Blaker v. Netscout Systems
Summary
Loeb & Loeb reports that the Los Angeles Superior Court dismissed Blaker v. NetScout Systems, Inc. with prejudice, rejecting a CIPA § 638.51 claim concerning an X Corp. SDK deployed on NetScout's website. The article attributes the result to statutory interpretation distinguishing telephonic communications from routine website tracking and contrasts it with litigation involving Kochava and Jornaya.
Litigation Status
Procedural Posture
Class-action complaint dismissed with prejudice without leave to amend.
Reported Holding
According to the source, the court construed the statute as not reaching standard website tracking software and dismissed the CIPA class action with prejudice.
What the Court Decided
The source reports that the court accepted a distinction between statutory protection of telephonic communications and routine commercial website data collection, finding a structural statutory defect in the plaintiffs' SDK-based claim.
What the Court Did Not Decide
The article does not identify additional issues left undecided. It describes the ruling as nonbinding and does not report a binding appellate resolution of the statute's application to website tracking.
Significance
Generally viewed as defense-favorable. Characterizations of significance describe how the matter has generally been discussed in tracked public sources; individual holdings are often narrow, procedural, or fact-specific, and this page does not state or imply broader holdings than the sources support.
What This Page Does and Does Not Say
This page reports what our tracked public sources say about this matter — including, where identified, the procedural posture (for example, a ruling on a motion to dismiss is not a final merits decision). It does not report legal conclusions beyond those sources, does not predict outcomes, and does not constitute legal advice.
Technologies at Issue
- website SDK
- web analytics
- pixels
- website tracking technologies
- third-party website SDK
- device fingerprinting / browser fingerprinting
- IP address and routing metadata capture
- website analytics/tracking
- software development kit (SDK)
- analytics tools
- other website tracking tools
- network monitoring
- third-party tracking tools
- web pixels
- identity resolution tools
- session replay software
- website tracking
- third-party SDK
- website tracking software
- IP address collection
- device fingerprinting
- routing information
- device/browser fingerprinting
- session replay
- website analytics/tracking SDK
- website
- internet
- tracking pixels
- ad trackers
- chat widgets
- search bars that send queries to third parties
- third-party SDKs
- software development kits (SDKs)
- website tracking tools
- SDK (tracking Software Development Kit)
- cookies
- beacons
- chat bots
- video/session replay tools
- digital fingerprinting
- websites
- web beacons
- internet tracking
- tracking SDK
- X Corp. tracking SDK
- Website advertising tracking
- Third-party software development kit (SDK)
- Website tracking software
- Device fingerprinting
- Browser routing-data collection
Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: NetScout Systems, Inc., X Corp. (f/k/a Twitter) (SDK supplier), NetScout Systems, third-party SDK vendor (unnamed), X Corp., Kochava, Jornaya, X Corp. (f/k/a Twitter), NetScout, Inc., Cookiebot by Usercentrics, Blaker (plaintiff), X (f/k/a Twitter), Kochava (referenced), Plaintiff: Brian Blaker, Brian Blaker, X Corp. (formerly Twitter).
Statutes Invoked
- Cal. Penal Code §§ 638.51, 638.52
- Cal. Penal Code §638.51
- California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) — pen register and trap-and-trace provisions
- California Invasion of Privacy Act (pen register and trap and trace provisions)
- California Penal Code § 638.51
- California Penal Code § 638.51; § 638.50; § 638.52(d)
- California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), Sections 631 (wiretap) and 638.51 (pen register)
- California Invasion of Privacy Act (pen register and trap-and-trace provisions)
- California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) - pen register and trap-and-trace provisions
- California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA)
- California Penal Code section 638.51
- California Penal Code § 638.51 (and related definitions in § 638.50 and procedure in § 638.52)
- Cal. Penal Code §§ 638.50, 638.51, 638.52(d)
- California Penal Code § 638.51 (CIPA provisions re: pen register / trap and trace)
- California Invasion of Privacy Act, California Penal Code §§ 638.50–638.52, principally § 638.51
- California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), California Penal Code § 638.51
Claims Asserted
- California Penal Code §638.51 (pen register / trap-and-trace claim under CIPA)
- CIPA pen-register claim
- CIPA trap-and-trace claim
- California Invasion of Privacy Act — pen register provision
- California Invasion of Privacy Act — trap and trace provision
- California Penal Code § 638.51 (CIPA pen register and trap-and-trace provisions, statutory damages up to $5,000 per violation as alleged)
- Pen register claim under Cal. Penal Code § 638.51
- Trap-and-trace device claim under Cal. Penal Code § 638.51
- Pen register/trap-and-trace claim under California Penal Code § 638.51 (CIPA)
- Class action CIPA allegations based on website SDK tracking
- California Penal Code § 638.51 (pen register / trap-and-trace claim under CIPA)
- California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) — pen register and trap-and-trace claim (Cal. Penal Code § 638.51)
- California Invasion of Privacy Act - Section 631 (wiretap)
- California Invasion of Privacy Act - Section 638.51 (pen register)
- CIPA pen register provision
- CIPA trap-and-trace provision
- CIPA pen register/trap-and-trace claim
- website tracking claim under CIPA
- pen register
- trap-and-trace
- CIPA website tracking claims
- California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) - Penal Code section 638.51 (pen register / trap and trace)
- Pen register
- Trap-and-trace
- California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) § 638.51
- Cal. Penal Code § 638.51 (pen register and trap-and-trace device prohibition)
- California Penal Code § 638.51 claims (CIPA) alleging use of a pen register / trap and trace device
- allegations regarding capture of electronic impulses / generation of a digital fingerprint for tracking
- CIPA § 638.51 trap-and-trace claim alleging capture of electronic impulses from website visitors' devices without consent
- Request for $5,000 in statutory damages per alleged statutory breach
- CIPA § 638.51 claim alleging that a third-party SDK functioned as a pen register through collection of IP addresses, device fingerprints, and routing instructions
What This Matter May Mean for Website Operators
California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) is an all-party consent statute with a private right of action. Consent standard and private enforceability are the structural features that most shape where website tracking claims are filed and how they are valued.
For operators using similar technologies, the recurring factual questions in matters like this one are when session recording begins relative to consent and whether input masking covers every field; whether chat transcripts or typing previews transit a vendor's servers before the visitor presses send; whether advertising pixels transmit page URLs or hashed form data before a consent choice; what page URLs and query strings analytics tools share with third parties. Our scanner tests these behaviors empirically.
The reported outcome direction at the statutory interpretation stage reflects how tracked sources characterize the ruling; such rulings are often narrow, posture-specific, and fact-bound rather than broad statements of law.
Detection of a similar technology on a website is an informational risk indicator, not a legal conclusion, and nothing in this section is legal advice.
Related Intelligence
Sources
- Big Win for Companies Facing CIPA Website Tracking Lawsuits
- Big Win for Companies Facing CIPA Website Tracking Lawsuits
- CIPA WIN: California Superior Court Sustains Dismissal of Website Tracking Claims, Holding CIPA’s Pen Register Provisions Do Not Apply to Routine Web Analytics Technologies
- Big Win for Companies Facing CIPA Website Tracking Lawsuits
- A California Court Just Handed Website Operators a Win on CIPA
- CIPA WIN- California Superior Court Sustains Dismissal of Website Tracking Claims, Holding CIPA’s Pen Register Provisions Do Not Apply to Routine Web Analytics Technologies
- Decoding the Code: How Simple, Rigorously Accurate Advocacy May Have Broken the CIPA Litigation Impasse
- Blaker V. NetScout Systems: A Narrow Reading Of The Pen Register And Trap And Trace Provisions Of The California Invasion Of Privacy Act In California State Court
- Big Win for Companies Facing CIPA Website Tracking Lawsuits
- Changing Tides: A Los Angeles Court Delivers A Major CIPA Defense Win
- Blaker V. NetScout Systems: A Narrow Reading Of The Pen Register And Trap And Trace Provisions Of The California Invasion Of Privacy Act In California State Court
- Blaker V. NetScout Systems: A Narrow Reading Of The Pen Register And Trap And Trace Provisions Of The California Invasion Of Privacy Act In California State Court
- Changing Tides: A Los Angeles Court Delivers a Major CIPA Defense Win
- CIPA Website-Tracking Litigation and the Emerging Three-Way Court Split — What Businesses Should Know After Blaker v. NetScout (Decided May 27, 2026)
- Blaker v. NetScout Systems — CIPA Case Deep‑Dive
- Blaker v. Netscout Systems — Website Tracking Litigation
- Blaker V. NetScout Systems: A Narrow Reading Of The Pen Register And Trap And Trace Provisions Of The California Invasion Of Privacy Act In California State Court
- How Cookies and Tracking Pixels Became Illegal 'Wiretaps' in California
About This Page
Publisher: Inspection-Ready Institute, Inc. (DBA Crandall Consulting), an independent website compliance and risk consultancy. We are not a law firm and nothing on this page is legal advice.
How this content is produced: Facts are extracted from publicly available sources — court and government materials, recognized legal press, professional analysis, and industry reports — by our litigation intelligence engine, stored with full source provenance, and rendered from the database. Risk guidelines are computed by a deterministic formula, never by an AI model directly. See the full methodology.
Limitations: Counts labeled "Tracked" reflect matters identified in our source set and are not official court statistics. We report what courts decided and did not decide; we do not predict outcomes.
Corrections: If you believe anything on this page is inaccurate, contact us via the contact page and we will review the underlying sources promptly.
Is Your Website Creating Hidden Tracking Risk?
Scan your site for third-party tracking and potential wiretap exposure. Free, no account required.
Scan My Website