Sophin v. WISP, Inc.

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

Docket / citation: CACE26001543

Summary

This is the court-authorized settlement website for Sophin v. WISP, Inc., a class action pending in Broward County, Florida. The settlement resolves claims alleging that WISP disclosed customers' PII via the Meta Pixel and other tracking technologies and provides an $18.00 cash payment to eligible class members who purchased products on hellowisp.com between February 1, 2018 and September 9, 2025. Deadlines for claims, exclusion, and objections were July 13, 2026 and a Final Approval Hearing was scheduled for August 5, 2026.

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

A class action was filed and a settlement has been reached and authorized by the Court. Deadlines for claims, exclusions, and objections were set for July 13, 2026, and a Final Approval Hearing was scheduled for August 5, 2026.

What the Court Decided

The court authorized a class action settlement under which class members who purchased a product from hellowisp.com between February 1, 2018 and September 9, 2025 may submit a claim form to receive a cash payment of $18.00. The site lists deadlines for claims, exclusion, objections (July 13, 2026) and a Final Approval Hearing scheduled for August 5, 2026.

What the Court Did Not Decide

The page states the Defendant denies the Plaintiff's claims and that the settlement was reached to avoid expense and uncertainty; it does not state that the court made any merits adjudication resolving the underlying allegations.

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

• Meta Pixel
• tracking/analytics/advertising technologies
• tracking technologies
• analytics technologies
• advertising technologies

Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: Meta, WISP, Inc., Kroll Settlement Administration LLC.

Statutes Invoked

• Florida Security of Communications Act, Fla. Stat. § 934.03, et seq.; California Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Penal Code § 631(a); Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1); negligence
• Florida Security of Communications Act, Fla. Stat. § 934.03, et seq.; California Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Penal Code § 631(a); negligence; Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1).

Claims Asserted

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

• Florida Security of Communications Act claim (Fla. Stat. § 934.03, et seq.)
• California Invasion of Privacy Act claim (Cal. Penal Code § 631(a))
• negligence
• Electronic Communications Privacy Act claim (18 U.S.C. § 2511(1))

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.

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

• Sophin v. WISP, Inc. — Settlement (court-authorized settlement website) — wispclasssettlement.com (court-authorized settlement site) · Tier A (Primary authority)
• Sophin v. WISP, Inc. — wispclasssettlement.com (court-authorized settlement site / Kroll Settlement Administrator) · Tier A (Primary authority)

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.