Report
felsen-v-vanguard
63 authorities checked
How this report was built
AI inference calls
0
Citations parsed
63
Sources queried
7
Cornell LII, CourtListener, Federal court adapters, Internet Archive (RECAP), State code databases, Web search republishers, govinfo
Source texts retrieved
57
Quotes checked
60
48 matched in source text
Verification runs deterministically against authoritative public databases. Your brief is not sent to OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, or any other third-party model.
Click any citation below to see how we verified it, the matched source, and a per-quote breakdown.
§Authorities
|
1 Allen v. Midwest Express Care, Inc., 2025 WL 2240253 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 6, 2025) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
We couldn't independently confirm the reporter triple, but we believe this is the matching case based on CourtListener's docket index. Matched docket: “Allen v. Midwest Express Care”.
View matched docket on CourtListener →
2 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 2 of 2 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Ashcroft v. Iqbal”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“detailed factual allegations are not required,”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
3 Atkins v. Amplitude, Inc., 2025 WL 2521732 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2025) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 1 of 1 located
How we matched this
We couldn't independently confirm the reporter triple, but we believe this is the matching case based on CourtListener's docket index. Matched docket: “Atkins v. Amplitude, Inc”.
View matched docket on CourtListener →
View case page on GovInfo →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“Disclosure of facts that allegedly reveal this highly sensitive information is sufficient to allege a concrete privacy harm analogous to those actionable under common law privacy torts.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
4 Baker v. City of Pittsburgh, 2025 WL 33637 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 6, 2025) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· medium confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 1 of 1 located
How we matched this
We couldn't independently confirm the reporter triple, but we believe this is the matching case based on CourtListener's docket index.
View matched docket on CourtListener →
View opinion on GovInfo →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“The common law tort of intrusion upon seclusion, the federal Wiretap Act, and WESCA address the same underlying interest: keeping one's private conversations private.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
5 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
6 Brown v. Google LLC, 525 F. Supp. 3d 1049 (N.D. Cal. 2021) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· medium confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 2 of 2 located
How we matched this
The brief's reporter triple is independently confirmed by leagle.com's volume index, and CourtListener's docket index identifies the same case.
View matched docket on CourtListener →
View opinion on GovInfo →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“consent is not a defense where the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion. Brief signaled: “(cleaned up)”.
“Under this exception, Plaintiffs must allege that either the 'primary motivation or a determining factor in [the interceptor's] actions has been to injure plaintiffs tortiously.'”
Found, treating [bracketed] text in the quote as flexible.
7 Brown v. Google, LLC, 685 F. Supp. 3d 909 (N.D. Cal. 2023) flagged
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· medium confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
1 of 3 located
Why we flagged this
- At least one attributed quote wasn't located in the retrieved text.
How we matched this
The brief's reporter triple is independently confirmed by leagle.com's volume index, and CourtListener's docket index identifies the same case.
View matched docket on CourtListener →
View opinion on GovInfo →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“[c]ontent is defined to 'include[ ] any information concerning the substance, purport, or meaning of [the] communication.'”
Not found in the cited opinion. We tried exact matching, bracketed substitutions, ellipsis-split joins, and punctuation-tolerant matching — none matched.
“full-string detailed URL[s]”
Not found in the cited opinion. We tried exact matching, bracketed substitutions, ellipsis-split joins, and punctuation-tolerant matching — none matched.
“users' actions on a website, and their search queries”
This quote does not appear in the cited opinion's text, but may be a canonical restatement of the opinion — the language appears in another opinion this brief cites.
8 Caraffa v. TD Bank, N.A., 2025 WL 2319668 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 12, 2025) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· medium confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
We couldn't independently confirm the reporter triple, but we believe this is the matching case based on CourtListener's docket index.
View matched docket on CourtListener →
9 Castillo v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 2024 WL 4785136 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 14, 2024) flagged
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· medium confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
0 of 2 located
Why we flagged this
- At least one attributed quote wasn't located in the retrieved text.
How we matched this
We couldn't independently confirm the reporter triple, but we believe this is the matching case based on CourtListener's docket index. Matched docket: “Castillo v. Costco Wholesale Corporation”.
View matched docket on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“[t]he Wiretap Act does not distinguish between the use of communications and a separate criminal or tortious purpose. Indeed, the use of intercepted communications is often the criminal or tortious purpose.”
Not found in the cited opinion. We tried exact matching, bracketed substitutions, ellipsis-split joins, and punctuation-tolerant matching — none matched.
“Plaintiffs allege that Costco not only intercepted their data, but also used their data to generate targeted advertisements for financial gain.”
Not found in the cited opinion. We tried exact matching, bracketed substitutions, ellipsis-split joins, and punctuation-tolerant matching — none matched.
10 Chabolla v. ClassPass Inc., 129 F.4th 1147 (9th Cir. 2025) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Katherine Chabolla v. Classpass, Inc”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
11 Chilutti v. Uber Techs., Inc., 2023 PA Super 126, 300 A.3d 430 (2023) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 1 of 1 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Chilutti, S. v. Uber Technologies, Inc”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“in which a website offers terms that are disclosed only through a hyperlink, and the user supposedly manifests assent to [the] terms simply by continuing to use the website.”
Found, treating [bracketed] text in the quote as flexible.
12 Cook v. GameStop, Inc., 689 F. Supp. 3d 58 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 28, 2023) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· medium confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 1 of 1 located
How we matched this
The brief's reporter triple is independently confirmed by leagle.com's volume index, and CourtListener's docket index identifies the same case.
View matched docket on CourtListener →
View opinion on GovInfo →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“neither internet browsing activity nor email addresses qualify as private or personal information.”
This quote does not appear in the cited opinion's text, but may be a canonical restatement of the opinion — the language appears in another opinion this brief cites.
13 Dep't of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of Press, 489 U.S. 749 (1989) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 1 of 1 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “United States Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“both the common law and the literal understandings of privacy.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
14 Doe v. Tenet Healthcare Corp., 2025 WL 1635956 (E.D. Cal. June 9, 2025) flagged
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· medium confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
0 of 1 located
Why we flagged this
- At least one attributed quote wasn't located in the retrieved text.
How we matched this
We couldn't independently confirm the reporter triple, but we believe this is the matching case based on CourtListener's docket index. Matched docket: “Doe v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation”.
View matched docket on CourtListener →
View case page on GovInfo →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“each allege facts showing they used Defendants' Web Properties, submitted personal information, and Defendants invaded their privacy rights by disclosing their information to third parties without consent using tracking technology embedded on Defendants' Web Properties. At the pleading stage, Plaintiffs allegations are sufficient to establish standing.”
Not found in the cited opinion. We tried exact matching, bracketed substitutions, ellipsis-split joins, and punctuation-tolerant matching — none matched.
15 Doe, v. Call-On Doc, Inc., 2025 WL 1677632 (S.D. Cal. June 13, 2025) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· medium confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
We couldn't independently confirm the reporter triple, but we believe this is the matching case based on CourtListener's docket index.
View matched docket on CourtListener →
View opinion on GovInfo →
16 Forman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) brief quality flagged
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· medium confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 1 of 1 located
Brief-quality observations
- Case name in the brief looks like a typo of the official record.
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Foman v. Davis”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“Rule 15(a) declares that leave to amend 'shall be freely given when justice so requires; this mandate is to be heeded.'”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
17 Frasco v. Flo Health, Inc., 349 F.R.D. 557 (N.D. Cal. 2025) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· medium confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 4 of 4 located
How we matched this
We couldn't independently confirm the reporter triple, but we believe this is the matching case based on CourtListener's docket index.
View matched docket on CourtListener →
View opinion on GovInfo →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“Put in terms of standing, the loss of control over one's personal information is the "concrete" harm, whether from stealing access to a personal diary in 1916 or obtaining user information in a healthcare app in 2016. In each case, a person has lost control over her private information because of another's intentional actions.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“concrete”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“[T]he harm made actionable at common law was an individual's loss of control over her private affairs or concerns by an interloper's tortious intentional interference.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion. Brief signaled: “(cleaned up)”.
“has lost control over her private information because of another's intentional actions.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
18 Gabrielli v. Motorola Mobility LLC, 2025 WL 1939957 (N.D. Cal. July 14, 2025) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· medium confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 1 of 1 located
How we matched this
We couldn't independently confirm the reporter triple, but we believe this is the matching case based on CourtListener's docket index.
View matched docket on CourtListener →
View opinion on GovInfo →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“[I]t is premature to dismiss Gabrielli's claims based on a determination of how offensive or serious the privacy intrusion is.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
19 Greenley v. Kochava, Inc., 684 F. Supp. 3d 1024 (S.D. Cal. 2023) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· medium confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 2 of 2 located
How we matched this
The brief's reporter triple is independently confirmed by leagle.com's volume index, and CourtListener's docket index identifies the same case.
View matched docket on CourtListener →
View opinion on GovInfo →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“geolocation … personal choices, [and] app selections,”
Found in the opinion.
“inability to control or prevent the unauthorized exploration of his private affairs is the root of the alleged injury.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
20 Hogan v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2022 WL 952763 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 30, 2022) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
We couldn't independently confirm the reporter triple, but we believe this is the matching case based on CourtListener's docket index. Matched docket: “B.H., a minor by and through his legal guardian, Angela Hogan v. Amazon.com, Inc”.
View matched docket on CourtListener →
View case page on GovInfo →
21 Hughes v. Vivant, Inc., 2024 WL 5179916 (C.D. Cal. July 12, 2024) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· medium confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 1 of 1 located
How we matched this
We couldn't independently confirm the reporter triple, but we believe this is the matching case based on CourtListener's docket index.
View matched docket on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“Plaintiff does not allege any of the basic facts concerning her interaction with the Website, including when she visited it and what occurred during her visit.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
22 In re BPS Direct, LLC, 705 F. Supp. 3d 333 (E.D. Pa. 2023) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· medium confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 1 of 1 located
How we matched this
The brief's reporter triple is independently confirmed by leagle.com's volume index, and CourtListener's docket index identifies the same case.
View matched docket on CourtListener →
View opinion on GovInfo →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“Users who did not disclose highly sensitive personal information such as…financial data from banks or credit cards cannot establish concrete harm.”
Found — the brief joined separate passages with ellipses (Bluebook R. 5.3).
23 In re Facebook Biometric Info. Priv. Litig., 185 F. Supp. 3d 1155 (N.D. Cal. 2016) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 2 of 2 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “In re Facebook Biometric Information Privacy Litigation”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“Illinois will suffer a complete negation of its biometric privacy protections for its citizens if California law is applied”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“without regard to conflict of law provisions.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
24 In re Facebook, Inc. Internet Tracking Litig., 956 F.3d 589 (9th Cir. 2020) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 5 of 5 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Perrin Davis v. Facebook, Inc”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“Violations of the right to privacy have long been actionable at common law.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“control [] information concerning his or her person.”
Found, treating [bracketed] text in the quote as flexible.
“Facebook's user profiles would allegedly reveal an individual's likes, dislikes, interests, and habits over a significant amount of time, without affording users a meaningful opportunity to control or prevent the unauthorized exploration of their private lives.”
Found — the brief joined separate passages from the opinion.
“(1) there exists a reasonable expectation of privacy, and (2) the intrusion was highly offensive.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“is an issue that cannot be resolved at the pleading stage.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
25 In re Google RTB Consumer Priv. Litig., 606 F. Supp. 3d 935 (N.D. Cal. June 13, 2022) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· medium confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 3 of 3 located
How we matched this
The brief's reporter triple is independently confirmed by leagle.com's volume index, and CourtListener's docket index identifies the same case.
View matched docket on CourtListener →
View case page on GovInfo →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“referrer URL that caused navigation to the current page,”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“the publisher object of the site or app,”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“the content within the site or app”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
26 In re Nickelodeon Consumer Priv. Litig., 827 F.3d 262 (3rd Cir. 2016) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 2 of 2 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “In Re Nickelodeon Consumer Privacy Litigation”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“of information that, in Congress's judgment, ought to remain private,”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“Congress has long provided plaintiffs with the right to seek redress for unauthorized disclosures of information that, in Congress's judgment, ought to remain private.”
Found — the brief joined separate passages from the opinion.
27 In re Google Inc. Cookie Placement Consumer Priv. Litig., In re: Google Inc. Cookie Placement Consumer Priv. Litig., 934 F.3d 316 (3rd Cir. 2019) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 2 of 2 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “In Re: Google Inc. Cookie Plac v”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“In an era when millions of Americans conduct their affairs increasingly through electronic devices, [Defendant's] assertion…that federal courts are powerless to provide a remedy when an internet company surreptitiously collects private data is untenable.”
Found in the opinion.
“tracked their personal internet browsing information in violation [of Defendant's and the third parties'] own promises not to do so.”
Found, treating [bracketed] text in the quote as flexible.
28 Ingrao v. AddShoppers, Inc., 2024 WL 4892514 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 25, 2024) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
We couldn't independently confirm the reporter triple, but we believe this is the matching case based on CourtListener's docket index. Matched docket: “INGRAO v. ADDSHOPPERS, INC”.
View matched docket on CourtListener →
View case page on GovInfo →
29 James v. Walt Disney Co., 701 F. Supp. 3d 942 (N.D. Cal. 2023) retrieval gap
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· medium confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
No
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· opinion text unavailable
Why we couldn't check the quotes
We couldn't retrieve any opinion text for this citation from our public sources. The case may only be available on a paid service like Westlaw or Lexis. Without the text, we can't check whether the brief's quotes appear in the opinion.
Quotes attributed to this authority
These quotes have not been verified because the opinion text wasn't available.
specific web pages viewed, search terms entered, and purchase behavior
Not verified: opinion text unavailable.
30 Jones v. Ford Motor Co., 85 F.4th 570 (9th Cir. 2023) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· medium confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
The brief's reporter triple is independently confirmed by leagle.com's volume index, and CourtListener's docket index identifies the same case. Matched docket: “Mark Jones v. Ford Motor Company”.
View matched docket on CourtListener →
View case page on GovInfo →
31 Katz-Lacabe v. Oracle America, Inc., 668 F. Supp. 3d 928 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2023) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· medium confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 1 of 1 located
How we matched this
We couldn't independently confirm the reporter triple, but we believe this is the matching case based on CourtListener's docket index.
View matched docket on CourtListener →
View opinion on GovInfo →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“determinations of the egregiousness of the privacy intrusion are not usually resolved at the pleading stage.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
32 Kreider v. Green Robin Homes, LLC, 2025 WL 1582461 (E.D. Pa. June 4, 2025) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 2 of 2 located
How we matched this
We couldn't independently confirm the reporter triple, but we believe this is the matching case based on CourtListener's docket index. Matched docket: “KREIDER v. GREEN ROBIN HOMES, LLC”.
View matched docket on CourtListener →
View case page on GovInfo →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“Court may refuse to apply the chosen law 'to protect a fundamental policy' of the state that would govern in the absence of a choice of law provision, if that state 'has a materially greater interest than the state of the chosen law in the determination of the particular issue.'”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“regard must also be had for state interest and for state regulation”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
33 Marden v. LMND Med. Grp., Inc., 2024 WL 4448684 (N.D. Cal. July 3, 2024) pacer paywall only
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· medium confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
No
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· opinion text unavailable
How we matched this
We couldn't independently confirm the reporter triple, but we believe this is the matching case based on CourtListener's docket index.
Why we couldn't check the quotes
We couldn't retrieve any opinion text for this citation from our public sources. The case may only be available on a paid service like Westlaw or Lexis. Without the text, we can't check whether the brief's quotes appear in the opinion.
View matched docket on CourtListener →Quotes attributed to this authority
These quotes have not been verified because the opinion text wasn't available. Use the docket link above to locate the cited ruling and compare directly.
benefited from this interception by using the information to sell ads to other third-party advertisers.
Not verified: opinion text unavailable.
34 Murphy v. Thomas Jefferson University Hosp., Inc., 2024 WL 4350328 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 30, 2024) flagged
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· medium confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
0 of 1 located
Why we flagged this
- At least one attributed quote wasn't located in the retrieved text.
How we matched this
We couldn't independently confirm the reporter triple, but we believe this is the matching case based on CourtListener's docket index.
View matched docket on CourtListener →
View opinion on GovInfo →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“The Third Circuit has held that === Footnotes === to intercepting a communication 'for a criminal or tortious purpose to commit a criminal or tortious act.' But that's not what the text says. The 'act' must be criminal or tortious, but the 'purpose' does not need to be criminal or tortious.”
Not found in the cited opinion. We tried exact matching, bracketed substitutions, ellipsis-split joins, and punctuation-tolerant matching — none matched.
35 Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., 763 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2014) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 1 of 1 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Kevin Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
36 Oliver v. Noom, Inc., 2023 WL 8600576 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 22, 2023) brief quality flagged
Case exists as cited?
Not verified
Opinion text retrieved?
No
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· opinion text unavailable
Brief-quality observations
- Brief cites this case at W.D. Wash., but an exact-name docket exists at W.D. Pa.. Could be a brief typo or a separate ruling after a venue transfer.
Why we flagged this
- We couldn't independently verify this citation against our public sources.
- We couldn't retrieve the source text from any of our public sources.
Why we couldn't check the quotes
We couldn't retrieve any opinion text for this citation from our public sources. The case may only be available on a paid service like Westlaw or Lexis. Without the text, we can't check whether the brief's quotes appear in the opinion.
Quotes attributed to this authority
These quotes have not been verified because the opinion text wasn't available.
buried at the very bottom of the website in tiny, non-contrasting font that is unobtrusive and easy to overlook
Not verified: opinion text unavailable.
37 Patterson v. Respondus, Inc., 593 F. Supp. 3d 783 (N.D. Ill. 2022) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· medium confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 1 of 1 located
How we matched this
The brief's reporter triple is independently confirmed by leagle.com's volume index, and CourtListener's docket index identifies the same case.
View matched docket on CourtListener →
View opinion on GovInfo →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“would thus thwart Plaintiffs' individual right to assert biometric-privacy claims”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
38 Petris v. Sportsman's Warehouse, Inc., 736 F. Supp. 3d 260 (W.D. Pa. 2024) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· medium confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 1 of 1 located
How we matched this
The brief's reporter triple is independently confirmed by leagle.com's volume index, and CourtListener's docket index identifies the same case.
View matched docket on CourtListener →
View opinion on GovInfo →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“Originally ingrained into the common law, the right to privacy as to wiretapping has largely been supplanted by federal and state statutes, like the Federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2522, and its state analog, WESCA. Like the common law, WESCA protects the privacy rights of individuals.”
Found — the brief joined separate passages from the opinion.
39 Popa v. Harriet Carter Gifts, Inc., 772 F. Supp. 3d 592 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 24, 2025) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
The brief's reporter triple is independently confirmed by leagle.com's volume index, and CourtListener's docket index identifies the same case. Matched docket: “POPA v. HARRIET CARTER GIFTS, INC”.
View matched docket on CourtListener →
View case page on GovInfo →
40 R.C. v. Walgreen Co., 733 F. Supp. 3d 876 (C.D. Cal. 2024) pacer paywall only
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· medium confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
No
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· opinion text unavailable
How we matched this
The brief's reporter triple is independently confirmed by leagle.com's volume index, and CourtListener's docket index identifies the same case.
Why we couldn't check the quotes
We couldn't retrieve any opinion text for this citation from our public sources. The case may only be available on a paid service like Westlaw or Lexis. Without the text, we can't check whether the brief's quotes appear in the opinion.
View matched docket on CourtListener →Quotes attributed to this authority
These quotes have not been verified because the opinion text wasn't available. Use the docket link above to locate the cited ruling and compare directly.
URLs which disclose search terms that reveal website users' 'personal interests, queries, and habits' are 'contents' of communications under CIPA and ECPA.
Not verified: opinion text unavailable.
41 Ribas v. Clark, 38 Cal. 3d 355 (1985) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 1 of 1 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Ribas v. Clark”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“to control the nature and extent of the firsthand dissemination of his statements.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
42 Riganian v. LiveRamp Holdings, Inc., 2025 WL 2021802 (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2025) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· medium confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
We couldn't independently confirm the reporter triple, but we believe this is the matching case based on CourtListener's docket index.
View matched docket on CourtListener →
View opinion on GovInfo →
43 Santoro v. Tower Health, 2024 WL 1773371 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 24, 2024) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· medium confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 1 of 1 located
How we matched this
We couldn't independently confirm the reporter triple, but we believe this is the matching case based on CourtListener's docket index.
View matched docket on CourtListener →
View opinion on GovInfo →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“determine what information [plaintiff] actually communicated to [defendant] via his web browsing and thus cannot tell whether that information might be covered by HIPAA.”
Found, treating [bracketed] text in the quote as flexible.
44 Shah v. Capital One Financial Corp., 768 F. Supp. 3d 1033 (N.D. Cal. 2025) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· medium confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
The brief's reporter triple is independently confirmed by leagle.com's volume index, and CourtListener's docket index identifies the same case.
View matched docket on CourtListener →
45 Sinochem Int'l Co. Ltd. v. Malaysia Int'l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (2007) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Sinochem International Co. v. Malaysia International Shipping Corp”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
46 Smith v. Rack Room Shoes, Inc., 2025 WL 1085169 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2025) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· medium confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
We couldn't independently confirm the reporter triple, but we believe this is the matching case based on CourtListener's docket index. Matched docket: “Smith v. Rack Room Shoes, Inc”.
View matched docket on CourtListener →
View case page on GovInfo →
47 Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
48 St. Aubin v. Carbon Health Techs., Inc., 2024 WL 4369675 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2024) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· medium confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 1 of 1 located
How we matched this
We couldn't independently confirm the reporter triple, but we believe this is the matching case based on CourtListener's docket index.
View matched docket on CourtListener →
View opinion on GovInfo →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“Plaintiff provides examples of how her searches and appointment bookings create descriptive URLs”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
49 Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
50 Stein v. Edward-Elmhurst Health, 2025 WL 580556 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 21, 2025) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
We couldn't independently confirm the reporter triple, but we believe this is the matching case based on CourtListener's docket index. Matched docket: “Stein v. Edward Elmhurst Health”.
View matched docket on CourtListener →
51 Stevens v. TD Bank, N.A., 2025 WL 1779164 (D.N.J. June 27, 2025) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· medium confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 1 of 1 located
How we matched this
We couldn't independently confirm the reporter triple, but we believe this is the matching case based on CourtListener's docket index.
View matched docket on CourtListener →
View opinion on GovInfo →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“hypothetical visitor to TD's website do not suffice.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
52 Strehl v. Guitar Center, Inc., 2023 WL 9700041 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2023) flagged
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· medium confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
0 of 1 located
Why we flagged this
- At least one attributed quote wasn't located in the retrieved text.
How we matched this
We couldn't independently confirm the reporter triple, but we believe this is the matching case based on CourtListener's docket index. Matched docket: “Geoffrey Strehl v. Guitar Center, Inc”.
View matched docket on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“located at the bottom of the screen, where it is reasonable likely that it would not be visible to the user unless the user scrolled down or zoomed out”
Not found in the cited opinion. We tried exact matching, bracketed substitutions, ellipsis-split joins, and punctuation-tolerant matching — none matched.
53 TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 2 of 2 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“a plaintiff must show that (i) [they] suffered an injury in fact that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; (ii) that the injury was likely caused by the defendant; and (iii) that the injury would likely be redressed by judicial relief.”
Found — the brief joined separate passages from the opinion.
“Central to assessing concreteness is whether the asserted harm has a 'close relationship' to a harm traditionally recognized as providing a basis for lawsuits in American courts.”
This quote does not appear in the cited opinion's text, but may be a canonical restatement of the opinion — the language appears in another opinion this brief cites.
54 In re Facebook, Inc., Cons. Privacy User Profile Litig., 402 F. Supp. 3d 767 (N.D. Cal. 2019) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· medium confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
The brief's reporter triple is independently confirmed by leagle.com's volume index, and CourtListener's docket index identifies the same case.
View matched docket on CourtListener →
View opinion on GovInfo →
55 Yockey v. Salesforce, Inc., 688 F. Supp. 3d 962 (N.D. Cal. 2023) retrieval gap
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· medium confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
No
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· opinion text unavailable
Why we couldn't check the quotes
We couldn't retrieve any opinion text for this citation from our public sources. The case may only be available on a paid service like Westlaw or Lexis. Without the text, we can't check whether the brief's quotes appear in the opinion.
Quotes attributed to this authority
These quotes have not been verified because the opinion text wasn't available.
Statutes such as CIPA and WESCA thus 'codify a substantive right to privacy, the violation of which gives rise to a concrete injury sufficient to confer standing.'
Not verified: opinion text unavailable.
56 Chilutti v. Uber Techs., Inc., 325 A.3d 446 (Pa. 2024) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· low confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
We couldn't independently confirm the reporter triple, but we believe this is the matching case based on CourtListener's docket index.
View matched docket on CourtListener →
57 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2522 clean
Citation exists?
Pass
· high confidence
Source text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in source?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
Matched on Cornell Law's online code (LII).
View text on Cornell Law (LII) →
58 Cal. Penal Code § 630 clean
Citation exists?
Pass
· medium confidence
Source text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in source?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
Matched on the state code's official online publication.
View text on state code →
59 Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 187 manual verify
Citation exists?
Not verified
Source text retrieved?
No
Quotes found in source?
N/A
· no quotes to check
Please verify this one manually
This citation falls outside our automated coverage. Law reviews, treatises, restatements, and legislative packages predating govinfo's collection window don't have a free full-text source we can reliably retrieve. The citation itself looks well-formed; a reviewer with access to HeinOnline, Westlaw, Lexis, or a law library can confirm. This isn't a defect in the citation; it's a coverage gap in our automated sources.
60 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) clean
Citation exists?
Pass
· high confidence
Source text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in source?
Pass· 1 of 1 located
How we matched this
Matched on Cornell Law's online code (LII).
View text on Cornell Law (LII) →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Found word-for-word in the source text.
61 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) clean
Citation exists?
Pass
· high confidence
Source text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in source?
Pass· 1 of 1 located
How we matched this
Matched on Cornell Law's online code (LII).
View text on Cornell Law (LII) →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“fail[s]to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
Found, treating [bracketed] text in the quote as flexible.
62 Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure clean
Citation exists?
Pass
· high confidence
Source text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in source?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
Matched on Cornell Law's online code (LII).
View text on Cornell Law (LII) →
63 Rule 15(a) clean
Citation exists?
Pass
· high confidence
Source text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in source?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
Matched on Cornell Law's online code (LII).
View text on Cornell Law (LII) →
§Record & filing references (33)
Citations to filings in this case or its record — appendices, docket entries, pleadings. These aren't published authority, so we don't retrieve or verify them. They're listed here so every citation in the brief is accounted for.
ECF No. 13
docket filing
not verified
ECF No. 12
docket filing
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- Defendant operates an investment service through which consumers can manage brokerage, educational savings, or personal or workplace retirement accounts. To create an account, consumers must share personally identifying information, including their name and email address. Consumers can then purchase stocks and other investment products through their account. When users disclose such sensitive information to access these services, data privacy is paramount to maintaining consumer trust.
MTD at 8
party filing
not verified
FAC ¶¶ 6-8
party filing
not verified
App. Id. ¶ 5
appendix
not verified
FAC ¶ 2
party filing
not verified
FAC ¶¶ 17-19
party filing
not verified
MTD at 9
party filing
not verified
FAC ¶¶ 27-92
party filing
not verified
Defendant. FAC ¶¶ 27-92
party filing
not verified
MTD at 17
party filing
not verified
MTD at 13
party filing
not verified
FAC ¶¶ 25-26
party filing
not verified
FAC ¶ 102
party filing
not verified
FAC ¶¶ 48-50
party filing
not verified
MTD at 15
party filing
not verified
FAC ¶¶ 6
party filing
not verified
App. Id. ¶¶ 85-86
appendix
not verified
WESCA. MTD at 16-17
party filing
not verified
FAC ¶ 8
party filing
not verified
App. Id. ¶¶ 80-92
appendix
not verified
FAC ¶ 51
party filing
not verified
MTD at 20
party filing
not verified
MTD at 16
party filing
not verified
GLBA. FAC ¶ 5
party filing
not verified
MTD at 23
party filing
not verified
FAC ¶ 5
party filing
not verified
Footnote 2
footnote
not verified
Footnote 3
footnote
not verified
Footnote 4
footnote
not verified
Footnote 6
footnote
not verified
Footnote 7
footnote
not verified
Footnote 8
footnote
not verified