CIPA Record

Release 1 Docket Ledger

Mon, 20 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000

Read this table correctly

This is a case-identification ledger, not a scorecard and not a claim that every docket proves a California Invasion of Privacy Act violation. A cross-reference in a defendant-filed Request for Judicial Notice can establish that a case belongs in the public litigation inventory; it cannot turn a party’s allegation into a court finding.

Release-1 count: 14 federal dockets are publicly cross-referenced to the CIPA/wiretap campaign or carry a direct wire-interception cause code. Three more are held in the probable bucket because their complaint text has not been independently reviewed. Four state-court identifiers are recorded separately because the underlying state files are not available through the free federal docket archive.

Shah v. TalentBridge, Inc.

Mon, 20 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000

What the public record supports

The public Ninth Circuit docket index identifies the appeal as Shah v. Talentbridge, Inc., No. 26-3514, arising from C.D. California No. 2:26-cv-00222-AH-SSCx. A public docket index lists a May 28, 2026 notice of appeal and later activity concerning costs.

Glaser Weil, counsel for TalentBridge, reports that the district court dismissed the action for lack of Article III standing and describes the dismissal as without leave to amend. That statement is counsel’s account of the result, not a substitute for the district-court order. This release therefore records the dismissal and the appeal separately.

Shah v. Pashion Footwear Inc.

Mon, 20 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000

Docketed event sequence

The public docket index records a May 7, 2026 petition to vacate an arbitration award, a supporting declaration, and a June 2, 2026 notice of voluntary dismissal filed by Vivek Shah. Those are the events this entry treats as verified.

Limits of the record

Legal reporting has described an arbitrator’s treatment of CIPA and federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act claims. The underlying arbitration materials are not included in this release’s primary-source archive. For that reason, this page does not state the arbitrator’s reasoning, whether leave to amend was denied, or whether any merits ruling should be generalized beyond the matter.

Shah v. Card Delivery LLC

Mon, 20 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000

Docketed event sequence

CourtListener’s PACER/RECAP docket page records a complaint filed by Vivek Shah against Card Delivery LLC on September 9, 2025. It also records proof of service and a November 22, 2025 notice of voluntary dismissal filed by Shah. The docket text specifies that the dismissal was with prejudice.

What this outcome means — and does not mean

A voluntary dismissal with prejudice is a docketed procedural outcome. This project does not infer a settlement amount, a merits determination, or a reason for dismissal absent a source that establishes one.

Lofty Inc. v. Shah

Mon, 20 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000

What was filed

The public docket index identifies Lofty Inc. as plaintiff and Vivek Shah as movant/defendant in C.D. California No. 2:26-cv-07425. The complaint was filed July 8, 2026. The docket index identifies three attached exhibits: an initial demand letter, a response from Lofty, and a Shah reply.

How this site reports the claims

Lofty’s complaint is a party pleading. The project’s description of its requested declaratory relief and any asserted absence of CIPA liability is therefore attributed to Lofty. The existence of attached demand-letter exhibits is a docket fact; the truth of either side’s allegations is not adjudicated by their presence on the docket.

Ovadia Law Group, P.A. v. Shah

Mon, 20 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000

What was filed

A publicly accessible filing PDF identifies a complaint filed by Ovadia Law Group, P.A. against Vivek Shah in the Southern District of Florida on June 26, 2026. Public docket reporting identifies the case as No. 0:26-cv-80766 and records an amended complaint.

The complaint’s assertions about a demand letter, CIPA’s application, jurisdiction, and alleged damages are Ovadia’s allegations. They are not findings by the court.

Why this action matters to the record

This is one of the publicly documented declaratory actions filed by an alleged recipient of a Shah demand. It is included because the complaint and docket are publicly accessible, not because this site adopts either party’s legal theory.

Corrections Policy

Mon, 20 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000

How to request a correction

Open an issue in the public repository with:

the URL and quoted sentence to correct;
a primary source, docket number, official bill page, or durable public-record link;
a short explanation of the discrepancy;
whether the source changes an allegation label, procedural event, party identity, or case status.

Do not submit private contact information, sealed material, personal addresses, payment instructions, or unverified claims.

Review standard

Corrections that are supported by a primary public record are prioritized. If the best available evidence is competing commentary, the entry will be changed to describe the disagreement rather than select a side without a court record.

Demand Letters: What the Public Sources Actually Show

Mon, 20 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000

The reported theory

A published legal analysis describes letters attributed to Vivek Shah that allege a website’s search bar or form sent text entered by a visitor to third-party analytics or advertising vendors without prior consent. The analysis says the letters invoke California Penal Code section 631(a), characterize the transmission as an interception in transit, and may point to browser network-request screenshots.

That is the reported content of the letters. It is not a judicial finding that every recipient’s site transmitted the same data, that every transmission violated CIPA, or that the reporting source has authenticated every letter it describes.

Identity Controls & Exclusions

Mon, 20 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000

Names are not identifiers

A person’s name in a docket is not enough to link that person to a different docket, a news story, an employer, a photograph, a social profile, or another person’s criminal or civil record. This project uses the court party, forum, case number, and source document as the identity boundary.

The project deliberately does not publish private contact details, family information, images sourced from social media, or employment speculation. It also does not ask readers to submit tips about a person.

Methodology

Mon, 20 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000

Editorial standard

CIPA Record is an evidence-first public research project. It exists to make a legal record auditable — not to campaign against, threaten, identify, contact, or harass any person or business.

Class	Meaning	What it can support
A	Official or court-filed public record	Statutory text, filed-event identity, and court rulings only when the order says so.
B	Public docket mirror or index	Docketed procedural events and document titles.
C	Clearly attributed reporting	A source’s report or characterization, never an unqualified finding.

Inclusion rules

A matter may enter the cross-referenced inventory when a direct public docket, a court-filed exhibit, or a public source identifies both a court and a case number. It becomes a probable matter when the docket is known but the operative claim has not been independently reviewed. State-court identifiers referenced only through a federal exhibit are held in their own category.

SB 690: Current Text and Legislative Posture

Mon, 20 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000

Status as of July 20, 2026

SB 690 is active, not enacted. The official California Legislature history records that the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee passed the bill as amended on July 1, 2026 (14–0). The Assembly amended it on July 2 and re-referred it to Assembly Appropriations.

That primary record controls over older articles describing the bill as a 2025 “two-year bill” or as stalled. The bill still must clear Assembly Appropriations and the Assembly floor, return to the Senate for concurrence if needed, and reach the Governor before it can become law.

Source Register

Mon, 20 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000

How to use this register

Every entry in the site should resolve to a primary court or legislative record when one is public. Where the underlying document is not publicly retrievable, the site labels the claim as attributed reporting rather than quietly treating it as fact.

A — Court filings, orders, and official legislative records

California SB 690 bill text and official action history. These establish the current bill text and official legislative actions.
TalentBridge ECF 14 — Request for Judicial Notice. This is a defendant-filed index of earlier litigation and attachments. It establishes that the filing and its descriptions were made; it does not establish that every characterized claim is true.
Crain ECF 12 — motion and 26 exhibits. It publicly identifies the motion as a request to declare the plaintiff vexatious and require security. That is a party request, not a court ruling.
**Mondelez docket, Amplitude docket, Card Delivery docket, TalentBridge docket, Crain docket, and Udemy docket. These support the docket events and listed filings stated in the ledger.
Lofty docket and Wild Alaskan docket. These establish the public dockets and filing posture. They do not establish the truth of a complaint’s allegations.

B — Public docket indexes and copies

Ninth Circuit appeal 26-3514. Supports that the appeal was docketed; it does not resolve the appeal.
Pashion Footwear federal docket index. Supports the federal petition and listed procedural events. The underlying arbitration award is not published in this release.
Ovadia Law Group docket index. Supports that the action exists; allegations in the complaint remain allegations.

C — Clearly attributed reporting

Fisher Phillips demand-letter report. Used only for its named reporting about demand packets, claimed volume, and the Pashion arbitration account.
Jeffer demand-letter analysis. Used for a reported representative template and legal-theory description, not as authentication of every demand letter.
Fisher Phillips SB 690 article. Used as a reported hearing-account source only. Current status and text are taken from the Legislature record.
Glaser Weil client alert. Used only as a clearly labeled defense-side account of client litigation.

The repository contains the release machine-readable source register and an editorial standard that explains these boundaries.