Mirmalek v. Los Angeles Times Communications LLC

Published by Crandall Consulting · Informational litigation intelligence · Last substantive update: September 24, 2026

Docket / citation: No. 3:24-cv-01797-CRB

Summary

Crandall Consulting reports that the U.S. District Court for the N.D. Cal. granted final approval to a $3.85 million class settlement in Mirmalek v. Los Angeles Times resolving alleged CIPA §638.51 claims involving third-party trackers; the defendant did not concede liability. The page characterizes the outcome as plaintiff-favorable and flags pending California appellate cases and SB 690 as developments that could affect future website-tracking litigation.

Litigation Status

Status, direction, and weight describe how tracked public sources characterize this matter as of our last review — they are informational classifications, not legal assessments.

Procedural Posture

Final approval of a class settlement in federal court (N.D. Cal.) on June 26, 2026; described in the source as a strategic settlement to avoid further litigation.

Reported Holding

The district court granted final approval to a $3.85 million class settlement resolving allegations that specific third-party trackers (TripleLift, GumGum, Audiencerate) collected information in violation of CIPA §638.51; the defendant did not concede liability.

What the Court Decided

The court granted final approval to a $3.85 million class settlement concerning alleged CIPA §638.51 (pen register) violations tied to specific third-party trackers on the LA Times website and mobile apps.

What the Court Did Not Decide

The court did not make a merits determination of liability (the defendant did not concede liability), and the page does not report any precedential ruling on whether CIPA §638.51 reaches website tracking technologies.

Significance

Generally viewed as plaintiff-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

• analytics
• advertising pixels
• chat widgets
• session replay
• tracking pixels
• web form/search-bar content capture
• Trackers (internet browser trackers)
• analytics (e.g., Google Analytics)
• session replay tools
• software development kits (SDKs)
• pixels (general)

Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: TripleLift Tracker, GumGum Tracker, Audiencerate Tracker, TripleLift, GumGum, Audiencerate, Google Analytics, Meta Pixel, HubSpot.

Statutes Invoked

• California Penal Code (CIPA) §631(a) and §638.51 — all-party consent · private right of action
• California Invasion of Privacy Act, Section 638.51(a)
• California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) §§631(a), 638.51 — all-party consent · private right of action

Claims Asserted

Claims identified in tracked public sources; pleadings may include additional or amended claims.

• Claim under California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) Section 638.51(a) alleging trackers were installed/used without consent
• Class action for alleged website/mobile-app tracking
• claims related to the litigation (not specified on this document)
• CIPA §638.51 (pen register / trap-and-trace theory)
• CIPA §631(a) (wiretap / content-interception theory) (discussed generally in article)
• California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) §638.51 (pen register / trap-and-trace theory)
• California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) §631(a) (wiretap / content-interception theory)
• Class action for alleged website/mobile-app tracking claims

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 settlement 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

• Mirmalek v. Los Angeles Times Communications LLC, No. 3:2024cv01797 - Document 72 (N.D. Cal. 2026) — Justia (U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal.) · Tier A (Primary authority) · June 26, 2026
• CIPA Website Tracking Lawsuits: Where the Law Stands, Where It’s Going, and What Your Business Should Do Now — Spencer Fane · Tier B (Authoritative secondary) · 2026-07-14
• CIPA Website Tracking Lawsuits: Where the Law Stands, Where It’s Going, and What Your Business Should Do Now — Spencer Fane · Tier C (Professional analysis) · 2026-07-14
• Mirmalek v. Los Angeles Times Communications LLC (Settlement Website) — latimescipasettlement.com · Tier D (Industry data) · 2026-06-26
• Mirmalek v. Los Angeles Times Communications LLC — Website Tracking Litigation — Crandall Consulting · Tier D (Industry data) · 2026-08-23

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.