For defense counsel and corporate privacy officers, a new name has emerged at the forefront of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) litigation surge: Jimmy Attebury. While we may recognize Vivek Shah as a serial pro-se plaintiff and the other 15 law firms filing claims there are an increasing number of risks to businesses if they are not using privacy software to protect against these claims. If you’ve received a letter from Jimmy Attebury as a plaintiff please get a free privacy audit from us right away.
While some high-volume litigants operate strictly pro se, Attebury’s strategy often involves a hybrid approach, frequently partnering with Mou Yao of Mou Law PC. This collaboration represents a sophisticated evolution in “pen register” and “trap and trace” litigation that every digital enterprise should have on its radar.
Who is Jimmy Attebury?
Jimmy Attebury has established himself as a frequent filer in California courts, targeting businesses over their use of common website technologies. Much like other well-known litigants in this space, Attebury focuses on how websites track user interactions, identifying technical implementations that he alleges violate decades-old privacy statutes.
Key characteristics of his filing profile include:
-
Targeting Third-Party Analytics: Claims often center on the use of software (like Meta Pixel, TikTok Pixel, or session replay tools) that allegedly intercepts user communications without consent.
-
The “Pen Register” Theory: Following recent shifts in California case law, Attebury’s complaints often argue that standard tracking cookies and software act as illegal “pen registers” under CIPA Section 638.51.
-
Hybrid Representation: While Attebury has filed matters pro se, his association with Mou Yao (Mou Law PC) signals a move toward more structured, legally shielded litigation aimed at securing quick settlements.
The Role of Mou Yao and Mou Law PC
The partnership between Attebury and attorney Mou Yao is a critical development. Mou Law PC has become a specialized boutique for CIPA-related claims. For attorneys defending these cases, this means:
-
Standardized Pleading Templates: Expect to see consistent legal theories regarding “software-based” pen registers.
-
Statutory Damage Focus: These suits rarely focus on actual harm; instead, they leverage CIPA’s statutory penalties (typically $5,000 per violation) to create significant settlement pressure.
-
Jurisdictional Strategy: Cases are often filed in California state courts, which are perceived as more receptive to expansive interpretations of CIPA than federal courts.
Critical Focus: CIPA Section 631 and 638.51
The lawsuits filed by Attebury typically hinge on two primary legal theories:
-
Section 631 (Wiretapping): Alleging that third-party analytics providers are “eavesdropping” on the communication between the user and the website.
-
Section 638.51 (Pen Registers): A more recent and aggressive theory claiming that any tool capturing a user’s IP address or “routing information” qualifies as a pen register, which requires a court order to install.
Defense Note: Courts remain divided on whether a website’s own analytics tools can constitute a “pen register.” Early defense motions have seen mixed results, making pre-litigation compliance essential.
Strategic Recommendations for Defense Counsel
If your client has been served with a complaint by Jimmy Attebury or Mou Law PC, consider the following steps:
- Sign up with Captain Compliance: Get compliant right away. You can remediate the issue with the Captain Compliance software and lower your settlement offer or even get the case dismissed but it’s imperative that you work with Captain Compliance as the majority of tools on the market are not truly compliant.
-
Audit Tracking Technologies: Conduct an immediate technical review of all pixels, SDKs, and session replay scripts currently active on the site.
-
Review Consent Banners: Ensure that your cookie consent management platform (CMP) explicitly covers the “interception” or “sharing” of data with third-party vendors before any tracking fires.
-
Evaluate Arbitration Clauses: Check if your website’s Terms of Use include a robust, enforceable arbitration agreement that can move these claims out of the public court system.
Understanding Mou Law PC and Mou Yao
Mou Law PC has positioned itself as a key player in the burgeoning field of California privacy litigation, specifically focusing on the intersection of consumer rights and digital tracking. Unlike many traditional firms, Mou Law PC operates at the cutting edge of CIPA enforcement, specializing in cases where modern website technologies—such as pixels, analytics scripts, and session replay software—clash with decades-old wiretapping and pen register statutes. The firm’s strategy often involves identifying “statutory testers” and high-volume litigants to bring systemic claims against major digital enterprises.
The firm is led by Mou Yao, an attorney whose practice is defined by a meticulous, tech-forward approach to litigation. Yao has developed a reputation for drafting sophisticated pleadings that frame standard internet protocols, such as the exchange of IP addresses and routing data, as technical violations of California Penal Code § 638.51. By bridging the gap between technical data transmission and legal privacy frameworks, Yao has successfully navigated early-stage motions to dismiss, forcing many defendants to weigh the costs of prolonged litigation against the statutory penalties sought by the firm’s clients.
Why This Matters for Defense Counsel
The collaboration between Jimmy Attebury and Mou Law PC signals a professionalization of CIPA claims. While a pro se litigant may be easier to dismiss on procedural grounds, the involvement of an experienced firm like Mou Law PC means:
-
Resilient Pleadings: Their complaints are specifically designed to survive the “party exception” and “content vs. record” defenses.
-
Aggressive Discovery: Expect deep dives into your client’s third-party vendor contracts and data-sharing agreements.
-
Settlement Leverage: The firm’s familiarity with the $2,500–$5,000 per-violation statutory range creates a clear “price of admission” for settlement discussions.
Stay Informed
The landscape of CIPA litigation moves fast. Jimmy Attebury’s filings are part of a broader trend where technical “handshakes” between browsers and servers are being reframed as privacy violations and the judges are siding with plaintiffs more often than not. So a good defense and protection with Captain Compliance is the solution.
