CRANDALL CONSULTING
HomeWebsite Tracking Cases › Petris v. Sportsman’s Warehouse, Inc., et al.

Petris v. Sportsman’s Warehouse, Inc., et al.

Published by Crandall Consulting · Informational litigation intelligence · Last substantive update: August 23, 2026

Court of Common Pleas of Washington County, Pennsylvania
Court
Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction
Not identified
Decision / Filing Date
Lawsuit
Matter Type

Docket / citation: 25-CV-06320

Risk scores, classifications, statistics, and technical findings are informational guidelines based on observed website behavior and publicly available litigation activity, statutes, court decisions, legal commentary, and other public sources. They are not legal advice, legal opinions, or determinations of liability.

Summary

This is a court-authorized class notice for a proposed settlement in Petris v. Sportsman’s Warehouse, alleging Defendants disclosed firearm-purchase information on their website to third parties in violation of Pennsylvania statutes (WESCA and the UFA). The Settlement Class is limited to Pennsylvania residents who ordered and reserved firearms online from January 1, 2020 through March 13, 2024; eligible class members who submit timely claims may receive up to $107. Key deadlines include a claims deadline of June 19, 2026, an exclusion/objection deadline of June 4, 2026, and a fairness hearing on July 31, 2026.

Litigation Status

Settled
Current Status
Plaintiff-favorable (as reported)
Reported Outcome Direction
Settlement
Ruling Stage
None identified
Precedential Weight

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

A settlement has been reached and preliminarily approved; the Court conditionally certified the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only. A fairness hearing is scheduled for July 31, 2026; deadlines include an exclusion/objection deadline of June 4, 2026 and a claim-submission deadline of June 19, 2026.

Reported Holding

No court ruling on the merits is reported in this notice. The parties reached a settlement that provides an opportunity for eligible class members to submit claims for monetary payments (up to $107 per claimant subject to proration). The court has preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement and conditionally certified a Settlement Class for settlement purposes only.

What the Court Decided

The Court preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement and conditionally certified the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only. The Court has not resolved the claims or determined liability.

What the Court Did Not Decide

The Court did not resolve the merits of the claims or determine that Defendants did anything wrong; the notice states the Court has not decided whether Plaintiff or Defendants should win this case.

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

Statutes Invoked

Claims Asserted

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

What This Matter May Mean for Website Operators

Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (WESCA) 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.

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

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