Paul Nakamura v. Pfizer Inc.
Summary
Privado AI reports that a proposed class action filed May 12, 2026 alleges Pfizer's website continued to transmit visitor data to Google tracking tools after users selected 'Decline All' on a consent banner. The complaint asserts claims under the federal Wiretap Act and several California statutes and was filed in the Southern District of New York; Pfizer was reportedly served May 18, 2026 and an answer date was noted.
Litigation Status
Procedural Posture
A proposed class action complaint was filed May 12, 2026. Plaintiff alleges Pfizer was served May 18, 2026 and the defendant's answer was due June 8, 2026 in the Southern District of New York.
Significance
Neutral / mixed significance. 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
- Google Ads
- Google DoubleClick
- web tracking scripts/tags/pixels
- consent management platform (CMP)
Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: Google, Pfizer.
Statutes Invoked
- Federal Wiretap Act; California Invasion of Privacy Act (pen-register provisions); California Consumer Legal Remedies Act; California Unfair Competition Law
Claims Asserted
- Federal Wiretap Act
- California Invasion of Privacy Act (pen-register provisions)
- California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA)
- California Unfair Competition Law (UCL)
What This Matter May Mean for Website Operators
For operators using similar technologies, the recurring factual questions in matters like this one are 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.
Because this matter is pending, anything reported here is procedural — allegations and interim rulings, not final determinations.
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
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