Mirmalek v. Los Angeles Times Communications LLC
Summary
On June 26, 2026 the Northern District of California entered a final judgment in Mirmalek v. Los Angeles Times Communications LLC granting final approval of a class action settlement. The Court ordered the parties to comply with the Settlement, dismissed all claims related to the litigation with prejudice, retained jurisdiction to implement and enforce the Settlement, and declared the judgment final and appealable.
Litigation Status
Procedural Posture
Final judgment entered following the Court's Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement; judgment dismisses related claims with prejudice and retains jurisdiction to oversee settlement implementation.
Reported Holding
The court granted the Motion for Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement, ordered the parties to comply with the Settlement, dismissed any and all claims related to the litigation with prejudice (except as provided in the Settlement and related orders), retained jurisdiction to implement and enforce the Settlement, and entered a final and appealable judgment dated June 26, 2026.
What the Court Decided
The court granted final approval of the class action settlement and entered final judgment dismissing the case with prejudice while retaining jurisdiction over implementation, distribution, and enforcement of the Settlement Agreement.
What the Court Did Not Decide
The document does not set forth findings on the merits of the underlying claims beyond approving the settlement; it does not include a merits adjudication of the parties' substantive claims.
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)
Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: TripleLift Tracker, GumGum Tracker, Audiencerate Tracker.
Statutes Invoked
- California Penal Code (CIPA) §631(a) and §638.51
- California Invasion of Privacy Act, Section 638.51(a)
Claims Asserted
- 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)
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)
- CIPA Website Tracking Lawsuits: Where the Law Stands, Where It’s Going, and What Your Business Should Do Now
- Mirmalek v. Los Angeles Times Communications LLC (Settlement Website)
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