accessibility to these services a reality one case at a time!”
The firm emphasizes:
- Valid ADA complaints highlight areas where accessibility improvements are needed
- Resolving accessibility issues leads to positive changes benefiting the entire community
- The firm takes “great pride in the service we render to the community of persons with disabilities”
Senior counsel Craig G. Cote stated that “these small, seemingly mundane cases are where the rubber meets the road in ADA enforcement,” while co-founder Michael J. Manning expressed pride in the firm’s work “from this case to our precedent setting litigation making websites and mobile applications accessible to the visually impaired.”
Personal Injury Practice
Beyond privacy and accessibility litigation, Manning Law maintains a traditional personal injury practice representing clients injured in vehicle accidents, slip-and-fall accidents, dog bites, and other serious accidents in Newport Beach and throughout Orange County.
Practice Areas:
- Motor vehicle accidents (car, truck, motorcycle)
- Premises liability (slip and fall, dangerous conditions)
- Dog bites and animal attacks
- Catastrophic injuries
- Wrongful death
The firm operates on a contingency fee basis for personal injury cases, meaning clients pay no upfront costs and fees are only collected if the case is won. Client testimonials praise the firm’s compassionate approach, clear communication, and ability to reduce stress during difficult times.
The Evolving Privacy and Accessibility Litigation Landscape
CIPA Legislative Developments
The surge in CIPA website tracking litigation has prompted legislative response. California State Senator Anna Caballero introduced Senate Bill 690 in February 2025, aimed at curtailing what some characterize as abusive CIPA lawsuits based on standard website technologies.
Courts have also expressed skepticism about applying a 1960s wiretapping law to modern analytics. However, significant settlements and jury verdicts—including the $56 million settlement and Meta verdict cited by Manning Law—suggest these cases carry substantial risk for defendants.
ADA Website Accessibility Trends
Website accessibility litigation continues to accelerate. In the first half of 2025 alone, 2,014 ADA website lawsuits were filed—a 37% increase from the previous period. Manning Law’s position as the leading filer demonstrates the firm’s commitment to this area despite ongoing controversy.
California laws like AB 434 now require government websites to be accessible, and proposed legislation like AB 1757 may extend requirements further. The firm’s blog warns businesses not to rely on AI-automated accessibility remediation, noting that “website content managers cannot yet rely on accessibility widgets and scanners.”
Google Incognito Aftermath
The Google Incognito settlement represents a watershed moment in digital privacy enforcement. While class members received no direct monetary damages, the requirement that Google delete billions of browsing records and the availability of individual claims creates ongoing litigation opportunities.
Manning Law’s partnership with Mass Tort Alliance positions the firm to participate in what could be years of individual claims against Google. The settlement also signals increased judicial willingness to scrutinize tech companies’ privacy practices, potentially emboldening similar claims against other platforms.
Implications for Businesses
Multi-Front Litigation Risk
Businesses operating in California face potential exposure from multiple angles through firms like Manning Law:
- CIPA Privacy Claims: Standard website tracking tools may generate up to $5,000 per violation claims
- Website Accessibility: Failure to comply with WCAG standards triggers Unruh Act claims ($4,000 minimum per violation) plus attorney fees
- Physical Accessibility: Parking, entrance, and interior barriers generate additional ADA/Unruh claims
- Combined Claims: Many Manning Law cases allege both privacy violations and accessibility issues in the same complaint
Defensive Strategies
Legal experts recommend several measures for businesses to reduce exposure:
For CIPA Claims:
- Implement robust cookie consent banners requiring affirmative user action
- Audit all tracking technologies and third-party integrations
- Update privacy policies to clearly disclose all data collection practices
- Consider reducing reliance on third-party tracking tools
For Accessibility Claims:
- Conduct professional WCAG 2.1 AA compliance audits
- Implement manual code-level accessibility fixes (not just widgets)
- Test with actual assistive technology users
- Address physical accessibility barriers proactively
- Document all accessibility improvement efforts
When Demand Letters Arrive:
- Respond promptly—defense attorneys warn Manning Law may file suit within weeks if no response is received
- Engage experienced ADA/CIPA defense counsel immediately
- Document plaintiff’s actual use of the website/facility if possible
- Evaluate standing defenses and other jurisdictional challenges
How To Protect Against Manning Law California Privacy Litigation
Protect against privacy lawsuits by using a privacy software like the ones offered by Captain Compliance. Manning Law, APC represents a significant force in California’s privacy and accessibility litigation landscape. Through its CIPA website tracking cases, participation in the Google Incognito investigation, and extensive ADA accessibility practice, the firm has positioned itself at the intersection of multiple high-stakes legal trends.
The firm’s aggressive litigation strategy—evidenced by hundreds of cases filed annually, partnerships with serial plaintiffs, and willingness to pursue both small businesses and major corporations—has generated both praise from disability rights advocates and criticism from defense attorneys and business groups who characterize the practice as driven by settlement revenue rather than meaningful reform.
Recent developments, including the $56 million Google/Flo Health settlement and Meta jury verdict in CIPA cases, suggest courts and juries take privacy violations seriously. Similarly, the firm’s Robles v. Domino’s precedent has cemented website accessibility as an enforceable requirement under federal and California law.
For businesses operating in California, Manning Law’s multi-front approach creates substantial exposure. Companies must navigate CIPA privacy claims, website accessibility requirements, and physical accommodation standards—with potential statutory penalties reaching thousands of dollars per violation plus attorney fees.
Whether viewed as a champion of disability rights and privacy protection or as a high-volume litigation operation exploiting statutory penalties, Manning Law’s impact on California business practices is undeniable. The firm’s continued expansion into CIPA litigation, partnership with Mass Tort Alliance on the Google Incognito investigation, and sustained position as the leading ADA website accessibility filer suggest this influence will only grow.
As courts continue to grapple with applying decades-old statutes to modern digital practices, and as legislative reforms are proposed and debated, Manning Law appears committed to aggressive enforcement regardless of controversy. For businesses, the message is clear: proactive compliance with privacy and accessibility requirements is no longer optional but essential to avoiding costly litigation from firms like Manning Law, APC.
Contact Information
Manning Law, APC
26100 Towne Centre Drive
Foothill Ranch, CA 92610
Phone: (949) 200-8755
Toll Free: (800) 783-5006
Email (Privacy): privacy@manninglawoffice.com
Email (General): joe@manninglawoffice.com
Website: www.manninglawapc.com
