Master Forensic Report — Ladco Defense Technologies

Ladco Defense Technologies

UEI: Q7SXLLP6EM51 | CAGE: 1X2Y8

Master Forensic Report

Consolidated Statement of Parties, Statutes, Counts, and Amounts

Reference: LDT-MFR-20261013 · Generated October 13, 2026 · 261 source documents · 12,417,068 bytes

Executive Summary

This Master Forensic Report consolidates every forensic audit document produced by Ladco Defense Technologies in connection with the matters described in the source documents listed in the index below. From each source document the report extracts every party named, every statute, rule, regulation, directive, and treaty cited, every count or enumerated violation, every date, and every dollar figure stated. Each extracted item is paired with the source document from which it is taken, and the SHA-256 hash of every source document is recorded so the entire consolidated record can be verified against the originals without alteration.

Nothing in this report is paraphrased. Nothing is inferred. Every line item is a direct extraction from a source document whose hash is on record. This report is intended for submission in a court of law and to regulators in any jurisdiction.

Statistical Summary

Source Documents

261

Parties Extracted

308

Statute Citations

5392

Counts / Violations

2499

Dollar Figures

13233

Distinct Dates

408

Unique Parties

134

Unique Statutes

653

Total dollar value asserted across all source documents: $395,546,710,026,260,928,528,384.00. Documents with recorded creation dates: 66. Documents verified by SHA-256: 261 of 261.

Index of Source Documents

#	Title	Filename	Created	Size	Parties	Statutes	Counts	$
1	Forensic Audit Report — Lanier Properties IDX Kestrel Real Estate Portal — LDT-FAR-2026-1003-LANIER-PROPERTIES-REV2	FORENSIC-0001-forensic-audit-report-lanier-properties-idx-kestrel-real-est-d18462db.html	2026-10-03	64,062	2	26	18	16
2	Forensic Audit Report – NYSE Quote Page (XNYS:CXW)	FORENSIC-0002-forensic-audit-report-nyse-quote-page-xnys-cxw-f6046c99.html	2026-10-04	68,430	2	40	20	171
3	Forensic Audit Report — FinCEN Power Pages Contact Us Portal — LDT-FAR-2026-1003-FINCEN-PORTAL-REV3	FORENSIC-0003-forensic-audit-report-fincen-power-pages-contact-us-portal-eb535e44.html	2026-10-03	60,112	2	23	18	14
4	Forensic Audit Report – levinlaw.com (Revision 2)	FORENSIC-0004-forensic-audit-report-levinlaw-com-revision-2-822b4285.html	October 1, 2026	75,182	0	12	59	86
5	Forensic Audit Report – Bijeli Slon Real Estate (belij-slon.me)	FORENSIC-0005-audited-entity-bijeli-slon-real-estate-belij-slon-dot-me-c73f36c2.html	September 16, 2026	66,027	3	23	20	94
6	Forensic Legal Audit: Housing Instability & Voter Disenfranchisement (1999–2026)	FORENSIC-0006-forensic-legal-research-interactive-spa-a50a54ed.html	2026-09-11	67,196	0	3	0	0
7	Forensic Audit Report – linkdevelopment.com	FORENSIC-0007-forensic-audit-report-linkdevelopment-dot-com-6316f671.html	2026-09-17	85,331	2	51	28	161
8	Forensic Audit: Algorithmic Failure Analysis	FORENSIC-0008-r1-d473b5dc.html	2026-09-12	27,557	0	0	0	0
9	Forensic Analysis: Italian PEC Provider Ecosystem (2005–2025)	FORENSIC-0009-forensic-analysis-italian-pec-provider-ecosystem-2005-2025-bf1be5a0.html	2026-09-15	54,877	0	0	1	1
10	Forensic Analysis: Bain Capital, Namirial, and the Italian PEC Market	FORENSIC-0010-forensic-analysis-bain-capital-namirial-and-the-italian-pec–9c61cba0.html	2026-09-15	37,158	0	0	0	1
11	Forensic Analysis: Bain Capital, Romney, and Italian Digital Infrastructure (1998–2026)	FORENSIC-0011-forensic-analysis-bain-capital-mitt-romney-and-the-italian-d-30549d05.html	2026-09-15	43,272	0	0	0	5
12	Forensic Audit Report – beyonsolutions.com	FORENSIC-0012-audited-entity-beyon-solutions-beyon-group-9663c356.html	2026-09-17	83,597	2	45	29	145
13	Forensic Audit Report – Hero by LINC-ED / FusionAuth 1.69.2 Login Portal	FORENSIC-0013-forensic-audit-report-hero-by-linc-ed-fusionauth-1-69-2-logi-da49a241.html	2026-09-23	151,964	2	71	30	131
14	Forensic Audit Report — Roblox Landing Portal — Roblox Corporation	FORENSIC-0014-forensic-audit-report-roblox-landing-portal-roblox-corporati-1ba1860c.html	2026-09-24	68,652	2	28	31	136
15	Comprehensive Forensic Audit and Legal Analysis — Multi-Jurisdictional Statutory, Constitutional, and International Treaty Violations	FORENSIC-0015-comprehensive-forensic-audit-and-legal-analysis-multi-jurisd-a748c713.html	2026-09-24	59,789	0	46	0	26
16	Amended Forensic Audit Report – Multi-Jurisdictional Extension (NZ / AU / UK / HK / VU)	FORENSIC-0016-amended-forensic-audit-report-hero-by-linc-ed-fusionauth-1-6-0a765a45.html	2026-09-23	42,637	0	11	0	68
17	Forensic Audit Report – VFIU-Leohil-MIS – Vanuatu Financial Intelligence Unit	FORENSIC-0017-forensic-audit-report-vfiu-leohil-mis-vanuatu-financial-inte-c774f224.html	2026-09-24	65,837	2	27	30	102
18	Forensic Audit Report – MyVanuatu.vu Real Estate Portal – Ray White Vanuatu	FORENSIC-0018-forensic-audit-report-myvanuatu-vu-real-estate-portal-ray-wh-3c752bcd.html	2026-09-24	70,566	2	30	30	113
19	Forensic Audit Report — VFSC Virtual Asset Service Provider — Vanuatu Financial Services Commission	FORENSIC-0019-forensic-audit-report-vfsc-virtual-asset-service-provider-vf-412790f2.html	2026-09-21	64,428	2	30	13	125
20	Comprehensive Forensic Audit and Legal Analysis — Ladco Defense Technologies	FORENSIC-0020-comprehensive-forensic-audit-and-legal-analysis-ladco-defens-1c999255.html	2026-09-24	58,161	0	45	0	26
21	Forensic Opinion – Hero by LINC-ED / FusionAuth Portal – Gateway to Port Vila International School	FORENSIC-0021-opinion-analysis-of-hero-by-linc-ed-fusionauth-portal-88367e30.html	2026-09-23	22,009	0	4	0	0
22	Forensic Audit Report – Glenn Beck Torch (glennbeck.com/torch)	FORENSIC-0022-audited-entity-glenn-beck-torch-glennbeck-dot-come-torch-56a42fb9.html	September 14, 2026	60,170	3	22	20	84
23	Forensic Audit Report – Prian Property (prianproperty.com)	FORENSIC-0023-audited-entity-prian-property-prianproperty-dot-com-a635bc9c.html	September 16, 2026	60,201	3	21	20	60
24	Forensic Audit: Algorithmic Failure Analysis	FORENSIC-0024-r2-87bd8740.html	2026-09-12	95,588	0	0	0	0
25	Forensic Audit Report – properstar.com	FORENSIC-0025-audited-entity-properstar-sa-list-globally-sàrl-e7079824.html	September 30, 2026	41,529	2	24	8	75
26	Formal Complaint to Texas Real Estate Commission – Ron Reyes, Liza Reyes, and Julia Rodriguez	FORENSIC-0026-forensic-audit-review-and-regulatory-remediation-demand-kell-e67ea65c.html	October 1, 2026	50,482	1	11	13	0
27	Forensic and Corporate Intelligence Report — Speech Reader	FORENSIC-0027-hobbs-forensic-and-corporate-intelligence-report-speech-read-7dac8f0d.html	2026-09-25	41,523	0	0	0	0
28	Forensic Audit Report — Alliance Real Estate Business Center — LDT-FAR-2026-0929-ALLIANCE-RO	FORENSIC-0028-forensic-audit-report-alliance-real-estate-business-center-l-41dfe6df.html	2026-09-29	58,462	2	28	18	19
29	Forensic Audit Report – kwsanantonio.com (Revision 3)	FORENSIC-0029-forensic-audit-report-kwsanantonio-com-revision-3-9857c334.html	September 30, 2026	94,806	2	46	60	80
30	Forensic Audit Report – Law Office of Kathleen M. Dotoli	FORENSIC-0030-audited-entity-law-office-of-kathleen-m-dotoli-f5bf805a.html	September 7, 2026	56,105	2	25	20	67
31	Forensic Audit Report – Coinbase Wallet Account and Coinbase Wallet Terms of Service	FORENSIC-0031-audited-entity-coinbase-wallet-account-and-coinbase-wallet-t-933c4337.html	September 11, 2026	52,269	2	14	20	50
32	Forensic Audit Report – Temasek (temasek.com.sg)	FORENSIC-0032-audited-entity-temasek-temasek-com-sg-homepage-73a3944a.html	September 7, 2026	60,483	3	21	20	61
33	Forensic Audit Report – Internet Brands (Wix Site)	FORENSIC-0033-audited-entity-internet-brands-wix-hosted-homepage-95e23e30.html	September 7, 2026	61,331	3	22	20	78
34	Print Version — Forensic and Corporate Intelligence Report	FORENSIC-0034-print-version-forensic-and-corporate-intelligence-report-e81a3038.html	2026-09-25	40,213	0	1	0	0
35	Forensic Audit Report — Cambridge Core 404 Page — LDT-FAR-2026-0928-CAMBRIDGE-404	FORENSIC-0035-forensic-audit-report-cambridge-core-404-page-ldt-far-2026-0-60d2daa6.html	2026-09-28	58,492	2	24	17	19
36	Forensic Audit Report – Supreme Court of NSW – supremecourt.nsw.gov.au	FORENSIC-0036-forensic-audit-report-supreme-court-of-nsw-supremecourt-nsw–870cbd32.html	2026-09-24	69,391	2	9	30	112
37	The Architecture of Sovereign Expropriation — Expanded Forensic Research Brief	FORENSIC-0037-the-architecture-of-sovereign-expropriation-expanded-forensi-80e4e2ec.html	2026-09-30	142,461	1	2	0	18
38	Forensic Audit Report – kwsanantonio.com	FORENSIC-0038-forensic-audit-report-kwsanantonio-dot-com-ce72a67b.html	September 30, 2026	54,883	2	19	10	80
39	Forensic Audit Report — Ministry of Defence of Ukraine (mod.gov.ua)	FORENSIC-0039-forensic-audit-report-ministry-of-defence-of-ukraine-mod-dot-0dbdfe63.html	2026-09-21	67,133	2	23	15	132
40	MASTER CONSOLIDATED FORENSIC AUDIT INDEX — Five-Target Aggregate — Ladco Defense Technologies	FORENSIC-0040-master-consolidated-forensic-audit-index-five-target-aggrega-2cc6a03d.html	2026-09-25	80,087	0	25	42	89
41	Forensic Audit Report — Google Tag Manager Container AW-1068215855 — Ladco Defense Technologies	FORENSIC-0041-forensic-audit-report-google-tag-manager-container-ladco-def-9b70a1a9.html	2026-09-25	65,883	0	26	23	65
42	Forensic Declaration — Header Analysis and Tracking Call Flow — LDT-FD-2026-0925-AUSSIEPROPERTY-EN	FORENSIC-0042-forensic-declaration-header-analysis-and-tracking-call-flow–84b79efe.html	2026-09-25	55,334	0	0	0	0
43	Forensic Audit Report — Hurricane Electric — he.net — Ladco Defense Technologies	FORENSIC-0043-forensic-audit-report-hurricane-electric-he-net-ladco-defens-21d5aff5.html	2026-09-25	81,888	0	27	34	78
44	US Forensic Debt Clock — Ladco Defense Technologies	FORENSIC-0044-us-reverse-debt-clock-forensic-audit-recovery-tracker-4cfca3a1.html	2026-09-26	44,948	0	0	0	43
45	Forensic Audit Report — CSC / Corporation Service Company — cscglobal.com — Ladco Defense Technologies	FORENSIC-0045-forensic-audit-report-csc-corporation-service-company-cscglo-76ea663d.html	2026-09-25	85,100	0	31	34	111
46	Internal Audit — Ladco Defense Technologies Forensic Accounting Program	FORENSIC-0046-internal-audit-ladco-defense-technologies-forensic-accountin-63704003.html	2026-09-26	29,620	0	0	0	13
47	Forensic Audit Report — Google Tag Manager Container AW-1068215855 — Ladco Defense Technologies	FORENSIC-0047-forensic-audit-report-google-tag-manager-container-aw-106821-55330286.html	2026-09-25	73,709	0	26	23	65
48	Forensic Audit Report — International Monetary Fund — imf.org — Ladco Defense Technologies	FORENSIC-0048-forensic-audit-report-international-monetary-fund-imf-org-la-a27af1c6.html	2026-09-25	79,272	0	29	32	79
49	Reverse US Debt Clock — Ladco Defense Technologies	FORENSIC-0049-us-forensic-debt-clock-ladco-defense-technologies-7b19ef9f.html	2026-09-26	51,837	0	0	0	76
50	Forensic Declaration — LDT-FD-2026-0925-AUSSIEPROPERTY-EN	FORENSIC-0050-forensic-declaration-header-analysis-and-tracking-call-flow-afbd94c5.html	2026-09-25	58,015	0	0	0	0
51	Forensic Audit Report — Egmont Group — egmontgroup.org — Ladco Defense Technologies	FORENSIC-0051-forensic-audit-report-egmont-group-egmontgroup-org-ladco-def-07cf0f30.html	2026-09-25	78,993	0	26	31	110
52	Corporate Notice and Forensic Policy Audit — aussieproperty.com Pty Ltd — Privacy Policy — Ladco Defense Technologies	FORENSIC-0052-corporate-notice-and-forensic-policy-audit-aussieproperty-co-e8f35e37.html	2026-09-25	39,178	0	0	0	0
53	Transmittal Email – Formal Complaint & Forensic Audit Review to TREC	FORENSIC-0053-transmittal-email-formal-complaint-forensic-audit-review-to–8ce10bf6.html	October 1, 2026	15,758	0	4	0	0
54	Forensic Legal Research Report: Statutory Evolution, Jurisdictional Insulation, and Color of Law Defenses Under the Federal Reserve Act (1913–2026)	FORENSIC-0054-forensic-legal-research-report-statutory-evolution-jurisdict-5aa467e5.html	2026-09-30	70,909	0	29	0	5
55	Forensic Statistical Pattern Audit — Real Estate & Mortgage Fraud Schemes (1991–2025)	FORENSIC-0055-forensic-statistical-pattern-audit-real-estate-mortgage-frau-d25b1dd6.html	2026-10-11	67,494	0	24	1	81
56	Forensic Audit Report — Transworld Business Advisors Homepage (tworld.com)	FORENSIC-0056-forensic-audit-report-transworld-business-advisors-homepage–50ba01d1.html	2026-10-12	83,641	2	55	31	31
57	Forensic Audit Report — Akamai Bot Manager Behavioral Challenge Fragment (tworld.com / bizbuysell.com)	FORENSIC-0057-forensic-audit-report-akamai-bot-manager-behavioral-challeng-01dc8542.html	2026-10-12	66,239	2	44	27	30
58	MASTER AUDIT PROMPT VERSION 7.2 — Continuous Forensic Auditor Directive	FORENSIC-0058-master-audit-prompt-version-7-2-continuous-forensic-auditor–78bd0a74.html	2026-10-11	40,133	0	24	0	29
59	Forensic Audit Report — Synergy Business Brokers (synergybb.com)	FORENSIC-0059-forensic-audit-report-synergy-business-brokers-nda-page-50f65e87.html	2026-10-11	96,723	2	62	40	36
60	Forensic Statistical Pattern Report — U.S. Real Estate & Mortgage Fraud Enforcement (1991–2025)	FORENSIC-0060-forensic-statistical-pattern-report-u-s-real-estate-amp-mort-f6491c5c.html	2026-10-11	82,334	0	25	3	73
61	Forensic Statistical Pattern Report — Too Big to Fail: Bailout vs. Fraud Loss Disparity (1991–2026)	FORENSIC-0061-forensic-statistical-pattern-report-too-big-to-fail-bailout–a159857e.html	2026-10-11	36,534	0	7	0	59
62	Forensic Audit Report — Consentmanager CMP + OLA Ad Injection Page — LDT-FAR-2026-1002-CONSENTMANAGER-OLA	FORENSIC-0062-forensic-audit-report-consentmanager-cmp-ola-ad-injection-pa-9de848dc.html	2026-10-02	62,115	2	37	23	19
63	Forensic Audit Report — Invest in Türkiye (invest.gov.tr) — Ladco Defense Technologies	FORENSIC-0063-forensic-audit-report-invest-in-türkiye-invest-gov-tr-ladco–5d0c9d2d.html	2026-10-07	70,017	2	31	19	111
64	Forensic Audit Report – Invest in Türkiye (invest.gov.tr)	FORENSIC-0064-forensic-audit-report-invest-in-türkiye-invest-gov-tr-45e68ad0.html	2026-10-07	66,572	2	30	19	109
65	Forensic Pattern Analysis Report — Hülya Büyükyürür — Ladco Defense Technologies	FORENSIC-0065-forensic-pattern-analysis-report-hülya-büyükyürür-ladco-defe-0e6d9a7e.html	October 7, 2026	32,723	0	0	0	0
66	Forensic Audit Report – Amara Properties (amaraproperties.com)	FORENSIC-0066-forensic-audit-report-amara-properties-amaraproperties-com-3c803d0d.html	2026-10-05	80,443	2	33	20	114
67	Forensic Audit Log Record — Document Inventory — Ladco Defense Technologies	FORENSIC-0067-forensic-audit-log-record-document-inventory-ladco-defense-t-65f9b06a.html	October 7, 2026	25,371	0	0	0	0
68	Forensic Audit Report – Hepsiemlak Listing 168466-23	FORENSIC-0068-forensic-audit-report-hepsiemlak-listing-168466-23-a8eb718b.html	2026-10-05	72,429	2	29	19	135
69	Forensic Audit Report – Richland County SC Family Court Page	FORENSIC-0069-rcscfcaudit3-d53fbe5a.html	August 02, 2026	49,824	2	15	7	45
70	Forensic Audit Report – Glacier App (theglacierapp.com)	FORENSIC-0070-glacier-audit-f3be763d.html	2026-08-03	41,775	2	31	12	60
71	Forensic Docket Audit and Investigative Report – Lanier v. Akhmetov & Lanier v. Rubio	FORENSIC-0071-audit-case-fraud-court-fla-middle-district-3c57f9ce.html	July 28, 2026	9,199	0	1	0	0
72	Forensic Audit Report – red.nv.gov (Contact Page) – LINE BY LINE	FORENSIC-0072-nv2-audit-d5541f71.html	August 2, 2026	27,633	2	12	10	69
73	Forensic Audit Report – LPT Realty (lpt.com) – FULL LIABILITY	FORENSIC-0073-nv4-audit-a82f2486.html	August 2, 2026	34,627	2	15	11	70
74	Forensic Audit Report – http://www.nevadarealestategroup.com (LINE‑BY‑LINE)	FORENSIC-0074-nv1-audit-b76aa0f6.html	August 2, 2026	33,111	2	14	9	73
75	Forensic Audit – LPT Realty (lpt.com) – FULL LIABILITY (Operator & Suppliers)	FORENSIC-0075-nv3-audit-f5bc451b.html	August 2, 2026	21,275	1	6	5	60
76	FORENSIC AUDIT – SUPPLIER LIABILITY ONLY – ladcodefense2.com	FORENSIC-0076-ldt-audit-d749909a.html	August 2, 2026	13,045	2	4	5	59
77	OSINT & Telemetry Software Registry — Full Forensic Inventory	FORENSIC-0077-osint-source-3-83e82cc5.html	2026-08-03	32,088	0	0	0	0
78	Forensic Audit – LPT Realty (lpt.com) – LINE BY LINE	FORENSIC-0078-lpt-audit-c98aea14.html	August 2, 2026	20,458	1	5	8	63
79	Forensic Audit Report – Incident Notice / Cease & Desist	FORENSIC-0079-team-gatlin-agent-audit-07677a68.html	2026-07-31	33,948	3	26	10	55
80	Forensic Audit Report – Choice Homes Community Page	FORENSIC-0080-choicehomesrealty-co-audit-cfe5a590.html	2026-07-30	38,795	2	27	12	66
81	Forensic Audit Report – Lexington County Email Complaint	FORENSIC-0081-lexington-county-auidt-1-1b8f8ddd.html	August 02, 2026	44,093	2	11	8	37
82	Forensic Audit Report – Instagram Homepage (Part 1 of 3)	FORENSIC-0082-instagram-audit-1of3-91e03d2f.html	July 31, 2026	36,999	2	29	12	41
83	Forensic Audit Report – Instagram Homepage (Part 3 of 3)	FORENSIC-0083-instagram-audit-3of3-3496b774.html	2026-07-31	36,598	2	22	11	61
84	ODNI Master Report – Consolidated Numerical Findings (Parts 1–3)	FORENSIC-0084-4-odni-forensic-nurmerical-summary-instagram-audit-2df07d61.html	2026-07-31	22,924	0	6	4	56
85	Forensic Audit Report – Instagram Homepage	FORENSIC-0085-instagram-audit-2of3-e4102808.html	2026-07-31	36,589	2	22	11	62
86	Forensic Audit Report – Oracle.com	FORENSIC-0086-audit-oracle-8f15eaa2.html	2026-08-03	44,526	2	28	10	33
87	Forensic Audit Report – Anywhere Real Estate Inc. Contact Us	FORENSIC-0087-audit-anywhere-re-83ea47c6.html	2026-08-07	38,533	2	23	8	36
88	Forensic Audit Report – Sotheby's Realty Italy	FORENSIC-0088-audit-sothebys-realty-italy-8e35e3c5.html	2026-08-07	41,626	2	24	8	37
89	Forensic Audit Report – PEC.it (Aruba PEC)	FORENSIC-0089-pec-email-order-page-audit-c4d6224d.html	2026-08-07	39,646	2	21	8	34
90	Forensic Audit Report – OpenTech Platform (SoftServe)	FORENSIC-0090-audit-softserve-inc-54b8b8bb.html	2026-07-30	57,150	2	21	10	34
91	Forensic Audit Report – gemini.google.com (d111163203e83365)	FORENSIC-0091-gemini-audit-a60cc1da.html	2026-08-03	43,893	2	32	12	60
92	Forensic Audit Report – hlc.com Homepage	FORENSIC-0092-hlc-audit-40e8b83d.html	2026-07-30	33,351	2	21	13	43
93	Forensic FCC Ownership Transfer Analysis – WWQQ‑FM	FORENSIC-0093-cmq-fail-2-0547626f.html	2026-07-28	23,746	0	1	0	1
94	Forensic Audit Report – Email to Judge Barksdale	FORENSIC-0094-bark-audit1-dbdc6a34.html	2026-08-02	28,643	0	23	0	28
95	Forensic Audit Report – RealOpen Contact Page	FORENSIC-0095-realopen-audit-08c655fd.html	2026-08-01	32,983	2	22	6	69
96	Forensic Audit Report – Pipe Hitter Foundation	FORENSIC-0096-audited-entity-pipe-hitter-foundation-pipehitterfoundation-d-4490310a.html	2026-08-26	23,608	2	16	7	34
97	Forensic Audit Report – Spotify Web Player (open.spotify.com)	FORENSIC-0097-forensic-audit-report-spotify-web-player-open-spotify-com-bdd1df05.html	August 12, 2026	50,189	2	24	5	71
98	Technical Memorandum – Master Audit Prompt 7.1 – Adoption as Standard-Issue Forensic Tool	FORENSIC-0098-technical-memorandum-master-audit-prompt-7-1-adoption-as-sta-35562577.html	August 12, 2026	42,613	0	10	4	0
99	Technical Memorandum – Master Audit Prompt 7.1 – Adoption as Standard-Issue Forensic Tool	FORENSIC-0099-technical-memorandum-master-audit-prompt-7-1-adoption-as-sta-a40b037e.html	August 12, 2026	46,851	0	10	4	0
100	Forensic Audit Report – U.S. Department of Homeland Security (dhs.gov/report-it-vulnerability)	FORENSIC-0100-forensic-audit-report-u-s-department-of-homeland-security-dh-b9824e45.html	August 12, 2026	52,965	2	24	6	72
101	Forensic Audit Report – YouTube Watch Page (WHO BUILT THE MEGALITHS)	FORENSIC-0101-audited-entity-youtube-google-llc-7b5d1f79.html	2026-08-22	45,745	2	32	10	60
102	Forensic Audit Report – Glenn Beck's Real Estate Agents I Trust	FORENSIC-0102-audited-entity-glenn-beck-s-real-estate-agents-i-trust-mercu-6f104716.html	September 6, 2026	75,323	2	40	18	103
103	Forensic Audit Report – Kameleoon Script (apunlawfuljs1.txt)	FORENSIC-0103-audited-entity-kameleoon-sitecode-hj2bd2l1dv-7cb9e9ef.html	2026-08-14	39,614	2	24	8	24
104	Forensic Audit Report – OneTrust Interceptor (apunlawfuljs2.txt)	FORENSIC-0104-audited-entity-onetrust-consent-interceptor-script-apunlawfu-2d6eeb7a.html	2026-08-14	52,782	2	22	16	19
105	Forensic Audit Report – Bandcamp Homepage	FORENSIC-0105-audited-entity-bandcamp-59013b53.html	2026-08-14	32,710	2	12	8	27
106	Forensic Audit Report – Chromium/Google – 12 August 2026	FORENSIC-0106-forensic-audit-report-chromium-google-12-august-2026-f5c89398.html	2026-08-12	41,575	2	22	7	71
107	Forensic Audit Report – SoftBank Vision Fund (visionfund.com/contact)	FORENSIC-0107-audit-softbank-vision-fund-visionfund-contact-185e97af.html	2026-08-10	40,335	2	24	8	41
108	Forensic Audit Report – Glacier App	FORENSIC-0108-audited-entity-glacier-app-theglacierapp-dot-com-716e3199.html	2026-08-26	22,332	2	13	7	32
109	Forensic Audit Report – wishpond.com (Corrected)	FORENSIC-0109-wishpond-audit-2ade2a5b.html	August 13, 2026	32,597	2	19	5	66
110	Forensic Audit Report – Veterans Advocacy Services	FORENSIC-0110-audited-entity-veterans-advocacy-services-veteransadvocacyse-994ebd09.html	2026-08-26	21,419	2	12	6	32
111	Forensic Audit Report – Pinterest Homepage	FORENSIC-0111-pinrest-audit-0ddbd879.html	2026-08-10	41,866	2	27	13	44
112	Forensic Audit Report – Roommates.com	FORENSIC-0112-audited-entity-roommates-0aa83a0f.html	August 13, 2026	31,150	2	20	7	69
113	Consolidated Evidence Report – Chromium Forensic Audit	FORENSIC-0113-consolidated-evidence-report-chromium-forensic-audit-f4828aec.html	2026-08-12	23,404	0	16	0	18
114	Forensic Audit Report – Google Search Results Page (Expanded 9x)	FORENSIC-0114-audited-entity-google-llc-alphabet-inc-6075990b.html	August 14, 2026	73,327	2	36	14	104
115	Forensic Audit Report – Songtradr Homepage	FORENSIC-0115-audited-entity-songtradr-76d517d5.html	2026-08-14	32,973	2	12	9	26
116	Forensic Audit Report – AP News Homepage (Expanded)	FORENSIC-0116-audited-entity-associated-press-c295ec8e.html	August 14, 2026	94,409	2	87	20	58
117	Forensic Audit Report – Target File	FORENSIC-0117-audited-entity-chromium-google-code-repository-732359c0.html	August 12, 2026	40,698	2	23	10	71
118	Forensic Audit Report – EDPB (European Data Protection Board) – FULL EXPANSION	FORENSIC-0118-audited-entity-european-data-protection-board-9f918c26.html	2026-08-12	46,542	2	33	10	93
119	Forensic Audit Report – Land.com (Eastern Tennessee Region)	FORENSIC-0119-audited-entity-land-com-costar-group-eastern-tennessee-regio-62094d62.html	September 6, 2026	70,383	2	43	20	104
120	Forensic Audit Report – APUNLAWFULJS5.TXT	FORENSIC-0120-audited-entity-apunlawfuljs5-txt-3f29ff2a.html	August 14, 2026	42,528	2	21	8	86
121	Public Disclosure – Chromium/Google Forensic Audit	FORENSIC-0121-public-disclosure-chromium-google-forensic-audit-ad874896.html	2026-08-12	13,813	0	10	0	4
122	Forensic Audit Report – Canadian Centre for Cyber Security	FORENSIC-0122-cyber-police-canada-audit-0e33e498.html	2026-08-12	36,233	2	20	10	97
123	Forensic Audit Report – U.S. Department of Homeland Security (dhs.gov/report-it-vulnerability)	FORENSIC-0123-audited-entity-u-s-department-of-homeland-security-\fb29438.html-fb294389.html	August 12, 2026	37,324	2	20	5	70
124	Forensic Audit Report – Zolo.ca Real Estate Listing (CORRECTED)	FORENSIC-0124-zolo-audit-663d11c2.html	2026-08-12	21,146	1	9	0	97
125	Forensic Audit Report – Ballistic Ventures	FORENSIC-0125-audited-entity-ballistic-ventures-2126ce54.html	2026-08-11	38,522	2	28	10	95
126	Forensic Audit Report – qaudit-814-26.html (Shopify Blog)	FORENSIC-0126-forensic-audit-report-qaudit-814-26-html-shopify-blog-ac6f0312.html	2026-08-14	49,228	2	26	18	23
127	Forensic Audit Report – Edison Motors Contact Page	FORENSIC-0127-forensic-audit-report-edison-motors-contact-page-ab14937e.html	2026-08-11	24,280	2	10	0	80
128	Forensic Audit Report – Research Our Records \| National Archives	FORENSIC-0128-national-archive-audit-final-1652e8b9.html	July 30, 2026	36,774	2	19	8	51
129	Forensic Audit Report – Target File	FORENSIC-0129-shawn-ryan-audit-a7139f5d.html	2026-07-30	38,533	2	28	12	66
130	Forensic Audit Report – Felo.ai Adult AI Image Generator	FORENSIC-0130-felo-audit-8897c5af.html	August 3, 2026	21,992	1	6	8	63
131	Forensic Audit Report – Team Gatlin / Wix Website	FORENSIC-0131-team-gatlin-wix-website-audit-8846e161.html	2026-07-31	35,576	2	22	11	62
132	Forensic Audit Report – National Archives Research Page	FORENSIC-0132-audit-national-archives-research-page-352eaf26.html	2026-07-30	42,941	2	15	9	27
133	Forensic Audit Report – Alba Luxury	FORENSIC-0133-audited-entity-alba-luxury-e9ee7c70.html	2026-08-04	39,374	2	22	7	74
134	Forensic Audit Report – Italian Government (governo.it)	FORENSIC-0134-audited-entity-italian-government-presidenza-del-consiglio-d-70f4c052.html	2026-08-04	32,604	2	20	7	70
135	Forensic Audit Report – circulate.it (Cloze)	FORENSIC-0135-audited-entity-cloze-inc-circulate-dot-it-0537f09f.html	2026-08-04	32,410	2	19	7	71
136	Forensic Audit Report – Italy Sotheby's International Realty	FORENSIC-0136-audited-entity-italy-sotheby-s-international-realty-084ff779.html	2026-08-04	33,067	2	21	7	70
137	Forensic Audit Report – Twin Lakes Estate (haydenoutdoors.com)	FORENSIC-0137-forensic-audit-report-hayden-outdoors-twin-lakes-estate-43cdd4aa.html	September 7, 2026	31,573	2	19	10	56
138	Forensic Audit Report – sc.gov Homepage	FORENSIC-0138-scgovaudit-e36f54f9.html	August 2, 2026	47,593	2	13	10	24
139	Forensic Audit Report – DeepSeek Chat Page	FORENSIC-0139-deep-seek-live-audit-44fbc0fb.html	2026-08-01	37,584	2	22	9	42
140	Forensic Audit Report – Gene Guernsey & Associates (geneguernsey.com)	FORENSIC-0140-geneguernsey-audit-706cf55a.html	2026-08-04	41,768	2	30	12	55
141	Forensic Audit Report – treasury.gov.ua	FORENSIC-0141-audit-treasury-ukraine-db5308d2.html	2026-08-08	43,952	2	28	9	37
142	Forensic Audit Report – Kitsoft.ua	FORENSIC-0142-kit-soft-ua-audit-48383bef.html	2026-08-08	36,261	2	23	8	36
143	Forensic Audit Report – treasury.gov.ua	FORENSIC-0143-audit-treasury-ukraine-2-d137b234.html	2026-08-08	42,642	2	22	10	75
144	Forensic Audit Report – Дія. Платформа Центрів	FORENSIC-0144-ua-data-mining-site-audit1-84791c2c.html	2026-08-08	39,368	2	14	8	27
145	Forensic Audit Report – treasury.gov.ua	FORENSIC-0145-audit-treasury-ukraine-3-2d4a67f3.html	2026-08-08	42,096	2	22	10	74
146	Forensic Audit Report – Alibaba Cloud	FORENSIC-0146-audit-alibaba-cloud-77df6709.html	2026-08-03	43,268	2	26	10	33
147	Forensic Audit Report – Target File (Part 3 of 4)	FORENSIC-0147-p3of4zendeskaudit-81161dbd.html	July 30, 2026	34,869	2	26	9	47
148	Forensic Audit Report – Target File (Part 1 of 4)	FORENSIC-0148-p1of4zendeskaudit-3d0ba968.html	July 30, 2026	36,342	2	28	11	53
149	Forensic Audit Report – Email (TDCI Ticket #2503136)	FORENSIC-0149-emailauditzendesktngovcontractor-f591ff53.html	July 30, 2026	32,472	3	16	8	38
150	Forensic Audit Report – Target File (Part 4 of 4)	FORENSIC-0150-p4of4zendeskaudit-af475399.html	July 30, 2026	35,398	2	25	9	47
151	Rapporto di Revisione Forense – File Target	FORENSIC-0151-forensic-audit-easylivingtuscany-dot-com-4-august-2026-it-3442447c.html	2026-08-04	42,852	0	22	0	69
152	Forensic Audit Report – Target File	FORENSIC-0152-forensic-audit-easylivingtuscany-dot-com-4-august-2026-en-f7564645.html	2026-08-04	39,556	2	22	7	72
153	Forensic Audit Report – IGNET (CIGIE) Homepage	FORENSIC-0153-audit-council-of-the-inspectors-general-on-integrity-and-eff-5c9b4400.html	2026-07-30	42,290	2	15	9	28
154	Forensic OSINT & Telemetry Registry – Master Audit	FORENSIC-0154-qaudit1-4c23bbd7.html	2026-08-03	33,755	0	19	0	0
155	Updated Forensic Docket Audit	FORENSIC-0155-forensic-docket-audit-and-investigative-report-6a2ec278.html	July 28, 2026	16,166	0	1	0	1
156	Forensic Audit Report – passimpay.io (Index)	FORENSIC-0156-pasiampayioaudit-9751e35f.html	2026-08-03	42,314	2	30	12	58
157	Forensic Audit Report – Richland County Family Court	FORENSIC-0157-rcscfcaudit1-b5a4c43c.html	August 2, 2026	36,084	2	11	9	23
158	Forensic Audit – 9th Circuit E‑Filer Portal	FORENSIC-0158-audited-entity-9th-circuit-court-of-appeals-e-filer-portal-u-7b5132cf.html	2026-08-21	55,453	2	25	18	52
159	Brief of Amicus Curiae – 31 Pages (Fully Expanded Forensic Audit Record)	FORENSIC-0159-aclanier2-7c52b9f6.html	2026-08-21	35,210	0	0	0	0
160	FORENSIC AUDIT REPORT – MILSPEC – CORRECTED	FORENSIC-0160-forensic-audit-report-failings-and-fintech-subversion-covid–97363de3.html	2026-08-23	76,594	1	1	0	60
161	Forensic Audit Report – MIL‑2026‑08‑24‑005 (55 Pages)	FORENSIC-0161-forensic-audit-report-mil-2026-08-24-003-3fb7bc92.html	2026-08-24	54,509	0	0	0	125
162	FORENSIC AUDIT REPORT – MILSPEC – CORRECTED	FORENSIC-0162-forensic-audit-report-failings-and-fintech-subversion-covid–04108e86.html	2026-08-23	87,353	1	1	0	60
163	FINAL FORENSIC REPORT – EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY	FORENSIC-0163-final-forensic-report-executive-authority-e33f1b35.html	2026-08-21	17,478	0	6	0	22
164	Forensic Audit Report – PACER Registration Wizard	FORENSIC-0164-audited-entity-pacer-registration-wizard-u-s-federal-judicia-95e5ee00.html	2026-08-21	50,937	2	25	18	49
165	Forensic Audit Report – Zillow Agent Profile	FORENSIC-0165-zillow-agent-audit-4d106237.html	2026-07-30	36,447	2	26	12	57
166	Forensic Audit Report – United States District Court for the District of South Carolina	FORENSIC-0166-sc-fed-court-audit-74f97a14.html	2026-08-02	37,713	2	14	6	38
167	Forensic Audit Report – ignet.gov Homepage	FORENSIC-0167-ignet-gov-audit-14e394f0.html	2026-07-30	39,842	2	26	12	46
168	Forensic Audit Report – ZenCreator.pro	FORENSIC-0168-audit-zencreator-02406dd5.html	2026-08-03	47,453	2	30	10	39
169	Forensic Audit Report – Richland County SC Family Court Page	FORENSIC-0169-rcscfcaudit2-46526d66.html	August 2, 2026	43,061	2	14	7	44
170	Forensic Audit Report – Wikipedia Main Page	FORENSIC-0170-audit-wikimedia-foundation-6608f92d.html	2026-08-03	38,354	2	21	10	35
171	Forensic OSINT & Telemetry Registry – Master Audit	FORENSIC-0171-qaudit2-58f3934f.html	2026-08-03	64,675	2	27	7	24
172	Forensic Audit Report – Spotify Web Player	FORENSIC-0172-spotify-audit-5ee89a65.html	2026-07-31	36,569	2	25	11	53
173	Forensic Audit Report – The Torgerson Team	FORENSIC-0173-audited-entity-the-torgerson-team-thetorgersonteam-dotcom-2edca14b.html	August 31, 2026	53,149	2	23	12	100
174	Forensic Audit Report – Lone Wolf Technologies (Authentisign Page)	FORENSIC-0174-audited-entity-lone-wolf-technologies-lwolf-dot-com-8601da3e.html	August 31, 2026	51,761	2	24	12	97
175	FORENSIC AUDIT – TARGET 13‑A: BATTALION METALS CART (MONOCHROME EDITION)	FORENSIC-0175-metals-site-audit2-19ace48e.html	2026-07-22	42,496	2	5	6	30
176	FORENSIC AUDIT REPORT – Krietz Auto Sales (Product Page) – 2026-07-21	FORENSIC-0176-krietz-auto-audit-200369f6.html	2026-07-21	38,131	0	21	9	52
177	FORENSIC AUDIT REPORT – Joe Wilson Contact Page – 2026-07-21	FORENSIC-0177-joe-wilson-audit-8ce7b6c6.html	2026-07-21	30,472	0	15	9	68
178	CONSOLIDATED FORENSIC AUDIT – CNN INTERNATIONAL HOMEPAGE (ALL 9 PARTS) – VERBATIM MERGER	FORENSIC-0178-cnn-all-9-parts-58a11408.html	July 25, 2026	251,726	2	44	54	205
179	FORENSIC AUDIT REPORT – TARGETS 34 & 35: CNN INTERNATIONAL HOMEPAGE (PARTS 7 & 8 OF 9)	FORENSIC-0179-cnnpart-7-and-8-audit-48163d7a.html	July 25, 2026	37,498	0	26	11	93
180	FORENSIC AUDIT REPORT – Desert Power Wagons (Product Page) – 2026-07-21	FORENSIC-0180-powerwagonaudit-a8770719.html	2026-07-21	39,860	0	21	9	54
181	FORENSIC AUDIT REPORT – Joe Wilson Contact Page – 2026-07-21	FORENSIC-0181-joe-wilson-audit-2-8ce7b6c6.html	2026-07-21	30,472	0	15	9	68
182	FORENSIC AUDIT REPORT – Target #17: The White House (whitehouse.gov)	FORENSIC-0182-whitehouseaudit-b70ecc23.html	2026-07-22	94,642	2	26	11	74
183	FORENSIC AUDIT REPORT – TARGET #24: SHAWN RYAN SHOW	FORENSIC-0183-shawn-ryan-show-audit-ef9c6add.html	July 24, 2026	39,403	2	47	9	67
184	FORENSIC AUDIT REPORT: Breitbart News Network Masthead	FORENSIC-0184-breitbartaudit-c75b0059.html	2026-07-24	66,307	0	24	8	84
185	CONSOLIDATED FORENSIC AUDIT – CNN INTERNATIONAL HOMEPAGE (ALL 9 PARTS) – VERBATIM MERGER	FORENSIC-0185-ccnall-58a11408.html	July 25, 2026	251,726	2	44	54	205
186	FORENSIC AUDIT REPORT – Federal Communications Commission (FCC) – 2026-07-21	FORENSIC-0186-fcc-audit-d696b2bc.html	2026-07-21	32,483	0	19	10	68
187	Forensic Audit Report: Target 28.1 (CSS File) – Henri Bryant Lanier Sr., Esq., Ph.D.	FORENSIC-0187-cnnpart2of9audit-ea6a5c0b.html	2026-07-25	26,519	2	10	4	63
188	Forensic Audit Tool – Gemini Powered	FORENSIC-0188-audit-tool-48006fc9.html	2026-07-25	16,561	0	0	0	0
189	FORENSIC AUDIT – TARGET 32 (CNN PART 5) – FINAL COMPLETE REPORT	FORENSIC-0189-cnnpart5of9audit-f997c0a7.html	2026-07-25	19,856	0	15	7	65
190	FORENSIC AUDIT REPORT – TARGET 34: CNN INTERNATIONAL HOMEPAGE (PART 7 OF 9)	FORENSIC-0190-cnnpart7of9audit-5d6d6069.html	July 25, 2026	35,981	0	26	9	100
191	FORENSIC AUDIT REPORT – TARGET 27: GlennBeck.com	FORENSIC-0191-glennbeckaudit-64e70dd1.html	2026-07-25	87,146	1	44	12	91
192	FORENSIC AUDIT REPORT – TARGETS 34, 35 & 36: CNN INTERNATIONAL HOMEPAGE (ALL 9 PARTS)	FORENSIC-0192-cnnaudit-part-7-8-9-36301ee5.html	July 25, 2026	44,260	0	26	13	94
193	FORENSIC AUDIT – TARGET 20: FORTIS MILITARY DEFENSE	FORENSIC-0193-fortislawaudit-6ab60ae0.html	2026-07-24	37,727	0	4	0	22
194	FORENSIC AUDIT REPORT – Federal Communications Commission (FCC) – 2026-07-21	FORENSIC-0194-fcc-audit2-49d01908.html	2026-07-21	38,823	0	20	10	59
195	FORENSIC AUDIT REPORT: Target 28 – CNN International Homepage (chunk_aa.txt)	FORENSIC-0195-cnnpart1of9audit-4faf2f61.html	2026-07-25	43,180	0	26	7	93
196	FORENSIC AUDIT REPORT – NCDOJ.GOV (Consumer Complaint Page) – 2026-07-21	FORENSIC-0196-ncdojaudit-35cf71ac.html	2026-07-21	40,966	0	25	10	55
197	FORENSIC AUDIT REPORT: Fox News Network Homepage	FORENSIC-0197-foxnewsaudit-c2746595.html	2026-07-24	41,602	0	21	8	68
198	Forensic Audit – Target 33 (CNN Part 6 of 9)	FORENSIC-0198-cnnpart6of9audit-df81b257.html	2026-07-25	19,416	0	16	7	88
199	FORENSIC AUDIT – TARGET 18: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY	FORENSIC-0199-treasury-audit-8763b801.html	2026-07-23	34,605	0	4	0	24
200	FORENSIC AUDIT REPORT – TARGET 31 (CNN INTERNATIONAL HOMEPAGE – PART 4 OF 9)	FORENSIC-0200-cnnpart4of9audit-e7028cce.html	2026-07-25	39,140	0	32	8	77
201	FORENSIC AUDIT REPORT – schiff.senate.gov (Contact Page) – 2026-07-21	FORENSIC-0201-adam-schiff-audit-214cfa2b.html	2026-07-21	34,463	0	20	8	55
202	FORENSIC AUDIT REPORT – TARGET #25: TUCKER CARLSON NETWORK	FORENSIC-0202-tuckercarlsonaudit-33b49cb5.html	July 24, 2026	42,582	2	47	10	66
203	FORENSIC AUDIT REPORT – Federal Communications Commission (FCC) – 2026-07-21	FORENSIC-0203-fcc-audit3-96aab5ce.html	2026-07-21	60,954	0	69	13	59
204	FORENSIC AUDIT REPORT – Target #16: United States Courts (uscourts.gov)	FORENSIC-0204-uscourts-audit-a0f2f49c.html	2026-07-22	103,037	2	28	10	73
205	FORENSIC AUDIT REPORT – scott.senate.gov (Email Senator Scott) – 2026-07-21	FORENSIC-0205-tim-scott-audit-148cb68e.html	2026-07-21	37,072	0	20	8	54
206	FORENSIC AUDIT REPORT – TARGET #23: YAHOO HOMEPAGE	FORENSIC-0206-yahooaudit-cebe1f66.html	July 24, 2026	62,082	2	47	10	69
207	FORENSIC AUDIT – TARGET 30 (CNN PART 3/9) – FULL RUNNING TABLE	FORENSIC-0207-cnnpart3of9audit-cfbdda73.html	2026-07-25	38,550	0	32	8	74
208	Forensic Audit Report: Alex Jones Live (alexjoneslive.com) \| Ladco Defense Technologies	FORENSIC-0208-alexjonesaudit-33abe893.html	2026-07-25	35,868	1	22	6	79
209	FORENSIC AUDIT – TARGET 13‑A: BATTALION METALS CART (EXHAUSTIVE LINE‑ITEM EDITION)	FORENSIC-0209-metals-site-audit-2229aff0.html	2026-07-22	44,058	2	24	6	30
210	FSIR: Zillow Signal Mountain – Multi-Agency Forensic Audit (Print Version)	FORENSIC-0210-deepseek-html-20260626-d36e2f-3f0c10ce.html	2026-06-26	36,989	0	34	0	47
211	Forensic Audit Report – Easyliving Tuscany	FORENSIC-0211-deepseek-html-20260627-851324-69be91b3.html	2026-06-27	28,461	0	14	0	11
212	FORENSIC AUDIT V3.0 – EXPANDED LIABILITY ASSESSMENT	FORENSIC-0212-deepseek-html-20260627-5d7b55-69e23eff.html	2026-06-27	35,671	0	10	0	11
213	SIGINT/FORENSIC AUDIT – FACTOR 4 DEEP DIVE	FORENSIC-0213-deepseek-html-20260629-0eb71c-882e94ee.html	2026-06-29	42,237	0	27	0	20
214	Forensic Legal Analysis – Expanded Compendium	FORENSIC-0214-deepseek-html-20260630-e3b2b9-3ce07661.html	2026-06-30	37,318	0	36	0	9
215	FORENSIC AUDIT V3.0 – EXPANDED LIABILITY ASSESSMENT	FORENSIC-0215-deepseek-html-20260627-792a69-807bb32f.html	2026-06-27	35,093	0	10	0	11
216	Forensic Audit – First American Financial / BlackRock / BCCI Nexus (4x Granular)	FORENSIC-0216-deepseek-html-20260629-2b7eb0-784cba40.html	2026-06-29	22,489	0	12	0	13
217	Forensic Legal Analysis – Expanded Compendium (Print Ready)	FORENSIC-0217-deepseek-html-20260630-a006f2-6aace3a7.html	2026-06-30	38,212	0	0	0	0
218	Expanded Forensic Legal Authority – Numerical Outline	FORENSIC-0218-deepseek-html-20260629-dc9f7a-5fea3cff.html	2026-06-29	34,246	0	6	0	12
219	Forensic Audit Report – Easyliving Tuscany	FORENSIC-0219-deepseek-html-20260627-7d4693-86246217.html	2026-06-27	27,691	0	14	0	11
220	Forensic Report – Zillow HTML Code Analysis	FORENSIC-0220-zillow-fraud-7fe70321.html	2026-06-24	26,984	0	11	0	0
221	QCUE Micro-Mote – Forensic Validation & System Analysis	FORENSIC-0221-deepseek-html-20260712-f4f6e7-6dc97234.html	2026-07-12	35,667	0	1	0	7
222	Forensic Audit Dossier – Initial Point Realty LLC	FORENSIC-0222-deepseek-html-20260712-e3c09c-e3f9c4d1.html	2026-07-12	45,953	0	22	0	58
223	Forensic Audit Dossier – Initial Point Realty LLC	FORENSIC-0223-deepseek-html-20260712-134326-f456f6b4.html	2026-07-12	44,184	0	22	0	58
224	QCUE Micro-Mote – Forensic Validation & System Analysis	FORENSIC-0224-deepseek-html-20260712-b78f2f-d88f7d64.html	2026-07-12	33,740	0	1	0	7
225	Forensic Analysis – Expanded Legal Violations Matrix	FORENSIC-0225-deepseek-html-20260712-6b0558-dff6e952.html	2026-07-12	39,905	0	16	0	1
226	Forensic Analysis – Expanded Legal Violations Matrix	FORENSIC-0226-deepseek-html-20260712-73372b-a6cb9ec9.html	2026-07-12	42,036	0	17	0	1
227	Forensic Audit Dossier – Initial Point Realty LLC	FORENSIC-0227-deepseek-html-20260712-b74531-f31a30fa.html	2026-07-12	44,595	0	22	0	58
228	Forensic Audit Dossier – Print Ready	FORENSIC-0228-deepseek-html-20260712-fe85dc-5c18027b.html	2026-07-12	42,405	0	22	0	58
229	Forensic Audit – Brivity Corporate Website	FORENSIC-0229-deepseek-html-20260713-2f1f0d-b96d961f.html	July 12, 2026	38,484	0	15	0	16
230	COMPREHENSIVE FORENSIC & LEGAL COMPENDIUM – Brivity / Initial Point / American Nation Bank	FORENSIC-0230-deepseek-html-20260714-5f7d14-cb9f6173.html	2026-07-14	81,514	3	32	0	86
231	QCUE Micro-Mote – Forensic Validation & System Analysis	FORENSIC-0231-deepseek-html-20260712-b78f2f-1-caf49d97.html	2026-07-12	35,652	0	1	0	7
232	Generate PDF – Forensic Audit Dossier	FORENSIC-0232-deepseek-html-20260712-cbe1cf-5a376790.html	2026-07-12	41,924	0	22	0	58
233	Forensic Audit – Thentia Cloud	FORENSIC-0233-orec-audit-0e1f7190.html	2026-07-17	15,287	0	14	0	27
234	Forensic Audit – Sarah Fulton / Southern Oklahoma Realty	FORENSIC-0234-sarah-fulton-audit-2c43ce63.html	2026-07-17	15,899	0	13	0	30
235	Forensic Audit Case Index	FORENSIC-0235-index-5b8be6f9.html	2026-07-17	2,890	0	0	0	0
236	Forensic Audit – Oklahoma Real Estate Commission (OREC)	FORENSIC-0236-orec-audit-2-879ec51c.html	2026-07-17	13,672	0	11	0	25
237	Complete Forensic Audit + Expanded Case Law Citations	FORENSIC-0237-orec-audit-3-d6b280f6.html	2026-07-17	89,440	0	35	0	69
238	Forensic Audit Report – Battalion Metals LLC	FORENSIC-0238-audited-entity-battalion-metals-llc-3aab13e6.html	August 27, 2026	61,843	2	30	13	70
239	FORENSIC AUDIT REPORT – Target 28: Blinq Digital Business Card (Michelle High)	FORENSIC-0239-audit-buyers-agent-c5329552.html	2026-07-26	46,492	0	25	8	36
240	Forensic Audit Report – Hearst Homepage (index.html)	FORENSIC-0240-forensic-audit-hearst-homepage-4eb97ea5.html	2026-07-27	25,650	2	10	5	15
241	Forensic Audit Report – RealOpen Contact Page	FORENSIC-0241-cowboy-wyhoming-audit-361062bf.html	July 27, 2026	30,888	2	19	6	22
242	Forensic Audit Report – United Nations Homepage	FORENSIC-0242-un-audit-637d6245.html	July 27, 2026	31,142	2	19	6	23
243	Forensic Audit Report – CNN International Homepage (part 2)	FORENSIC-0243-cnn-audit-part-2-9-acac2df1.html	2026-07-27	30,507	2	18	7	21
244	Forensic Audit Report – CNN International Homepage	FORENSIC-0244-cnn-audit-part-1-9-dc01a0e6.html	2026-07-27	28,818	2	26	7	23
245	Forensic Audit Report – Target File	FORENSIC-0245-cnn-audit-part-6-9-c8319813.html	2026-07-27	19,147	1	12	5	18
246	Forensic Audit Report – CNN International Homepage (part 3)	FORENSIC-0246-cnn-audit-part-3-9-ee53aa07.html	2026-07-27	29,331	2	15	7	24
247	Forensic Audit Report – CNN Navigation Fragment (Part 7 of 9)	FORENSIC-0247-cnn-audit-part-7-9-aa224026.html	2026-07-27	27,502	1	13	6	22
248	Forensic Audit Report – Target File	FORENSIC-0248-cnn-audit-part-5-9-50461c12.html	2026-07-27	20,266	1	12	5	20
249	Forensic Audit Report – Target File	FORENSIC-0249-cnn-audit-part-4-9-ad595504.html	2026-07-27	21,691	1	14	5	19
250	Forensic Audit Report – CNN International Homepage	FORENSIC-0250-ae1-aeed5664.html	2026-07-27	243,166	2	45	56	90
251	Forensic Audit Report – CNN Code Fragment (Part 8 of 9)	FORENSIC-0251-cnn-audit-part-8-9-e03c5f07.html	2026-07-27	23,311	1	13	6	15
252	Forensic Audit Report – Target File	FORENSIC-0252-cnn-audit-part-9-9-e8a50122.html	2026-07-27	37,274	2	17	8	29
253	Forensic Audit Report – Glenn Beck Homepage	FORENSIC-0253-glenn-beck-audit-ii-2d7043ff.html	July 27, 2026	31,949	2	19	6	23
254	Forensic Audit – FinCEN Contact Page – Expanded Criminal & Civil Exposure	FORENSIC-0254-fincen-audit2-e1647dac.html	2026-07-26	23,032	0	22	12	30
255	Forensic Audit Report – Document Viewer	FORENSIC-0255-socalled-document-signer-app-audit-4113cfac.html	2026-07-26	18,508	0	23	5	16
256	Forensic Audit Report – Federal Reserve Financial Services Homepage	FORENSIC-0256-frbservices-audit-ae328b3d.html	July 27, 2026	53,329	2	33	11	34
257	Forensic Audit Report – TerraLex	FORENSIC-0257-terralex-audit-43832af1.html	2026-07-27	32,915	2	29	13	45
258	Forensic Audit Report – FinCEN Contact Us Page	FORENSIC-0258-fincen-audit-07e906f5.html	2026-07-26	21,740	2	16	6	21
259	Forensic Audit Report – I.UA Homepage	FORENSIC-0259-i-ua-audit-f40bf229.html	July 27, 2026	30,287	1	19	6	23
260	Forensic Audit Report – AI System Analysis	FORENSIC-0260-msnaudit-b4e95bd3.html	2026-07-27	38,851	2	20	6	31
261	Forensic Audit Report – Real Estate Buyer Representation Agreement	FORENSIC-0261-real-estate-agent-so-called-buyer-agent-contract-audit-79a144c6.html	2026-07-26	31,868	0	46	8	16

Appearances	Side	Name
115	plaintiff	All affected individuals
12	plaintiff	Henri Bryant Lanier Sr
10	plaintiff	All individuals
5	plaintiff	All affected natural persons
5	defendant	Google LLC
5	defendant	Warner Bros. Discovery
4	plaintiff	All affected individuals Defendants
3	defendant	Richland County
3	defendant	Meta Platforms
3	defendant	State Treasury Service
3	defendant	Zendesk
3	defendant	Turner Broadcasting System
2	defendant	Keller Williams Heritage
2	respondent	State
2	defendant	Ministry
2	defendant	Republic
2	defendant	RE ITALY S.r.l
2	defendant	RealOpen Group
2	defendant	U.S. Department
2	defendant	The Associated Press
2	plaintiff	Class
2	defendant	National Archives
2	defendant	United States
2	petitioner	On Petition
2	defendant	Battalion Metals LLC. COUNT I
2	defendant	Mercury Radio Arts
2	defendant	Yahoo
1	defendant	Lanier Properties
1	defendant	Intercontinental Exchange
1	defendant	Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
1	defendant	Bijeli Slon Real Estate Centre
1	defendant	Bijeli Slon Real Estate Centre operates a website
1	defendant	Link Development
1	defendant	Beyon Solutions
1	defendant	LINC Technologies
1	defendant	Roblox Corporation
1	plaintiff	All affected reporting entities
1	defendant	The Vanuatu Financial Intelligence Unit
1	defendant	Ray White Vanuatu
1	defendant	Vanuatu Financial Services Commission
1	defendant	Glenn Beck
1	defendant	Glenn Beck operates a website
1	defendant	Brand Depo LLC
1	defendant	Brand Depo LLC operates a real estate website
1	defendant	Properstar SA
1	respondent	Ron Reyes
1	defendant	Alliance Real Estate Business Center S.R.L
1	defendant	Law Office
1	defendant	Coinbase Bermuda Technologies Limited
1	defendant	Temasek Holdings
1	defendant	Temasek operates a website
1	defendant	Internet Brands
1	defendant	Internet Brands operates a website
1	defendant	Cambridge University Press & Assessment
1	defendant	The State
1	defendant	Transworld Business Advisors
1	defendant	Akamai Technologies
1	defendant	Synergy Business Brokers
1	defendant	Consentmanager AB
1	defendant	Amara Properties

Appearances	Citation
204	50 U.S.C. § 1702
203	22 U.S.C. § 2295
203	10 U.S.C. § 2304
194	18 U.S.C. § 2511
188	18 U.S.C. § 1030
156	Civ. Code § 1798.100
141	GDPR Art. 5
138	15 U.S.C. § 45(a)
132	5 U.S.C. § 552
124	18 U.S.C. § 1343
120	GDPR Art. 7
117	47 U.S.C. § 605
96	15 U.S.C. § 6801
88	15 U.S.C. § 45
88	GDPR Art. 32
82	26 C.F.R. § 1.507
79	GDPR Art. 6
73	29 U.S.C. § 794
73	42 U.S.C. § 1983
73	47 U.S.C. § 230
71	Penal Code § 33.02
71	GDPR Art. 13
70	18 U.S.C. § 3571
70	42 U.S.C. § 12181
68	GDPR Art. 44
62	Penal Code § 502
54	18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)
53	County Code § 22
52	15 U.S.C. § 7701
51	Penal Code § 631
50	18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)
49	15 U.S.C. § 6501
48	County Code § 4.5
48	18 U.S.C. § 1961
41	Prof. Code § 17200
39	Civ. Code § 1798.135
31	18 U.S.C. § 1836
30	Civ. Code § 1798.150
28	Professions Code § 17200
28	GDPR Art. 83
26	18 U.S.C. § 1028
23	18 U.S.C. § 371
21	18 U.S.C. § 2520
20	Civ. Code § 1798.100(b)
18	47 U.S.C. § 333
17	GDPR Art. 35
17	28 U.S.C. § 1746
16	47 U.S.C. § 227
16	18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A)
16	Civ. Code § 1798.120
15	18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)
15	47 U.S.C. § 301
15	GDPR Art. 17
15	Prof. Code § 22575
14	28 U.S.C. § 1331
14	18 U.S.C. § 242
14	18 U.S.C. § 2701
14	GDPR Art. 4
14	Regulation (EU) 2016/679
14	18 U.S.C. § 1362
14	Pen. Code § 502
14	Civ. Code § 1798.130(a)(5)
13	Penal Code § 631(a)
13	18 U.S.C. § 241
13	GDPR Art. 8
13	GDPR Art. 33
12	44 U.S.C. § 3551
12	Penal Code § 502(c)(2)
12	GDPR Art. 21
12	GDPR Article 6
12	GDPR Art. 28
12	18 U.S.C. § 1341
11	18 U.S.C. § 1029
11	Penal Code § 632
11	GDPR Art. 25
11	18 U.S.C. § 2511(4)
11	18 U.S.C. § 1030(c)
10	42 U.S.C. § 1985
10	44 U.S.C. § 3541
10	18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(C)
10	15 U.S.C. §45(a)
10	Penal Code § 502(c)
10	Civ. Code §1798.100
10	Civ. Code § 1798.130
10	15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(A)
9	18 U.S.C. § 1962
9	GDPR Article 32
9	18 U.S.C. §2511
9	18 U.S.C. §1030
8	Penal Code § 502(c)(1)
8	42 U.S.C. § 3604
8	15 U.S.C. §6801
8	GDPR Article 7
8	18 U.S.C. §1030(a)(2)(C)
8	Professions Code § 22575
8	12 U.S.C. § 2607
8	42 U.S.C. § 3601
7	18 U.S.C. § 1372
7	17 U.S.C. § 501
7	44 U.S.C. § 3501

Section 1 — Forensic Audit Report — Lanier Properties IDX Kestrel Real Estate Portal — LDT-FAR-2026-1003-LANIER-PROPERTIES-REV2

Source File	FORENSIC-0001-forensic-audit-report-lanier-properties-idx-kestrel-real-est-d18462db.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-10-03 14:00:09
Size	64,062 bytes
SHA-256	d18462dbebf88098c3899bfdaa909d71d04c229f1e74059fb5d941e94680458b

1.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected natural persons	Counts — Draft for Federal Complaint Plaintiffs: All affected natural persons who accessed the Lanier Properties portal (Class Action, Fed. R. Civ. P. 23). Defe
defendant	Lanier Properties	tal (Class Action, Fed. R. Civ. P. 23). Defendants: Lanier Properties / Lanier Realty, IDXHome / FBS, Google L

1.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (26)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 1030	n: 4c6c983e-2837-4738-853b-d8a49c97a6b0 18 U.S.C. § 1030; 18 U.S.C. § 1028; 18 U.S.C. § 1836
18 U.S.C. § 1028	738-853b-d8a49c97a6b0 18 U.S.C. § 1030; 18 U.S.C. § 1028; 18 U.S.C. § 1836 V-02 Paragon Cross
18 U.S.C. § 1836	6b0 18 U.S.C. § 1030; 18 U.S.C. § 1028; 18 U.S.C. § 1836 V-02 Paragon Cross-Origin Image Hotl
17 U.S.C. § 106	zimg.paragon.ice.com / MAAR / 10231710 17 U.S.C. § 106; 18 U.S.C. § 1030; MAAR IDX Rules V-
GDPR Art. 6	CMZ loaded unconditionally via Site Kit GDPR Art. 6; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); Cal. Civ. Code § 1
Civ. Code § 1798.100	t GDPR Art. 6; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 V-08 Google Analytics DataLayer Inli
GDPR Art. 5	0 V-11 No Referrer-Policy Med Absent GDPR Art. 5(1)(c) V-12 No X-Frame-Options / fram
47 U.S.C. § 605	com/ihf-kestrel.js?ver=7.1.2 NIST SI-7; 47 U.S.C. § 605 V-22 Essential Addons Frontend Loade
29 U.S.C. § 794	okieadmin_re_consent without aria-label 29 U.S.C. § 794d; WCAG 2.1 AA V-43 CookieAdmin Power
18 U.S.C. § 1343	S.C. § 1836 (Defend Trade Secrets Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud); 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act);
15 U.S.C. § 45	ts Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud); 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act); MAAR IDX Rules § 12 (unautho
Penal Code § 502	ed access to MLS data). • State: Cal. Penal Code § 502; N.Y. Penal Law §§ 156.00–156.55; Tex.
Penal Code § 33.02	; N.Y. Penal Law §§ 156.00–156.55; Tex. Penal Code § 33.02; Fla. Stat. §§ 815.01–815.07; Tenn. Cod
GDPR Art. 32	MAAR IDX agreement). • International: GDPR Art. 32; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); Budapest Conventio
17 U.S.C. § 504	al: 17 U.S.C. § 106 (exclusive rights); 17 U.S.C. § 504 (statutory damages up to $150,000 per w
Civ. Code § 3344	display restrictions). • State: Cal. Civ. Code § 3344 (misappropriation); Tenn. Code Ann. § 4
5 U.S.C. § 552	• Federal: 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act); 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 47 U.S.C. § 605. • State: Cal. Civ.
Penal Code § 637.2	$7,500 per intentional violation); Cal. Penal Code § 637.2 ($5,000 per violation); N.Y. GBL § 349;
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)	without CSP enforcement. • Federal: 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5); NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SI-7; 44 U.S.C.
44 U.S.C. § 3551	1030(a)(5); NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SI-7; 44 U.S.C. § 3551 et seq. • Tort: Negligent security.
18 U.S.C. § 2511	90,048 15,780,096 11,835,072,000,000 18 U.S.C. § 2511 — Google Analytics 10,000 1 1 60 3,600
15 U.S.C. § 6801	ms; $50,120 per violation. Count VI — 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA): Real estate financial informati
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2,
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2, and Title 47, Tel
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	5a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2, and Title 47, Telecommunications § 2

1.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (18)

1.4 Dollar Figures (16)

$5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $110,000.00 · $150,000.00 · $764,430,660.00 · $45,865,839,600.00 · $2,751,950,376,000.00 · $66,046,809,024,000.00 · $462,327,663,168,000.00 · $2,010,424,273,576,960.00 · $6,031,272,820,730,880.00 · $12,062,545,641,461,760.00 · $14,063,472,076,800,000.00 · $24,125,091,282,923,520.00

1.5 Dates (1)

2026-10-03

Section 2 of 261

Section 2 — Forensic Audit Report – NYSE Quote Page (XNYS:CXW)

Source File	FORENSIC-0002-forensic-audit-report-nyse-quote-page-xnys-cxw-f6046c99.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-10-04 04:48:14
Size	68,430 bytes
SHA-256	f6046c99b2c3d6f41898bc8c19b11908b43f14f441069ba474f8ac7ce5dd8d89

2.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	ict of New York (SDNY) — Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (nationwide and international Class Acti
defendant	Intercontinental Exchange	U, UK, Brazil, and Canada residents). Defendants: Intercontinental Exchange, Inc.; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Google LL

2.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (40)

Citation	Source excerpt
42 U.S.C. § 5195	al market infrastructure operator under 42 U.S.C. § 5195c and 18 U.S.C. § 1372, NYSE/ICE’s failu
18 U.S.C. § 1372	re operator under 42 U.S.C. § 5195c and 18 U.S.C. § 1372, NYSE/ICE’s failure to protect this dat
18 U.S.C. § 2511	ayer push before consent High 2021‑2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511; GDPR Art. 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3) Top of
GDPR Art. 7	onsent High 2021‑2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511; GDPR Art. 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3) Top of <head> 2
47 U.S.C. § 605	beacon High 2021‑2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 47 U.S.C. § 605 End of <body> 3 External CSS load fr
18 U.S.C. § 1030	s (surveillance surface) High 2021‑2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030; CFAA <link rel="modulepreload"> × 14
GDPR Art. 6	tence — utm_source High 2021‑2026 CCPA; GDPR Art. 6 hydrationQueue props 6 Query‑string
Civ. Code § 1798.135	link only in footer High 2023‑2026 Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.135 Footer bottomLinks 14 Absence of con
5 U.S.C. § 552	t‑in‑time privacy notice High 2021‑2026 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3); GDPR Art. 13 Whole document
GDPR Art. 13	e High 2021‑2026 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3); GDPR Art. 13 Whole document 16 Browser‑upgrade ba
18 U.S.C. § 1028	t leaking promo partials High 2021‑2026 18 U.S.C. § 1028; § 1029 cms-component-nyse-login 19
18 U.S.C. § 1519	t (DOM‑based censorship) High 2021‑2026 18 U.S.C. § 1519; § 2071 hideCEOCard() injection 22 C
Penal Code § 631(a)	$1,000 per count. • State (California Penal Code § 631(a)): Wiretapping — each transmission an in
Penal Code § 502(c)(1)	10,000 per count. • State (California Penal Code § 502(c)(1)): Unauthorized computer access — $5,000
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)	devices — Class E felony. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)): Wiretap Act — $10,000 per count, treb
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)	10,000 per count, trebled. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)): CFAA — $5,000 per count, trebled. •
18 U.S.C. § 1343	$5,000 per count, trebled. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Wire fraud — $1,000,000 per count, 20
GDPR Art. 5	, joint and several. • International (GDPR Art. 5(1)(a), 6(1)): Lawfulness — €250,000 per
18 U.S.C. § 1370	retap expansions as above; additionally 18 U.S.C. § 1370 (damage to telecommunications) — $250,0
18 U.S.C. § 1039	xu.js 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C) CFAA; 18 U.S.C. § 1039 (false representation of federal agency
18 U.S.C. § 1836	presentation of federal agency analog); 18 U.S.C. § 1836 (trade secret misappropriation, Defend
18 U.S.C. § 1029	.C. § 1030 CFAA; 18 U.S.C. § 1836 DTSA; 18 U.S.C. § 1029 access device fraud; NIST SP 800‑53 CM‑
Rule 10b	r Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b‑5 (17 C.F.R. § 240.10b‑5). (function
17 C.F.R. § 240.10	(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b‑5 (17 C.F.R. § 240.10b‑5). (function () { function hideCEO
15 U.S.C. § 78	nt/removal of records); SEC Rule 10b‑5; 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) — criminal and civil exposure; $5,0
17 C.F.R. § 242.1000	egulations Art. 18; SEC Regulation SCI (17 C.F.R. § 242.1000 et seq.); MiFID II RTS 6; $1,000,000 pe
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	47 U.S.C. § 605: $110,000 per count. 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC): $50,120 per count. CCPA § 1798
County Code § 22	mputers and telecommunications); Harris County Code § 22 (privacy); Maricopa County Ordinance §
County Code § 4.5	Ordinance § 15 (wiretapping); San Diego County Code § 4.5 (data security) — each count triggers j
15 U.S.C. § 45	497, 1498, 1499, 1500; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 15 U.S.C. § 45, § 6801, § 7701; 29 U.S.C. § 794d; 42 U
29 U.S.C. § 794	§ 552a; 15 U.S.C. § 45, § 6801, § 7701; 29 U.S.C. § 794d; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981–1986, § 12181; 47 U
50 U.S.C. § 1702	12181; 47 U.S.C. §§ 301, 333, 605, 230; 50 U.S.C. § 1702. Military UCMJ Articles: Arts. 92, 93,
42 U.S.C. § 1983	llion. Bivens: N/A — private actor, but 42 U.S.C. § 1983 not triggered; state‑actor doctrine ina
18 U.S.C. § 3571	54,656,420,000. Criminal exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 3571: $500,000 per count × 54,656,420,000 =
Civ. Code § 1798.100	nt V — Violation of the CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Failure to provide notice, op
Gen. Bus. Law § 899	— Violation of the NY SHIELD Act (N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 899‑bb): Failure to implement reasonable sa
42 U.S.C. § 1985	ygiene. Count XVI — Civil Conspiracy (42 U.S.C. § 1985): ICE, NYSE, and Google acted in concer
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	& 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304 & 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 & Title 47, Telecommunications § 230

2.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (20)

2.4 Dollar Figures (171)

$1.68 · $3.15 · $7.40 · $10.51 · $11.06 · $27.33 · $105.10 · $353.63 · $561.30 · $561.31 · $1,000.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $15,000.00 · $25,000.00 · $30,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $55,120.00 · $110,000.00 · $140,000.00 · $160,120.00 · $210,000.00 · $250,000.00 · $263,500.00 · $500,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $1,005,000.00 · $1,015,000.00 · $2,256,975.00 · $4,513,950.00 · $5,000,000.00 · $9,027,900.00 · $15,083,916.00 · $16,590,516.00 · $42,130,200.00 · $48,184,916.00 · $63,195,300.00 · $79,283,820.00 · $135,418,500.00 · $270,837,000.00 · $300,930,000.00 · $302,434,650.00 · $305,444,500.00 · $541,674,000.00 · $905,035,000.00 · $995,431,000.00 · $1,504,650,000.00 · $2,527,812,000.00 · $2,891,095,000.00 · $3,088,874,608.00 · $3,791,718,000.00 · $4,757,029,200.00 · $8,125,110,000.00 · $16,250,220,000.00 · $18,055,800,000.00 · $18,146,079,000.00 · $18,326,670,000.00 · $32,500,440,000.00 · $54,302,100,000.00 · $59,725,860,000.00 · $90,279,000,000.00 · $151,668,720,000.00 · $173,465,700,000.00 · $185,332,476,500.00 · $195,002,640,000.00 · $227,503,080,000.00 · $285,421,752,000.00 · $390,005,280,000.00 · $780,010,560,000.00 · $1,083,348,000,000.00 · $1,088,764,740,000.00 · $1,099,600,200,000.00 · $1,303,250,400,000.00 · $1,365,018,480,000.00 · $1,433,420,640,000.00 · $2,730,036,960,000.00 · $3,640,049,280,000.00 · $4,163,180,160,000.00 · $5,416,740,000,000.00 · $5,460,073,920,000.00 · $5,935,891,266,667.00 · $6,850,122,048,000.00 · $9,122,752,800,000.00 · $10,033,944,480,000.00 · $11,119,948,590,000.00 · $11,871,782,533,333.00 · $17,807,673,800,000.00 · $23,743,565,066,667.00 · $25,480,344,960,000.00 · $26,000,352,000,000.00 · $26,130,353,760,000.00 · $26,390,004,800,000.00 · $29,142,261,120,000.00 · $35,615,347,600,000.00 · $38,220,517,440,000.00 · $39,663,844,128,000.00 · $43,625,438,400,000.00 · $47,950,854,336,000.00 · $71,230,695,200,000.00 · $110,803,303,644,444.00 · $118,991,532,384,000.00 · $126,724,940,556,800.00 · $130,001,760,000,000.00 · $130,876,315,200,000.00 · $142,461,390,400,000.00 · $166,204,955,466,667.00 · $182,002,464,000,000.00 · $182,912,476,320,000.00 · $184,730,033,600,000.00 · $208,542,422,720,000.00 · $237,983,064,768,000.00 · $261,752,630,400,000.00 · $266,878,766,160,000.00 · $284,922,780,800,000.00 · $332,409,910,933,333.00 · $380,174,821,670,400.00 · $410,169,536,711,000.00 · $475,966,129,536,000.00 · $498,614,866,400,000.00 · $523,505,260,800,000.00 · $625,627,268,160,000.00 · $664,819,821,866,667.00 · $760,349,643,340,800.00 · $791,336,313,600,000.00 · $795,297,449,088,000.00 · $803,226,858,133,333.00 · $820,339,073,422,000.00 · $910,012,320,000,000.00 · $997,229,732,800,000.00 · $1,251,254,536,320,000.00 · $1,329,639,643,733,333.00 · $1,520,699,286,681,600.00 · $1,640,678,146,847,000.00 · $1,868,151,363,120,000.00 · $1,994,459,465,600,000.00 · $2,374,008,940,800,000.00 · $2,385,892,347,264,000.00 · $2,409,680,574,400,000.00 · $2,502,509,072,640,000.00 · $2,740,637,958,079,000.00 · $3,014,492,438,652,000.00 · $3,956,681,568,000,000.00 · $4,748,017,881,600,000.00 · $4,771,784,694,528,000.00 · $4,819,361,148,800,000.00 · $7,656,498,018,622,000.00 · $8,121,528,319,346,667.00 · $8,756,192,492,634,000.00 · $9,496,035,763,200,000.00 · $9,543,569,389,056,000.00 · $9,638,722,297,600,000.00 · $11,484,747,027,933,000.00 · $11,870,044,704,000,000.00 · $14,408,079,851,429,000.00 · $23,740,089,408,000,000.00 · $24,364,584,958,040,000.00 · $47,480,178,816,000,000.00 · $48,729,169,916,080,000.00 · $54,690,086,764,800,000.00 · $54,963,714,541,335,000.00 · $55,512,306,567,117,000.00 · $56,130,984,662,962,000.00 · $97,458,339,832,160,000.00 · $272,019,387,212,815,008.00 · $273,450,433,824,000,000.00 · $353,625,203,376,659,968.00 · $561,309,846,629,619,968.00 · $1,683,929,539,888,859,904.00

2.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 3 of 261

Section 3 — Forensic Audit Report — FinCEN Power Pages Contact Us Portal — LDT-FAR-2026-1003-FINCEN-PORTAL-REV3

Source File	FORENSIC-0003-forensic-audit-report-fincen-power-pages-contact-us-portal-eb535e44.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-10-03 13:43:49
Size	60,112 bytes
SHA-256	eb535e44203cd46cadf99f890de160e02e768aa8854ebc540b164173e7a759c3

3.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected natural persons	Counts — Draft for Federal Complaint Plaintiffs: All affected natural persons who accessed the FinCEN Contact Us portal or submitted the form (Class Action, Fed
defendant	Financial Crimes Enforcement Network	orm (Class Action, Fed. R. Civ. P. 23). Defendants: Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, United States Department of the Treasury, Microsoft Corporation, Intui

3.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (23)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 1030	ture High data-flow-url on #contactForm 18 U.S.C. § 1030; 18 U.S.C. § 1028 V-02 FinCEN Produc
18 U.S.C. § 1028	w-url on #contactForm 18 U.S.C. § 1030; 18 U.S.C. § 1028 V-02 FinCEN Production Microsoft Ten
GDPR Art. 32	f9f-b5e4-3f74d66a5eec 18 U.S.C. § 1028; GDPR Art. 32 V-03 Dataverse Environment ID Leaked
18 U.S.C. § 2511	Key: 4a07e143372c46aabf3841dc4f0ef795-… 18 U.S.C. § 2511; GDPR Art. 6 V-07 Cross-Border Telem
GDPR Art. 6	6aabf3841dc4f0ef795-… 18 U.S.C. § 2511; GDPR Art. 6 V-07 Cross-Border Telemetry to tb.ev
15 U.S.C. § 45	h phone pattern="^\d{1,40}$" OWASP A03; 15 U.S.C. § 45 V-10 Client-Side Only Enforcement of
GDPR Art. 5	qeyyTnmdcy7tOZRl78l…' 18 U.S.C. § 1028; GDPR Art. 5 V-13 No Subresource Integrity on Pow
47 U.S.C. § 605	le, postpreform.bundle, etc. NIST SI-7; 47 U.S.C. § 605 V-14 No Content Security Policy High
Civ. Code § 1798.150	2Token'] = token 18 U.S.C. § 1028; Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150 V-24 OmniChannel Session Refresh Fla
29 U.S.C. § 794	Low accessibilityLinkContainer.remove() 29 U.S.C. § 794d V-43 Portal Production Environment
18 U.S.C. § 1343	al: 18 U.S.C. § 1030; 18 U.S.C. § 1028; 18 U.S.C. § 1343; 15 U.S.C. § 45; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 44 U.
5 U.S.C. § 552	1028; 18 U.S.C. § 1343; 15 U.S.C. § 45; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 44 U.S.C. § 3551 et seq. • State: C
44 U.S.C. § 3551	1343; 15 U.S.C. § 45; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 44 U.S.C. § 3551 et seq. • State: Cal. Penal Code § 50
Penal Code § 502	4 U.S.C. § 3551 et seq. • State: Cal. Penal Code § 502; Cal. Penal Code § 631; Cal. Penal Code
Penal Code § 631	• State: Cal. Penal Code § 502; Cal. Penal Code § 631; Cal. Penal Code § 632; N.Y. Penal Law
Penal Code § 632	Code § 502; Cal. Penal Code § 631; Cal. Penal Code § 632; N.Y. Penal Law §§ 156.00–156.55; Tex.
Penal Code § 33.02	; N.Y. Penal Law §§ 156.00–156.55; Tex. Penal Code § 33.02; Fla. Stat. §§ 815.01–815.07; Tenn. Cod
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)	in the served document. • Federal: 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5); NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SI-7; 44 U.S.C.
42 U.S.C. § 1983	xth, Eighth Amendments). Count XIV — 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Reserved for state actors. Count XV
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2,
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2, and Title 47, Tel
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	5a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2, and Title 47, Telecommunications § 2

3.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (18)

3.4 Dollar Figures (14)

$5,000.00 · $10,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $110,000.00 · $546,632,476.00 · $32,797,948,560.00 · $1,967,876,913,600.00 · $47,229,045,926,400.00 · $330,603,321,484,800.00 · $1,437,630,105,480,000.00 · $4,312,890,316,440,000.00 · $8,625,780,632,880,000.00 · $9,842,430,417,600,000.00 · $17,251,561,265,760,000.00

3.5 Dates (1)

2026-10-03

Section 4 of 261

Section 4 — Forensic Audit Report – levinlaw.com (Revision 2)

Source File	FORENSIC-0004-forensic-audit-report-levinlaw-com-revision-2-822b4285.html
Created	October 1, 2026
Modified	2026-10-02 02:12:26
Size	75,182 bytes
SHA-256	822b42853bc9b88c1e0ccd14d17a2bba2993e0c4be303ce67879bf5176190677

4.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

4.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (12)

Citation	Source excerpt
Com. Code § 501.001	', 'GTM-5V84W2' ); State: Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 501.001 — $7,500. Federal: FTC Act § 5 — $50,12
18 U.S.C. § 2511	$7,500. Federal: FTC Act § 5 — $50,120; 18 U.S.C. § 2511 — $10,000 + treble. International: GDPR
GDPR Art. 6	2511 — $10,000 + treble. International: GDPR Art. 6, 44 — €20M or 4%; ePrivacy — €250,000.
Penal Code § 33.02	Kit by Google 1.188.0" /> State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02 — Felony. Federal: 18 U.S.C. § 1030 — C
18 U.S.C. § 1030	. Penal Code § 33.02 — Felony. Federal: 18 U.S.C. § 1030 — CFAA — $5,000; FTC Act § 5. COUN
18 U.S.C. § 1836	eral: 18 U.S.C. § 1030 — CFAA — $5,000; 18 U.S.C. § 1836 — DTSA — $5,000,000. COUNT 19 Miss
GDPR Art. 44	Federal: FTC Act § 5. International: GDPR Art. 44. COUNT 22 Missing Permissions-Poli
18 U.S.C. § 1343	,178,960,000,000,000 Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343) 1, 3, 5, 6, 24, 54 $1,000,000 $6
22 U.S.C. § 2295	he utmost diligence, in accordance with 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	, in accordance with 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	th 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	& 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304 & 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 & Title 47, Telecommunications § 230

4.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (59)

4.4 Dollar Figures (86)

$1,000.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $60,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $150,000.00 · $250,000.00 · $751,800.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $2,250,000.00 · $3,140,490.00 · $3,600,000.00 · $5,000,000.00 · $6,000,000.00 · $9,000,000.00 · $14,211,800.00 · $45,108,000.00 · $135,000,000.00 · $216,000,000.00 · $300,000,000.00 · $360,000,000.00 · $540,000,000.00 · $852,708,000.00 · $2,706,480,000.00 · $5,184,000,000.00 · $8,100,000,000.00 · $12,960,000,000.00 · $18,000,000,000.00 · $21,600,000,000.00 · $36,288,000,000.00 · $51,162,480,000.00 · $64,955,520,000.00 · $67,834,584,000.00 · $90,720,000,000.00 · $157,248,000,000.00 · $194,400,000,000.00 · $203,503,752,000.00 · $271,338,336,000.00 · $393,120,000,000.00 · $432,000,000,000.00 · $454,688,640,000.00 · $471,744,000,000.00 · $500,000,000,000.00 · $518,400,000,000.00 · $943,488,000,000.00 · $1,179,360,000,000.00 · $1,227,899,520,000.00 · $1,360,800,000,000.00 · $1,892,160,000,000.00 · $1,970,317,440,000.00 · $2,358,720,000,000.00 · $3,024,000,000,000.00 · $3,628,800,000,000.00 · $4,730,400,000,000.00 · $5,910,952,320,000.00 · $5,918,400,000,000.00 · $8,595,296,640,000.00 · $11,821,904,640,000.00 · $13,152,000,000,000.00 · $15,782,400,000,000.00 · $17,755,200,000,000.00 · $23,708,764,800,000.00 · $35,510,400,000,000.00 · $37,378,485,440,000.00 · $39,456,000,000,000.00 · $47,347,200,000,000.00 · $71,020,800,000,000.00 · $78,912,000,000,000.00 · $94,694,400,000,000.00 · $99,038,492,640,000.00 · $112,135,456,320,000.00 · $157,824,000,000,000.00 · $189,388,800,000,000.00 · $224,270,912,640,000.00 · $448,541,825,280,000.00 · $5,092,772,400,000,000.00 · $12,731,931,000,000,000.00 · $63,807,635,472,000,000.00 · $191,178,960,000,000,000.00 · $266,570,117,873,460,000.00 · $424,397,700,000,000,000.00 · $509,277,240,000,000,000.00 · $1,206,165,295,456,000,000.00

4.5 Dates (1)

2026-10-01

Section 5 of 261

Section 5 — Forensic Audit Report – Bijeli Slon Real Estate (belij-slon.me)

Source File	FORENSIC-0005-audited-entity-bijeli-slon-real-estate-belij-slon-dot-me-c73f36c2.html
Created	September 16, 2026
Modified	2026-09-16 11:25:23
Size	66,027 bytes
SHA-256	c73f36c25386977a891967f92daf5d6c7009f85e35651a02a3188e964cdd452a

5.1 Parties (3)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All individuals	STATES DISTRICT COURT – CIVIL ACTION Plaintiffs: All individuals whose PII was intercepted without consent (Class Action). Defendants: Bijeli Slo
defendant	Bijeli Slon Real Estate Centre	epted without consent (Class Action). Defendants: Bijeli Slon Real Estate Centre; Tilda Publishing; Google LLC; Yandex L
defendant	Bijeli Slon Real Estate Centre operates a website	. Factual Allegations (2009‑2026) Defendant Bijeli Slon Real Estate Centre operates a website at https://belij-slon.me since at least 2009.

5.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (23)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 2511	aximum per count under the Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511). 1.1 Domain Origin, Code Producers &
47 U.S.C. § 605	onsent High 2009‑2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511, 47 U.S.C. § 605, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100, GDPR Art. 5
Civ. Code § 1798.100	18 U.S.C. § 2511, 47 U.S.C. § 605, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100, GDPR Art. 5‑7, ePrivacy Dir. 2002/58/E
GDPR Art. 5	.S.C. § 605, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100, GDPR Art. 5‑7, ePrivacy Dir. 2002/58/EC, Montenegro
18 U.S.C. § 1030	ording High 2009‑2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511, 18 U.S.C. § 1030, CCPA, GDPR, Montenegro DP Law dns-pref
5 U.S.C. § 552	n of PII Without Consent High 2009‑2026 5 U.S.C. § 552a, GLBA, CCPA, GDPR, Montenegro DP Law F
GDPR Art. 7	– Zero Consent Mechanism High 2009‑2026 GDPR Art. 7, ePrivacy Directive, CCPA, FTC Act § 5,
GDPR Art. 13	No Clear Opt‑Out Medium 2009‑2026 CCPA, GDPR Art. 13‑14, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100, Monteneg
GDPR Art. 44	ansfer Without Consent Medium 2009‑2026 GDPR Art. 44‑49, ePrivacy, CCPA Google Fonts links i
County Code § 22	ansmission. Harris County, TX: Harris County Code § 22 – unauthorized tracking event. Seco
Penal Code § 502	Law (2009‑2026): California: Cal. Penal Code § 502 – each GTM script execution is a separa
Civ. Code § 1798.150	execution is a separate violation. Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150 (CCPA) – $100‑$750 per consumer per inc
Penal Code § 33.02	s E felony; NY GBL § 349. Texas: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02 – state jail felony. New Jersey: N.J.
18 U.S.C. § 1343	up to 10 years per count. Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): $1,000,000 fine + 20 years per count.
18 U.S.C. § 1961	,000 fine + 20 years per count. RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): pattern of racketeering activity.
15 U.S.C. § 6801	to €2M) Montenegrin residents GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801) $100,000 + $1,000,000 pattern Form dat
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	ivity (2009‑2026). Count V – FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair and deceptive trade practices
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507‑2,
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507‑2, and Title 47, Tel
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	5a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507‑2, and Title 47, Telecommunications § 2
28 U.S.C. § 1331	nue This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), § 1332 (diversity),
15 U.S.C. § 45	Count V – Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 45): Defendants engaged in unfair and dece

5.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (20)

5.4 Dollar Figures (94)

$0.00 · $0.01 · $0.02 · $0.04 · $0.06 · $0.10 · $0.11 · $0.30 · $0.68 · $1.37 · $2.00 · $2.40 · $3.42 · $6.00 · $6.85 · $19.42 · $29.40 · $41.00 · $58.00 · $82.00 · $100.00 · $148.00 · $205.00 · $406.00 · $411.00 · $750.00 · $985.00 · $1,034.00 · $1,165.00 · $1,760.00 · $1,970.00 · $4,498.00 · $4,920.00 · $5,000.00 · $5,280.00 · $6,895.00 · $9,870.00 · $10,000.00 · $10,560.00 · $12,000.00 · $13,494.00 · $13,790.00 · $15,000.00 · $21,120.00 · $25,000.00 · $26,988.00 · $27,960.00 · $29,975.00 · $34,440.00 · $40,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $53,976.00 · $59,950.00 · $69,090.00 · $89,925.00 · $100,000.00 · $149,760.00 · $179,850.00 · $195,720.00 · $300,360.00 · $359,700.00 · $449,280.00 · $719,400.00 · $851,020.00 · $898,560.00 · $901,080.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $1,797,120.00 · $1,802,160.00 · $2,553,060.00 · $3,604,320.00 · $5,106,120.00 · $10,212,240.00 · $153,000,000.00 · $500,000,000.00 · $1,020,000,000.00 · $2,040,000,000.00 · $3,000,000,000.00 · $4,080,000,000.00 · $5,100,000,000.00 · $8,160,000,000.00 · $10,224,480,000.00 · $11,244,480,000.00 · $16,156,800,000.00 · $28,737,480,000.00 · $29,376,000,000.00 · $50,000,000,000.00 · $88,128,000,000.00 · $100,000,000,000.00 · $132,192,000,000.00 · $200,000,000,000.00 · $204,000,000,000.00 · $250,000,000,000.00 · $408,000,000,000.00

5.5 Dates (2)

2009-01-01 · 2026-09-16

Section 6 of 261

Section 6 — Forensic Legal Audit: Housing Instability & Voter Disenfranchisement (1999–2026)

Source File	FORENSIC-0006-forensic-legal-research-interactive-spa-a50a54ed.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-09-11 05:01:46
Size	67,196 bytes
SHA-256	a50a54edcdfcd1f86e5a698ff5658fee57163046d271a9746bd1ba65f4fa8600

6.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

6.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (3)

Citation	Source excerpt
42 U.S.C. § 1437	window). Core Statutory Pivot 42 U.S.C. § 1437f Repeal of "Take-One, Take-All" vs. H
52 U.S.C. § 20507	on. Disenfranchisement Trigger 52 U.S.C. § 20507 NVRA address confirmation routine act
42 U.S.C. § 3604	lPage rent floors. STAGE 3 42 U.S.C. § 3604 Algorithmic Channeling (ATSS) Sa

6.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

6.4 Dollar Figures (0)

—

6.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 7 of 261

Section 7 — Forensic Audit Report – linkdevelopment.com

Source File	FORENSIC-0007-forensic-audit-report-linkdevelopment-dot-com-6316f671.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-09-17 11:55:30
Size	85,331 bytes
SHA-256	6316f671dcb1f664fadf56905cd07436e15359e99727cd9f9f94f6f2ef87615e

7.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action), estimated 4.2 million cl
defendant	Link Development	, estimated 4.2 million class members Defendants: Link Development (a Beyon Solutions company); Beyon Solut

7.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (51)

Citation	Source excerpt
Civ. Code § 1798.150	ST SP 800-53 SC-7; OWASP A05:2021; Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150 Entire document head 2 Cloudflare Za
GDPR Art. 6	ction without disclosure High 2022–2026 GDPR Art. 6; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); Cal. Civ. Code § 1
Civ. Code § 1798.100	6 GDPR Art. 6; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 Line: zaraz.init block 3 Silent view
18 U.S.C. § 1030	ing into every form High 2020–2026 CFAA 18 U.S.C. § 1030; Cal. Penal Code § 502; GDPR Art. 5 vx_
Penal Code § 502	h 2020–2026 CFAA 18 U.S.C. § 1030; Cal. Penal Code § 502; GDPR Art. 5 vx_width , vx_height , vx_
GDPR Art. 5	8 U.S.C. § 1030; Cal. Penal Code § 502; GDPR Art. 5 vx_width , vx_height , vx_url injector
15 U.S.C. § 45	ok App ID in plaintext Medium 2020–2026 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150 theCha
15 U.S.C. § 6801	y Medium 2020–2026 15 U.S.C. § 45; GLBA 15 U.S.C. § 6801 6LcFJ64ZAAAAAA6okAX9UYs_hq6u-vSeNT5po_b
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)	Lottie expression engine High 2020–2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2); Cal. Penal Code § 502(c)(2) Lottie 5.7
Penal Code § 502(c)(2)	2020–2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2); Cal. Penal Code § 502(c)(2) Lottie 5.7.4 ExpressionManager 8 Unb
GDPR Art. 25	dpoints) High 2020–2026 15 U.S.C. § 45; GDPR Art. 25; 18 U.S.C. § 1028 theChamp*AuthUrl vari
18 U.S.C. § 1028	2020–2026 15 U.S.C. § 45; GDPR Art. 25; 18 U.S.C. § 1028 theChamp*AuthUrl variables 9 Hidden
Civ. Code § 1798.100(c)	edium 2020–2026 GDPR Art. 5(1)(c); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100(c) data-name="user-login" 10 Search for
47 U.S.C. § 605	3–2026 GDPR Art. 6; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); 47 U.S.C. § 605 Final <script> block pre- </body> 12
GDPR Art. 32	gh 2020–2026 Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150; GDPR Art. 32 Set-Cookie headers absent 14 Referre
47 C.F.R. § 15.5	evice sustained load) Low 2020–2026 FCC 47 C.F.R. § 15.5; ITU-R SM.329 loop: true 24 Loader G
Penal Code § 502(c)(8)	r per incident, or actual damages; Cal. Penal Code § 502(c)(8) — up to $10,000 per violation • Feder
Penal Code § 631	tional per consumer per violation; Cal. Penal Code § 631 (wiretapping) — $5,000 per violation or
18 U.S.C. § 2511	r violation or $10 per day • Federal: 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act) — $10,000 per violation +
County Code § 22-5	ort, International: • County: Harris County Code § 22-5 (privacy) — $500 per occurrence; Marico
Penal Code § 502(c)(1)	ing) — $1,000 per event • State: Cal. Penal Code § 502(c)(1) (unauthorized access to computer system
Penal Code § 33.02	f computer) — Class A misdemeanor; Tex. Penal Code § 33.02 — 3rd degree felony • Federal: 18 U.S
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)	33.02 — 3rd degree felony • Federal: 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C) (CFAA) — $5,000 per violation + treble;
County Code § 4.5	, International: • County: San Diego County Code § 4.5 (data security) — $1,000 per day • St
Prof. Code § 17200	per consumer per incident; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 (UCL) — restitution and injunctive reli
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	tion and injunctive relief • Federal: 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) — $50,120 per violation; GLBA 15 U.S.C.
18 U.S.C. § 1029	lony • Federal: 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC); 18 U.S.C. § 1029 (access device fraud) — $10,000 per dev
Penal Code § 502(c)(5)	analogous county codes • State: Cal. Penal Code § 502(c)(5) (unauthorized disruption) — $10,000 per
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)	n) — $10,000 per violation • Federal: 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5) (CFAA damage) — $5,000 per violation +
18 U.S.C. § 1343	U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2) — $5,000 + treble; 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud) — $1,000,000 per count + 2
GDPR Art. 44	c × 3 + punitive 10× • International: GDPR Art. 44–49 (transfers to third countries) — €20
Penal Code § 502(c)(7)	Diego County Code § 4.5 • State: Cal. Penal Code § 502(c)(7) (disruption) • Federal: 18 U.S.C. § 1
Civ. Code § 1798.140(o)	cable county ordinances • State: Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.140(o) (CCPA definition of personal informatio
Civ. Code § 980	enforcement ordinances • State: Cal. Civ. Code § 980 (copyright); Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 1
17 U.S.C. § 501	Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 • Federal: 17 U.S.C. § 501 (copyright infringement) — statutory da
5 U.S.C. § 552	01–7651, 5741. Federal U.S.C. Titles: 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 15 U.S.C. §§ 45, 6801, 6501–6506, 770
29 U.S.C. § 794	89, 1590, 1951, 1956, 1961, 2511, 3571; 29 U.S.C. § 794d; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981–1986, 12181; 47 U.S
50 U.S.C. § 1702	12181; 47 U.S.C. §§ 230, 301, 333, 605; 50 U.S.C. § 1702. Military UCMJ Articles: Art. 92 (fail
18 U.S.C. § 1836	nce; misappropriation of trade secrets (18 U.S.C. § 1836); civil rights torts (42 U.S.C. §§ 1981
18 U.S.C. § 1001	constitutes discoverable evidence under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 and 15 U.S.C. § 45 in context of public
GDPR Art. 13	rocurement decision; discoverable under GDPR Art. 13 and 15 U.S.C. § 45. Malek Fawaz (
15 U.S.C. § 6501	S.C. § 605 $110,000 Violations 2, 25 15 U.S.C. § 6501–6506 (COPPA) $51,744 Any child-directed
15 U.S.C. § 7701	(Privacy Act) $5,000 Federal records 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-SPAM) $51,744 Marketing flows 4
42 U.S.C. § 12181	1 (CAN-SPAM) $51,744 Marketing flows 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA) $75,000 Accessibility 29 U.S.C
42 U.S.C. § 1983	tual + punitive (no cap) 4A/5A/6A/8A 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Compensatory + punitive (no cap) Color-
18 U.S.C. § 241	pon the deployed systems. Count XXV – 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights): Against al
18 U.S.C. § 242	st all named defendants. Count XXVI – 18 U.S.C. § 242 (Deprivation of Rights Under Color of L
18 U.S.C. § 1961	-affiliated defendants. Count XXVII – 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (RICO): Against the enterprise comprise
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	& 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304 & 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 & Title 47, Telecommunications § 230

7.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (28)

7.4 Dollar Figures (161)

$1.00 · $1.10 · $1.15 · $1.20 · $1.32 · $1.47 · $1.50 · $1.58 · $1.73 · $1.74 · $1.80 · $1.82 · $1.96 · $2.16 · $2.59 · $2.63 · $2.75 · $2.89 · $3.00 · $3.02 · $3.10 · $3.16 · $3.30 · $3.60 · $3.93 · $3.95 · $3.96 · $4.13 · $4.33 · $4.54 · $4.73 · $4.75 · $5.00 · $5.37 · $5.40 · $5.78 · $5.89 · $6.00 · $6.05 · $7.50 · $7.89 · $7.91 · $8.64 · $8.68 · $9.47 · $9.84 · $10.00 · $10.80 · $11.83 · $12.10 · $13.10 · $15.78 · $15.80 · $17.36 · $18.00 · $18.10 · $18.90 · $19.60 · $19.70 · $20.00 · $23.67 · $26.30 · $27.00 · $29.50 · $30.00 · $30.30 · $31.56 · $33.30 · $34.70 · $36.00 · $39.50 · $43.30 · $47.34 · $50.00 · $51.80 · $52.60 · $55.00 · $59.20 · $60.00 · $60.50 · $66.00 · $72.00 · $78.90 · $86.40 · $88.30 · $90.00 · $94.68 · $95.00 · $98.20 · $98.40 · $100.00 · $108.00 · $117.80 · $118.00 · $129.60 · $132.00 · $145.00 · $157.80 · $158.00 · $172.90 · $173.10 · $180.00 · $196.30 · $198.00 · $216.00 · $237.00 · $259.00 · $263.00 · $294.50 · $300.00 · $303.00 · $316.00 · $360.00 · $363.00 · $395.00 · $432.00 · $434.00 · $450.00 · $473.00 · $500.00 · $501.00 · $519.30 · $577.00 · $588.90 · $600.00 · $605.00 · $631.00 · $648.00 · $665.00 · $750.00 · $789.00 · $791.00 · $824.50 · $864.00 · $868.00 · $907.00 · $946.00 · $981.50 · $982.00 · $1,000.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $25,000.00 · $30,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $75,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $150,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $3,000,000.00 · $5,000,000.00 · $17,361,000,000,000.00 · $131,757,543,750,000.00 · $1,033,392,500,000,000.00 · $3,100,177,500,000,000.00 · $4,133,570,000,000,000.00

7.5 Dates (5)

2018-05-25 · 2020-01-01 · 2020-06-29 · 2023-01-01 · 2026-09-17

Section 8 of 261

Section 8 — Forensic Audit: Algorithmic Failure Analysis

Source File	FORENSIC-0008-r1-d473b5dc.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-09-12 06:55:14
Size	27,557 bytes
SHA-256	d473b5dcdc696daff245e3675c70497b33558b623d1cdcd9c3a950522562e784

8.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

8.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (0)

Citation	Source excerpt
no statutes extracted

8.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

8.4 Dollar Figures (0)

—

8.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 9 of 261

Section 9 — Forensic Analysis: Italian PEC Provider Ecosystem (2005–2025)

Source File	FORENSIC-0009-forensic-analysis-italian-pec-provider-ecosystem-2005-2025-bf1be5a0.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-09-15 05:16:23
Size	54,877 bytes
SHA-256	bf1be5a066986eae92a6f9af7a56c9ebdc7fc0e9b662130ab863d4e3b26249e5

9.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

9.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (0)

Citation	Source excerpt
no statutes extracted

9.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (1)

Header	Source excerpt
Count Lazio (Rome) Consiglio Nazionale del Notariato, Infocert, Notartel, Poste Italiane, Postel 5	in three regions: Region Providers Count Lazio (Rome) Consiglio Nazionale del Notariato, Infocert, Notartel, Poste Italiane, Postel 5 Lombardy (Milan/Bergamo) A

9.4 Dollar Figures (1)

$1.10

9.5 Dates (1)

2013-07-01

Section 10 of 261

Section 10 — Forensic Analysis: Bain Capital, Namirial, and the Italian PEC Market

Source File	FORENSIC-0010-forensic-analysis-bain-capital-namirial-and-the-italian-pec–9c61cba0.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-09-15 06:11:54
Size	37,158 bytes
SHA-256	9c61cba055c19368fe7e1021298fe880af255ea684faf25cb884d050f8e45087

10.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

10.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (0)

Citation	Source excerpt
no statutes extracted

10.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

10.4 Dollar Figures (1)

$180.00

10.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 11 of 261

Section 11 — Forensic Analysis: Bain Capital, Romney, and Italian Digital Infrastructure (1998–2026)

Source File	FORENSIC-0011-forensic-analysis-bain-capital-mitt-romney-and-the-italian-d-30549d05.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-09-15 07:53:41
Size	43,272 bytes
SHA-256	30549d0513159d6547b77bd6e7054df8252ae7642cd4b7ca687dacf1f758af90

11.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

11.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (0)

Citation	Source excerpt
no statutes extracted

11.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

11.4 Dollar Figures (5)

$1.00 · $1.18 · $50.00 · $180.00 · $100,000.00

11.5 Dates (7)

2005-02-11 · 2005-11-02 · 2013-07-01 · 2015-06-19 · 2017-11-10 · 2021-11-04 · 2025-03-26

Section 12 of 261

Section 12 — Forensic Audit Report – beyonsolutions.com

Source File	FORENSIC-0012-audited-entity-beyon-solutions-beyon-group-9663c356.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-09-17 12:16:52
Size	83,597 bytes
SHA-256	9663c35660d1df9a61c6ed64bda989dc263927c0dab442b3b59bcdedcb32ff1d

12.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action), estimated 2.1 million cl
defendant	Beyon Solutions	, estimated 2.1 million class members Defendants: Beyon Solutions; Beyon Group; Ahmed Abdulla; WordPress

12.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (45)

Citation	Source excerpt
Civ. Code § 1798.150	ST SP 800-53 SC-7; OWASP A05:2021; Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150 Entire document head 2 Silent userAg
GDPR Art. 5	ttribute without consent High 2022–2026 GDPR Art. 5, 6, 13; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); Cal. Civ. C
Civ. Code § 1798.100	Art. 5, 6, 13; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 doc.setAttribute('data-useragent', navi
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)	admin-ajax.php exposure High 2022–2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2); Cal. Penal Code § 502; Bahrain PDPL Ar
Penal Code § 502	2022–2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2); Cal. Penal Code § 502; Bahrain PDPL Art. 5 /wp-admin/admin-aj
18 U.S.C. § 1030	d via RSD discovery link High 2022–2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030; OWASP A01:2021 EditURI RSD 5 wp-jso
18 U.S.C. § 1028	n REST API fully exposed High 2022–2026 18 U.S.C. § 1028; Cal. Penal Code § 502 link rel="https:
15 U.S.C. § 45	Comment feeds exposed Medium 2022–2026 15 U.S.C. § 45; GDPR Art. 32 alternate type="applicati
GDPR Art. 32	xposed Medium 2022–2026 15 U.S.C. § 45; GDPR Art. 32 alternate type="application/rss+xml"
GDPR Art. 25	ng slugs High 2022–2026 15 U.S.C. § 45; GDPR Art. 25; Bahrain PDPL Art. 12 whp1684front.js96
GDPR Art. 6	inks High 2023–2026 ePrivacy Art. 5(3); GDPR Art. 6; 18 U.S.C. § 1030 {"prefetch":[…href_
47 U.S.C. § 605	h / WebSerial unguarded) High 2022–2026 47 U.S.C. § 605; 18 U.S.C. § 1030; ITU Radio Regulation
Penal Code § 502(c)(8)	00–$750 per consumer per incident; Cal. Penal Code § 502(c)(8) — up to $10,000 per violation • Feder
Penal Code § 631	/ $7,500 intentional per consumer; Cal. Penal Code § 631 (wiretapping) — $5,000 per violation
18 U.S.C. § 2511	ng) — $5,000 per violation • Federal: 18 U.S.C. § 2511 — $10,000 per violation + treble; 47 U.
15 U.S.C. § 6801	U.S.C. § 605 — $110,000 per violation; 15 U.S.C. § 6801 — $100,000 + $1M pattern • Military (
County Code § 22-5	ort, International: • County: Harris County Code § 22-5 — $500 per occurrence • State: Cal. P
Penal Code § 502(c)(1)	5 — $500 per occurrence • State: Cal. Penal Code § 502(c)(1) — $10,000 per violation; N.Y. Penal Law
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)	6.05 — Class A misdemeanor • Federal: 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C) — $5,000 + treble; 18 U.S.C. § 1028; 15
Penal Code § 502(c)(2)	15-2 — $1,000 per event • State: Cal. Penal Code § 502(c)(2); Tex. Penal Code § 33.02 — 3rd degree f
Penal Code § 33.02	tate: Cal. Penal Code § 502(c)(2); Tex. Penal Code § 33.02 — 3rd degree felony • Federal: 18 U.S
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)	33.02 — 3rd degree felony • Federal: 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5) — $5,000 + treble + 10 years; NIST SI-7
County Code § 4.5	, International: • County: San Diego County Code § 4.5 — $1,000 per day • State: Cal. Civ. C
Prof. Code § 17200	Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 • Federal: 15 U.S.C. § 45; 18 U.S.C.
Civ. Code § 1798.100(c)	Clara County Code § A25 • State: Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100(c) • Federal: 15 U.S.C. § 45; GLBA 15 U.
Penal Code § 502(c)(5)	ith public safety codes • State: Cal. Penal Code § 502(c)(5) — $10,000 per violation • Federal: 18
Penal Code § 502(c)(7)	Diego County Code § 4.5 • State: Cal. Penal Code § 502(c)(7); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150 • Federal:
15 U.S.C. § 6501	S.C. § 45; GLBA 15 U.S.C. § 6801; COPPA 15 U.S.C. § 6501 (if minors) • Military (UCMJ): Art. 9
47 C.F.R. § 15.5	S.C. § 1030(a)(5); 47 U.S.C. § 605; FCC 47 C.F.R. § 15.5; ITU-R SM.329 • Military (UCMJ): Art.
5 U.S.C. § 552	01–7651, 5741. Federal U.S.C. Titles: 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 15 U.S.C. §§ 45, 6801, 6501–6506, 770
17 U.S.C. § 501	15 U.S.C. §§ 45, 6801, 6501–6506, 7701; 17 U.S.C. § 501; 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 245, 371, 1001,
29 U.S.C. § 794	89, 1590, 1951, 1956, 1961, 2511, 3571; 29 U.S.C. § 794d; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981–1986, 12181; 47 U.S
50 U.S.C. § 1702	12181; 47 U.S.C. §§ 230, 301, 333, 605; 50 U.S.C. § 1702. Military UCMJ Articles: Art. 92; Art.
18 U.S.C. § 1836	nce; misappropriation of trade secrets (18 U.S.C. § 1836); civil rights torts (42 U.S.C. §§ 1981
18 U.S.C. § 1343	eory Penalty per count Applies to 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud) $1,000,000 Violations 9, 2
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	/ $2,500 negligent Violations 2, 13 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act) $50,120 Violations 1, 3, 5, 6
15 U.S.C. § 7701	(Privacy Act) $5,000 Federal records 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-SPAM) $51,744 Marketing flows 4
42 U.S.C. § 12181	1 (CAN-SPAM) $51,744 Marketing flows 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA) $75,000 Accessibility 29 U.S.C
42 U.S.C. § 1983	tual + punitive (no cap) 4A/5A/6A/8A 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Compensatory + punitive (no cap) Color-
18 U.S.C. § 241	on the deployed systems. Count XXVI – 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights): Against al
18 U.S.C. § 242	t all named defendants. Count XXVII – 18 U.S.C. § 242 (Deprivation of Rights Under Color of L
18 U.S.C. § 1961	affiliated defendants. Count XXVIII – 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (RICO): Against the enterprise comprise
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	& 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304 & 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 & Title 47, Telecommunications § 230

12.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (29)

12.4 Dollar Figures (145)

$1.00 · $1.02 · $1.10 · $1.13 · $1.18 · $1.26 · $1.30 · $1.32 · $1.47 · $1.50 · $1.53 · $1.58 · $1.80 · $1.82 · $2.16 · $2.25 · $2.40 · $2.55 · $2.59 · $2.89 · $3.00 · $3.02 · $3.06 · $3.16 · $3.24 · $3.46 · $3.83 · $3.95 · $3.96 · $4.09 · $4.33 · $5.00 · $5.12 · $6.05 · $6.33 · $6.68 · $7.89 · $7.91 · $8.68 · $8.90 · $9.07 · $10.00 · $10.80 · $12.00 · $13.10 · $15.00 · $15.10 · $15.80 · $17.30 · $17.36 · $18.00 · $18.10 · $19.10 · $20.50 · $22.70 · $23.67 · $24.20 · $25.00 · $26.30 · $30.00 · $30.30 · $34.70 · $36.00 · $37.50 · $39.40 · $39.50 · $40.00 · $43.30 · $47.34 · $50.00 · $51.20 · $54.00 · $65.70 · $66.00 · $78.30 · $78.90 · $90.00 · $94.68 · $95.00 · $98.60 · $100.00 · $100.90 · $105.00 · $108.00 · $112.40 · $117.50 · $118.00 · $121.00 · $132.00 · $135.00 · $144.00 · $156.60 · $157.80 · $158.00 · $180.00 · $197.00 · $200.00 · $212.10 · $237.00 · $259.00 · $296.00 · $300.00 · $303.00 · $306.50 · $316.00 · $394.00 · $395.00 · $432.00 · $473.00 · $500.00 · $501.00 · $510.80 · $511.00 · $526.00 · $591.00 · $600.00 · $631.00 · $665.00 · $722.00 · $750.00 · $789.00 · $791.00 · $864.00 · $900.00 · $946.00 · $1,000.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $25,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $75,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $3,000,000.00 · $5,000,000.00 · $15,750,000,000,000.00 · $36,113,458,529,500.00 · $283,242,811,800,000.00 · $849,728,435,400,000.00 · $1,132,971,247,200,000.00

12.5 Dates (6)

2018-05-25 · 2019-07-28 · 2020-01-01 · 2022-06-23 · 2023-01-01 · 2026-09-17

Section 13 of 261

Section 13 — Forensic Audit Report – Hero by LINC-ED / FusionAuth 1.69.2 Login Portal

Source File	FORENSIC-0013-forensic-audit-report-hero-by-linc-ed-fusionauth-1-69-2-logi-da49a241.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-09-23 13:41:00
Size	151,964 bytes
SHA-256	da49a241ca9178b0c5efc4dac45d129c7b9d4186d28f5ff48df62e91a6e77899

13.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) – students, parents, teac
defendant	LINC Technologies	chool districts using Hero by LINC-ED Defendants: LINC Technologies, FusionAuth, Google LLC, Microsoft Corporation, unpkg.com, cdn.linc-ed.com, our-hero.com, an

13.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (71)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 1030	ia 15 Hidden Form Fields High 2018–2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030, § 2511, § 2701; 15 U.S.C. § 45; 5 U.S.
15 U.S.C. § 45	–2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030, § 2511, § 2701; 15 U.S.C. § 45; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; GDPR Art. 5, 6, 32; C
5 U.S.C. § 552	§ 1030, § 2511, § 2701; 15 U.S.C. § 45; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; GDPR Art. 5, 6, 32; COPPA 15 U.S.C. §
GDPR Art. 5	2701; 15 U.S.C. § 45; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; GDPR Art. 5, 6, 32; COPPA 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506; F
20 U.S.C. § 1232	32; COPPA 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506; FERPA 20 U.S.C. § 1232g Lines 1–2500 (hidden input fields)
18 U.S.C. § 1343	n Form High 2018–2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030; 18 U.S.C. § 1343; OWASP Top 10 A01:2021; NIST SP 800-63B
18 U.S.C. § 2511	(jstz) High 2018–2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030; 18 U.S.C. § 2511; GDPR Art. 5, 6; ePrivacy Directive 200
18 U.S.C. § 1028	Field High 2018–2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030; 18 U.S.C. § 1028; 15 U.S.C. § 45; GDPR Art. 32; CCPA § 1
GDPR Art. 32	1030; 18 U.S.C. § 1028; 15 U.S.C. § 45; GDPR Art. 32; CCPA § 1798.150 Line 1 (autocomplete="
GDPR Art. 6	1030; 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 15 U.S.C. § 45; GDPR Art. 6, 44–49; CCPA § 1798.140 Lines 1–100 (Go
GDPR Art. 13	o.com) Medium 2018–2026 15 U.S.C. § 45; GDPR Art. 13, 14; CCPA § 1798.100; CalOPPA Line 1 (o
GDPR Art. 25	026 18 U.S.C. § 1030; 18 U.S.C. § 2511; GDPR Art. 25; OWASP ASVS 3.3.1 Line 1 (rememberDevic
County Code § 22-1	ications – unauthorized access); Harris County Code § 22-1 (privacy – data interception); Maricopa
County Code § 4.5-1	g – electronic surveillance); San Diego County Code § 4.5-1 (data security – unauthorized exfiltrat
Professions Code § 17200	ree misdemeanor); California Business & Professions Code § 17200 (unfair competition – $2,500 per violat
47 U.S.C. § 605	§ 12181 (ADA – $75,000 per violation); 47 U.S.C. § 605 (unauthorized publication – $110,000 pe
29 U.S.C. § 794	interference – $100,000 per violation); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508 – $75,000 per violation);
County Code § 22-2	ications – unauthorized access); Harris County Code § 22-2 (privacy – CSRF as data breach) – $1,00
Penal Code § 502	00 per violation. • State: California Penal Code § 502 (unauthorized computer access – $10,000
Penal Code § 33.02	puter trespass – Class E felony); Texas Penal Code § 33.02 (breach of computer security – state ja
County Code § 22-3	ations – third-party injection); Harris County Code § 22-3 (privacy – data breach via CDN) – $1,00
County Code § 22-4	munications – script injection); Harris County Code § 22-4 (privacy – data breach via XSS) – $1,00
County Code § 22-5	ommunications – fingerprinting); Harris County Code § 22-5 (privacy – timezone tracking) – $1,000
Civ. Code § 1798.140	ss – $10,000 per violation); California Civ. Code § 1798.140 (CCPA – $7,500 per intentional violatio
42 U.S.C. § 1983	a (Privacy Act – $5,000 per violation); 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (deprivation of rights – compensatory +
County Code § 22-6	ommunications – fingerprinting); Harris County Code § 22-6 (privacy – webview detection) – $1,000
County Code § 22-7	ecommunications – autocomplete); Harris County Code § 22-7 (privacy – PII storage) – $1,000 to $10
Civ. Code § 1798.150	ss – $10,000 per violation); California Civ. Code § 1798.150 (CCPA – $7,500 per intentional violatio
County Code § 22-8	ommunications – token exposure); Harris County Code § 22-8 (privacy – state parameter) – $1,000 to
County Code § 22-9	ommunications – code challenge); Harris County Code § 22-9 (privacy – PKCE) – $1,000 to $10,000 pe
County Code § 22-10	telecommunications – client ID); Harris County Code § 22-10 (privacy – tenant ID) – $1,000 to $10,0
County Code § 22-11	(telecommunications – IdP IDs); Harris County Code § 22-11 (privacy – IdP exposure) – $1,000 to $1
County Code § 22-12	ommunications – token exposure); Harris County Code § 22-12 (privacy – federated CSRF) – $1,000 to
County Code § 22-13	ecommunications – font loading); Harris County Code § 22-13 (privacy – Google data transfer) – $1,0
County Code § 22-14	ecommunications – icon loading); Harris County Code § 22-14 (privacy – Google data transfer) – $1,0
County Code § 22-15	elecommunications – child data); Harris County Code § 22-15 (privacy – child data) – $1,000 to $10,
GDPR Art. 8	nsatory + punitive). • International: GDPR Art. 8 (child's consent – €250,000 or 4% of gl
County Code § 22-16	ecommunications – student data); Harris County Code § 22-16 (privacy – student data) – $1,000 to $1
County Code § 22-17	(telecommunications – IdP data); Harris County Code § 22-17 (privacy – third-party sharing) – $1,00
15 U.S.C. § 6801	§ 45 (FTC Act – $50,120 per violation); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA – $100,000 per violation + $1,000
County Code § 22-18	munications – security headers); Harris County Code § 22-18 (privacy – header omission) – $1,000 to
County Code § 22-19	9 (telecommunications – robots); Harris County Code § 22-19 (privacy – indexing) – $1,000 to $10,00
County Code § 22-20	(telecommunications – CAPTCHA); Harris County Code § 22-20 (privacy – bot attacks) – $1,000 to $10
County Code § 22-21	121 (telecommunications – DPoP); Harris County Code § 22-21 (privacy – token theft) – $1,000 to $10
County Code § 22-22	22 (telecommunications – nonce); Harris County Code § 22-22 (privacy – replay) – $1,000 to $10,000
County Code § 22-23	munications – version exposure); Harris County Code § 22-23 (privacy – version numbers) – $1,000 to
County Code § 22-24	mmunications – CDN enumeration); Harris County Code § 22-24 (privacy – asset paths) – $1,000 to $10
County Code § 22-25	ecommunications – privacy link); Harris County Code § 22-25 (privacy – policy) – $1,000 to $10,000
Civ. Code § 1798.100	ss – $10,000 per violation); California Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA – $7,500 per intentional violatio
County Code § 22-26	(telecommunications – manifest); Harris County Code § 22-26 (privacy – browserconfig) – $1,000 to $
County Code § 22-27	ecommunications – redirect URI); Harris County Code § 22-27 (privacy – redirect) – $1,000 to $10,00
County Code § 22-28	mmunications – remember device); Harris County Code § 22-28 (privacy – session persistence) – $1,00
County Code § 22-29	(telecommunications – cookies); Harris County Code § 22-29 (privacy – consent) – $1,000 to $10,000
Civ. Code § 1798.135	ss – $10,000 per violation); California Civ. Code § 1798.135 (CCPA – $7,500 per intentional violatio
County Code § 22-30	130 (telecommunications – EULA); Harris County Code § 22-30 (privacy – terms) – $1,000 to $10,000 p
Prof. Code § 17200	et seq. (CCPA/CPRA); California Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200; New York GBL § 349; Texas Deceptive Tr
18 U.S.C. § 4	§ 6801, § 6501–6506, § 7701); Title 18 (18 U.S.C. § 4, § 241, § 242, § 245, § 371, § 1001, §
22 U.S.C. § 2295	497, § 1498, § 1499, § 1500); Title 22 (22 U.S.C. § 2295a); Title 26 (26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2); Titl
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	Title 22 (22 U.S.C. § 2295a); Title 26 (26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2); Title 28 (28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 267
29 U.S.C. § 508	.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671–2680); Title 29 (29 U.S.C. § 508, § 794d); Title 42 (42 U.S.C. §§ 1981–1
47 U.S.C. § 230	.S.C. §§ 1981–1986, § 12181); Title 47 (47 U.S.C. § 230, § 301, § 333, § 605); Title 50 (50 U.S
50 U.S.C. § 1702	§ 230, § 301, § 333, § 605); Title 50 (50 U.S.C. § 1702). Military UCMJ Articles: 10 U.S.C. §
18 U.S.C. § 1836	nce; misappropriation of trade secrets (18 U.S.C. § 1836); civil rights torts (42 U.S.C. §§ 1981
18 U.S.C. § 2701	gerprinting, data leaks, IdP sharing 18 U.S.C. § 2701 (SCA) $10,000 Hidden field exfiltration
18 U.S.C. § 1029	den field exfiltration, PII exposure 18 U.S.C. § 1029 (Access Device Fraud) $250,000 + 15 yea
15 U.S.C. § 7701	pattern IdP data sharing, data leaks 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-SPAM) $51,744 Email fraud via logi
18 U.S.C. § 371	n felonies. Count XXVI – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Conspiracy): Conspiracy to commit offe
18 U.S.C. § 241	ed States. Count XXVII – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights): Conspiracy
18 U.S.C. § 242	l rights. Count XXVIII – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242 (Deprivation Under Color of Law): Depri
18 U.S.C. § 245	lor of law. Count XXIX – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 245 (Federally Protected Activities): Inter
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

13.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (30)

13.4 Dollar Figures (131)

$1.09 · $1.10 · $1.31 · $1.46 · $1.47 · $1.75 · $2.19 · $2.92 · $2.93 · $4.30 · $4.38 · $4.39 · $5.84 · $6.57 · $6.59 · $8.76 · $8.78 · $50.00 · $1,000.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $5,787.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $11,574.00 · $23,148.00 · $25,000.00 · $34,722.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $52,083.00 · $58,010.00 · $59,907.00 · $75,000.00 · $86,806.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $116,019.00 · $250,000.00 · $333,333.00 · $347,222.00 · $583,447.00 · $694,444.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $1,388,889.00 · $2,083,333.00 · $3,125,000.00 · $3,480,556.00 · $3,594,444.00 · $5,208,333.00 · $6,961,111.00 · $10,000,000.00 · $20,833,333.00 · $35,006,944.00 · $41,666,667.00 · $83,333,333.00 · $125,000,000.00 · $187,500,000.00 · $208,833,333.00 · $215,666,667.00 · $312,500,000.00 · $417,666,667.00 · $500,000,000.00 · $1,000,000,000.00 · $2,000,000,000.00 · $2,100,416,667.00 · $3,000,000,000.00 · $3,500,000,000.00 · $4,500,000,000.00 · $5,012,000,000.00 · $5,174,400,000.00 · $7,000,000,000.00 · $7,500,000,000.00 · $10,024,000,000.00 · $14,000,000,000.00 · $15,220,000,000.00 · $21,000,000,000.00 · $30,440,000,000.00 · $31,500,000,000.00 · $35,084,000,000.00 · $36,220,800,000.00 · $45,660,000,000.00 · $50,410,000,000.00 · $52,500,000,000.00 · $60,880,000,000.00 · $70,168,000,000.00 · $91,320,000,000.00 · $136,980,000,000.00 · $152,565,280,000.00 · $157,508,736,000.00 · $182,640,000,000.00 · $228,300,000,000.00 · $273,960,000,000.00 · $305,130,560,000.00 · $352,870,000,000.00 · $365,280,000,000.00 · $410,940,000,000.00 · $457,695,840,000.00 · $472,526,208,000.00 · $547,920,000,000.00 · $684,900,000,000.00 · $730,560,000,000.00 · $821,880,000,000.00 · $915,391,680,000.00 · $945,052,416,000.00 · $1,095,840,000,000.00 · $1,369,800,000,000.00 · $1,461,120,000,000.00 · $1,534,566,800,000.00 · $1,643,760,000,000.00 · $1,830,783,360,000.00 · $1,890,104,832,000.00 · $2,739,600,000,000.00 · $2,922,240,000,000.00 · $3,661,566,720,000.00 · $4,603,700,400,000.00 · $5,844,480,000,000.00 · $8,766,720,000,000.00 · $9,207,400,800,000.00 · $13,150,080,000,000.00 · $14,646,266,880,000.00 · $15,120,838,656,000.00 · $18,414,801,600,000.00 · $21,916,800,000,000.00 · $29,292,533,760,000.00 · $73,659,206,400,000.00 · $110,488,809,600,000.00 · $147,318,412,800,000.00 · $294,636,825,600,000.00 · $1,000,000,000,000,000,000.00

13.5 Dates (1)

2018-01-01

Section 14 of 261

Section 14 — Forensic Audit Report — Roblox Landing Portal — Roblox Corporation

Source File	FORENSIC-0014-forensic-audit-report-roblox-landing-portal-roblox-corporati-1ba1860c.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-09-24 02:33:55
Size	68,652 bytes
SHA-256	1ba1860c6096c1b05fbd597c195e0f3ec962178c1791a4d06063578ae55501b6

14.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court — Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) — minors, parents, guardi
defendant	Roblox Corporation	d adult users of the Roblox platform. Defendants: Roblox Corporation; Google LLC; Functional Software Inc. d

14.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (28)

Citation	Source excerpt
GDPR Article 8	substantially non-compliant with COPPA, GDPR Article 8 (child data), Vanuatu Data Protection a
18 U.S.C. § 1030	in plain HTML attribute High 2018–2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030; § 2511; 15 U.S.C. § 45; GDPR; ePrivacy
15 U.S.C. § 45	igh 2018–2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030; § 2511; 15 U.S.C. § 45; GDPR; ePrivacy 2 Twenty-one (21) de
GDPR Art. 5	igh 2018–2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030; § 2511; GDPR Art. 5, 6; ePrivacy 3 Geolocation country-c
18 U.S.C. § 2511	ode capture at page load High 2018–2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511; GDPR Art. 5, 6; ePrivacy 4 Hardware
GDPR Art. 32	igh 2018–2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030; § 2511; GDPR Art. 32 5 Account switching state disclosed
GDPR Art. 6	nt IDs High 2018–2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511; GDPR Art. 6; ePrivacy Art. 5(3) 11 Sentry error-
GDPR Art. 21	elemetry High 2018–2026 15 U.S.C. § 45; GDPR Art. 21; CCPA 19 No age verification or pare
GDPR Art. 8	2018–2026 COPPA 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506; GDPR Art. 8 20 Cross-tab communication bundle en
County Code § 22	4; Cook County Ordinance Ch. 30; Harris County Code § 22; Maricopa County Ordinance § 15; San Di
County Code § 4.5	ricopa County Ordinance § 15; San Diego County Code § 4.5. Penalties: $1,000–$10,000 per violation
Civ. Code § 1798.100	Pa.C.S. §§ 7601–7651, 5741; California Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq. (CCPA/CPRA); Cal. Bus. & Prof.
Prof. Code § 17200	98.100 et seq. (CCPA/CPRA); Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200; NY GBL § 349; Texas DTPA. Federal. 1
5 U.S.C. § 552	6501–6506 (COPPA — $51,744 per child); 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act — $5,000); 42 U.S.C. §§ 1
47 U.S.C. § 605	5,000); 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981–1986, § 1983; 47 U.S.C. § 605 ($110,000); § 230; § 301; § 333. Mili
18 U.S.C. § 1836	es); Misappropriation of trade secrets (18 U.S.C. § 1836); Bivens constitutional torts (Fourth,
20 U.S.C. § 1232	); 16 C.F.R. Part 312 (FTC COPPA Rule); 20 U.S.C. § 1232g (FERPA); 20 U.S.C. § 1232h (PPRA). I
18 U.S.C. § 1343	e Analytics. Count III — Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud): Scheme to defraud users o
18 U.S.C. § 1028	ive tracking. Count IV — Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028 (Identity Fraud): Identity theft via pe
18 U.S.C. § 1029	ingerprinting. Count V — Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029 (Access Device Fraud): Unauthorized use
42 U.S.C. § 1983	information. Count IX — Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Deprivation of rights under color of l
18 U.S.C. § 4	an Rights. Count XXVII — Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 4 (Misprision of Felony): Failure to repo
18 U.S.C. § 371	felonies. Count XXVIII — Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Conspiracy): Conspiracy to commit offe
18 U.S.C. § 241	ted States. Count XXIX — Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights): Conspiracy
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	& 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304 & 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 & Title 47, Telecommunications § 230

14.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (31)

14.4 Dollar Figures (136)

$1.17 · $1.33 · $1.46 · $2.66 · $2.92 · $4.38 · $4.39 · $5.84 · $5.85 · $8.76 · $1,000.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $25,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $57,870.00 · $86,806.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $115,741.00 · $231,481.00 · $250,000.00 · $462,963.00 · $580,093.00 · $598,889.00 · $694,444.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $1,215,278.00 · $2,893,519.00 · $3,472,222.00 · $5,208,333.00 · $6,944,444.00 · $10,000,000.00 · $13,888,889.00 · $14,789,707.00 · $27,777,778.00 · $34,805,556.00 · $35,933,333.00 · $41,666,667.00 · $72,916,667.00 · $173,611,111.00 · $208,333,333.00 · $312,500,000.00 · $416,666,667.00 · $833,333,333.00 · $887,382,428.00 · $1,666,666,667.00 · $2,088,333,333.00 · $2,156,000,000.00 · $2,500,000,000.00 · $4,375,000,000.00 · $5,000,000,000.00 · $7,500,000,000.00 · $10,000,000,000.00 · $10,416,666,667.00 · $12,500,000,000.00 · $20,000,000,000.00 · $35,000,000,000.00 · $40,000,000,000.00 · $50,120,000,000.00 · $51,744,000,000.00 · $52,500,000,000.00 · $53,242,945,667.00 · $60,000,000,000.00 · $70,000,000,000.00 · $105,000,000,000.00 · $140,000,000,000.00 · $152,200,000,000.00 · $228,300,000,000.00 · $250,000,000,000.00 · $280,000,000,000.00 · $300,000,000,000.00 · $304,400,000,000.00 · $350,840,000,000.00 · $362,208,000,000.00 · $420,000,000,000.00 · $456,600,000,000.00 · $608,800,000,000.00 · $684,900,000,000.00 · $735,000,000,000.00 · $913,200,000,000.00 · $1,217,600,000,000.00 · $1,277,864,000,000.00 · $1,369,800,000,000.00 · $1,525,652,800,000.00 · $1,575,087,360,000.00 · $1,750,000,000,000.00 · $1,826,400,000,000.00 · $2,100,000,000,000.00 · $2,739,600,000,000.00 · $3,196,200,000,000.00 · $3,652,800,000,000.00 · $4,576,958,400,000.00 · $4,725,262,080,000.00 · $5,479,200,000,000.00 · $7,305,600,000,000.00 · $7,610,000,000,000.00 · $8,945,048,000,000.00 · $9,132,000,000,000.00 · $9,153,916,800,000.00 · $9,450,524,160,000.00 · $9,588,600,000,000.00 · $10,958,400,000,000.00 · $14,611,200,000,000.00 · $18,307,833,600,000.00 · $18,901,048,320,000.00 · $19,177,200,000,000.00 · $21,916,800,000,000.00 · $22,830,000,000,000.00 · $27,396,000,000,000.00 · $29,222,400,000,000.00 · $38,354,400,000,000.00 · $38,900,308,960,000.00 · $45,660,000,000,000.00 · $54,792,000,000,000.00 · $58,444,800,000,000.00 · $91,320,000,000,000.00 · $109,584,000,000,000.00 · $116,700,926,880,000.00 · $116,889,600,000,000.00 · $146,462,668,800,000.00 · $151,208,386,560,000.00 · $175,334,400,000,000.00 · $233,401,853,760,000.00 · $306,835,200,000,000.00 · $466,803,707,520,000.00 · $730,560,000,000,000.00 · $876,672,000,000,000.00 · $1,867,214,830,080,000.00 · $2,292,616,253,909,760.00 · $3,734,429,660,160,000.00 · $7,468,859,320,320,000.00 · $1,000,000,000,000,000,000.00

14.5 Dates (1)

2026-09-23

Section 15 of 261

Section 15 — Comprehensive Forensic Audit and Legal Analysis — Multi-Jurisdictional Statutory, Constitutional, and International Treaty Violations

Source File	FORENSIC-0015-comprehensive-forensic-audit-and-legal-analysis-multi-jurisd-a748c713.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-09-24 03:17:03
Size	59,789 bytes
SHA-256	a748c7138458da5c856cc0c72186ca8c5eac9a18029603e15e76e63abbec39be

15.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

15.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (46)

Citation	Source excerpt
5 U.S.C. § 552	15 U.S.C. §§ 45, 6501–6506, 6801, 7701; 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3); 20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 29 U.S.C. §
20 U.S.C. § 1232	506, 6801, 7701; 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3); 20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 29 U.S.C. § 794d; 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131,
29 U.S.C. § 794	U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3); 20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 29 U.S.C. § 794d; 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131, 12181, 1983, 1985
Civ. Code § 1798.100	517; 44 U.S.C. §§ 3101–3106, 3541; Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq. (CCPA/CPRA); Cal. Penal Code §
Penal Code § 631	de § 1798.100 et seq. (CCPA/CPRA); Cal. Penal Code § 631 (CIPA); Fla. Stat. § 39.202, § 119.07,
Fla. Stat. § 39.202	PA/CPRA); Cal. Penal Code § 631 (CIPA); Fla. Stat. § 39.202, § 119.07, § 501.171 (FIPA), § 501.201
GDPR Art. 7	ns [1]. ePrivacy Directive Art. 5(3); GDPR Art. 7; Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3); CCP
Civ. Code § 1798.100(b)	cy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3); CCPA Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100(b); FTC Act 15 U.S.C. § 45(a); Wiretap Act
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	A Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100(b); FTC Act 15 U.S.C. § 45(a); Wiretap Act 18 U.S.C. § 2511; CFAA 18
18 U.S.C. § 2511	FTC Act 15 U.S.C. § 45(a); Wiretap Act 18 U.S.C. § 2511; CFAA 18 U.S.C. § 1030 [1]. Google LL
18 U.S.C. § 1030	(a); Wiretap Act 18 U.S.C. § 2511; CFAA 18 U.S.C. § 1030 [1]. Google LLC v. CNIL, Case C-507/1
GDPR Art. 13	adata for third-party processing [1]. GDPR Art. 13(1)(e); Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b);
15 U.S.C. § 7701	or COPPA age gates [1]. CAN-SPAM Act 15 U.S.C. § 7701; GDPR Art. 7, 13; COPPA 15 U.S.C. § 650
15 U.S.C. § 6501	5 U.S.C. § 7701; GDPR Art. 7, 13; COPPA 15 U.S.C. § 6501; CCPA § 1798.100; ePrivacy Directive Ar
15 U.S.C. § 6801	PCI-DSS Req. 4.1; FTC Act § 45(a); GLBA 15 U.S.C. § 6801; GDPR Art. 32 [1, 2]. FTC v. Wyndham
GDPR Art. 32	FTC Act § 45(a); GLBA 15 U.S.C. § 6801; GDPR Art. 32 [1, 2]. FTC v. Wyndham Worldwide Corp
44 U.S.C. § 3541	P 800-53 SC-8; DoD STIG V-225562; FISMA 44 U.S.C. § 3541 [1, 2]. FTC v. Wyndham Worldwide Corp
GDPR Art. 35	ata Protection Impact Assessment [1]. GDPR Art. 35; UN Guiding Principles Principle 17; G2
18 U.S.C. § 1343	shes predicate acts of wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 [3]. Similarly, FinCEN's public conta
Fla. Stat. § 501.171	orida Information Protection Act (FIPA, Fla. Stat. § 501.171) and administrative sanctions under Flo
42 U.S.C. § 12131	e Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12131) [4, 5]. The use of image-based submit
44 U.S.C. § 3501	3); 18 U.S.C. § 1343; 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (PRA); GLBA 15 U.S.C. § 6801 [3].
Fla. Stat. § 119.07	§ 39.202; Fla. Stat. § 501.171 (FIPA); Fla. Stat. § 119.07; GDPR Art. 32; Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.42
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)	, 2, 3]. Under the Federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)), the intentional interception of any w
18 U.S.C. § 2520	l interception devices [1, 3, 7]. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2520, affected users are entitled to civil r
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(C)	ly causes damage without authorization (18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(C)) or accessing a protected computer with
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)	ut authorization to obtain information (18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)) exposes actors to criminal penalties a
42 U.S.C. § 1983	e law face direct civil liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and conspiracy liability under 42 U.S.C
42 U.S.C. § 1985	. § 1983 and conspiracy liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 [8, 9, 10]. Under Monell v. Department
Civil Code § 1798.100	ghts Act (CPRA), codified at California Civil Code § 1798.100 et seq., mandate that covered businesse
Civ. Code § 1798.135	utomated opt-out signals, violates Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.135 [2, 6]. Under CPRA enforcement standard
Fla. Stat. § 501.201	and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA, Fla. Stat. § 501.201) and Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade
GDPR Article 6	g digital data processing [1, 2]. Under GDPR Article 6(1), processing personal data—including
GDPR Art. 6	ure Lawful Basis & Consent GDPR Art. 6(1)(a), Art. 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3) [1, 2
GDPR Art. 83	up to €20M or 4% global turnover under GDPR Art. 83(5) [1, 4]. Transparency & Notice
GDPR Art. 5	fundamental processing principles under GDPR Art. 5 [1, 2]. Data Security & Integrit
GDPR Art. 33	atutory breach reporting triggers under GDPR Art. 33/34 [4]. Impact Assessment (DPIA)
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ght and accountability [4, 10, 12]. 22 U.S.C. § 2295a — Assistance to Independent States of
50 U.S.C. § 1702	. foreign policy interests [12]. 50 U.S.C. § 1702 — International Emergency Economic Powe
10 U.S.C. § 2304	evade statutory oversight [12]. 10 U.S.C. § 2304 — Competition Requirements for Federal
47 U.S.C. § 230	laundering provisions [10, 12]. 47 U.S.C. § 230 — Communications Decency Act Establis
31 U.S.C. § 1341(a)	plicit statutory authorization violates 31 U.S.C. § 1341(a) [16]. Knowing violations trigger mandat
31 U.S.C. § 1350	s of up to two years imprisonment under 31 U.S.C. § 1350 [16]. Concurrently, the Bona Fide Nee
31 U.S.C. § 1502(a)	Concurrently, the Bona Fide Needs Rule (31 U.S.C. § 1502(a)) dictates that an appropriation limited
5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)	the Administrative Procedure Act (APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)) [15]. Arbitrarily deleting contract sa
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	& 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304 & 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 & Title 47, Telecommunications § 230

15.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

15.4 Dollar Figures (26)

$100.00 · $1,000.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $200,000.00 · $300,000.00 · $400,000.00 · $500,000.00 · $600,000.00 · $700,000.00 · $800,000.00 · $900,000.00 · $1,200,000.00 · $1,500,000.00 · $1,800,000.00 · $2,000,000.00 · $2,200,000.00 · $2,500,000.00 · $2,600,000.00 · $3,500,000.00 · $4,500,000.00 · $6,800,000.00

15.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 16 of 261

Section 16 — Amended Forensic Audit Report – Multi-Jurisdictional Extension (NZ / AU / UK / HK / VU)

Source File	FORENSIC-0016-amended-forensic-audit-report-hero-by-linc-ed-fusionauth-1-6-0a765a45.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-09-23 13:51:45
Size	42,637 bytes
SHA-256	0a765a45569f1cdda16bc9b2fe0c647f76fd9a470fbdea46f038d65c02dfb047

16.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

16.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (11)

Citation	Source excerpt
GDPR Art. 5	Data Breaches Act 2017[reference:1] UK GDPR Art. 5, 6, 32; DPA 2018, Sch. 3, Pt. 4[referen
GDPR Art. 32	1 (security of personal information) UK GDPR Art. 32; DPA 2018 PDPO, DPP 4(1) (security)[ref
GDPR Art. 44	988, APP 8 (cross-border disclosure) UK GDPR Art. 44–49 (transfers) PDPO, DPP 3 (use) and s
GDPR Art. 8	oposed Children's Code[reference:14] UK GDPR Art. 8; Age Appropriate Design Code (Children'
GDPR Art. 13	24] Privacy Act 1988, APP 1 (policy) UK GDPR Art. 13, 14 (information) PDPO, DPP 1(3) and 5
GDPR Art. 25	ference:25] Privacy Act 1988, APP 11 UK GDPR Art. 25 (data protection by design) PDPO, DPP 4
GDPR Art. 6	s 1–6 ePrivacy Directive (retained); UK GDPR Art. 6, 7 PDPO, DPP 1–6 Data Protection and Pr
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	& 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304 & 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 & Title 47, Telecommunications § 230

16.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

16.4 Dollar Figures (68)

$5.70 · $8.30 · $22.10 · $50.00 · $88.40 · $187.80 · $463.00 · $583.00 · $875.00 · $1,458.00 · $2,292.00 · $10,000.00 · $15,000.00 · $18,780.00 · $35,007.00 · $52,500.00 · $87,500.00 · $100,000.00 · $137,500.00 · $350,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $1,935,185.00 · $2,100,417.00 · $2,500,000.00 · $3,150,000.00 · $5,250,000.00 · $8,250,000.00 · $50,000,000.00 · $50,410,000.00 · $75,600,000.00 · $116,111,100.00 · $126,000,000.00 · $198,000,000.00 · $352,870,000.00 · $529,200,000.00 · $882,000,000.00 · $1,386,000,000.00 · $1,534,566,800.00 · $2,301,840,000.00 · $3,836,400,000.00 · $4,603,700,400.00 · $6,028,200,000.00 · $6,905,520,000.00 · $6,966,666,000.00 · $9,207,400,800.00 · $11,509,200,000.00 · $13,811,040,000.00 · $18,084,600,000.00 · $18,414,801,600.00 · $23,018,400,000.00 · $27,622,080,000.00 · $36,169,200,000.00 · $46,036,800,000.00 · $72,338,400,000.00 · $88,391,047,680.00 · $147,318,412,800.00 · $167,200,000,000.00 · $187,830,144,000.00 · $220,976,640,000.00 · $368,294,400,000.00 · $462,965,760,000.00 · $578,707,200,000.00 · $1,170,400,000,000.00 · $5,090,608,000,000.00 · $15,271,824,000,000.00 · $30,543,648,000,000.00 · $61,087,296,000,000.00 · $488,698,368,000,000.00

16.5 Dates (1)

2018-01-01

Section 17 of 261

Section 17 — Forensic Audit Report – VFIU-Leohil-MIS – Vanuatu Financial Intelligence Unit

Source File	FORENSIC-0017-forensic-audit-report-vfiu-leohil-mis-vanuatu-financial-inte-c774f224.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-09-24 09:19:03
Size	65,837 bytes
SHA-256	c774f22461cffefd6f469ce60ee41aa88e631324c8024b71e654bf7ee197fcfa

17.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected reporting entities	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected reporting entities and individuals (Class Action) — banks, insurers, real e
defendant	The Vanuatu Financial Intelligence Unit	xposed by the VFIU-Leohil-MIS portal. Defendants: The Vanuatu Financial Intelligence Unit, its Director, its internal development team (FIUWeb solution authors)

17.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (27)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 1030	lic HTML title and brand High 2000–2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030; Vanuatu Cybercrime Act No. 22 of 2021;
GDPR Art. 8	public reports Medium 2000–2026 COPPA; GDPR Art. 8; Vanuatu HDCA 2024 Register + Login end
GDPR Art. 5	page High 2000–2026 Vanuatu DPPA 2024; GDPR Art. 5; AML&CTF Act record-keeping rules Entir
GDPR Art. 13	vacy) High 2000–2026 Vanuatu DPPA 2024; GDPR Art. 13, 14 Footer 17 No cookie consent bann
GDPR Art. 6	nter High 2000–2026 ePrivacy Art. 5(3); GDPR Art. 6, 7; Vanuatu DPPA 2024 Entire portal
15 U.S.C. § 45	e or terms of use link Medium 2000–2026 15 U.S.C. § 45; GDPR Art. 13; Vanuatu DPPA 2024 Entire
GDPR Art. 35	ite high-risk processing High 2000–2026 GDPR Art. 35; Vanuatu DPPA 2024; FATF Recommendation
Penal Code § 502	iolation per day. • State: California Penal Code § 502; New York Penal Law § 156.55; Texas Pen
Penal Code § 33.02	502; New York Penal Law § 156.55; Texas Penal Code § 33.02; Florida Statutes § 815.06; Illinois 72
5 U.S.C. § 552	d); 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act – $50,120); 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act – $5,000); 42 U.S.C. § 19
42 U.S.C. § 1983	5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act – $5,000); 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (if state-adjacent actors are involved)
31 U.S.C. § 5318	(Wire Fraud); 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act); 31 U.S.C. § 5318 (BSA); 31 U.S.C. § 5311 note (Patriot A
31 U.S.C. § 5311	§ 45 (FTC Act); 31 U.S.C. § 5318 (BSA); 31 U.S.C. § 5311 note (Patriot Act § 326 customer identi
GDPR Art. 32	ittee on Banking Supervision — AML/CFT; GDPR Art. 32; Vanuatu DPPA 2024; Vanuatu Cybercrime
18 U.S.C. § 1343	n (3×): • Federal: 18 U.S.C. § 1030; 18 U.S.C. § 1343; 15 U.S.C. § 45; OWASP Top 10 A03:2021;
GDPR Article 13	is required under Vanuatu DPPA 2024 and GDPR Article 13. Chronological Statutory Expansion
County Code § 22	4; Cook County Ordinance Ch. 30; Harris County Code § 22; Maricopa County Ordinance § 15; San Di
County Code § 4.5	ricopa County Ordinance § 15; San Diego County Code § 4.5. State Penal Codes: California Penal C
Civ. Code § 1798.100	Pa.C.S. §§ 7601–7651, 5741; California Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200
Prof. Code § 17200	v. Code § 1798.100 et seq.; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200; NY GBL § 349; Texas DTPA. Federal U.
18 U.S.C. § 1836	nce; misappropriation of trade secrets (18 U.S.C. § 1836); civil rights torts (42 U.S.C. §§ 1981
18 U.S.C. § 2511	00 + 20 years All 30 violation types 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act) $10,000 + treble + $100,0
18 U.S.C. § 1001	onfiguration. Count IV – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (False Statements): Material misreprese
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	& 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304 & 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 & Title 47, Telecommunications § 230

17.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (30)

17.4 Dollar Figures (102)

$2.85 · $3.51 · $3.52 · $4.76 · $7.02 · $9.51 · $579.00 · $1,000.00 · $1,157.00 · $1,736.00 · $2,894.00 · $5,000.00 · $5,800.00 · $5,990.00 · $6,944.00 · $8,102.00 · $10,000.00 · $34,722.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,229.00 · $51,744.00 · $69,444.00 · $100,000.00 · $104,167.00 · $173,611.00 · $348,056.00 · $359,333.00 · $416,667.00 · $486,111.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $2,083,333.00 · $3,073,750.00 · $4,166,667.00 · $6,250,000.00 · $10,000,000.00 · $10,416,667.00 · $20,883,333.00 · $21,560,000.00 · $25,000,000.00 · $29,166,667.00 · $50,000,000.00 · $100,000,000.00 · $150,000,000.00 · $184,425,000.00 · $250,000,000.00 · $350,000,000.00 · $501,200,000.00 · $517,440,000.00 · $600,000,000.00 · $700,000,000.00 · $1,050,000,000.00 · $1,522,000,000.00 · $1,750,000,000.00 · $3,044,000,000.00 · $3,508,400,000.00 · $3,622,080,000.00 · $4,200,000,000.00 · $4,425,640,000.00 · $4,566,000,000.00 · $4,900,000,000.00 · $7,610,000,000.00 · $9,132,000,000.00 · $13,698,000,000.00 · $15,256,528,000.00 · $15,750,816,000.00 · $18,264,000,000.00 · $21,308,000,000.00 · $22,830,000,000.00 · $27,396,000,000.00 · $30,979,480,000.00 · $36,528,000,000.00 · $45,660,000,000.00 · $45,769,584,000.00 · $47,252,448,000.00 · $54,792,000,000.00 · $63,924,000,000.00 · $91,320,000,000.00 · $91,539,168,000.00 · $94,504,896,000.00 · $109,584,000,000.00 · $127,848,000,000.00 · $134,728,344,000.00 · $183,078,336,000.00 · $189,009,792,000.00 · $219,168,000,000.00 · $255,696,000,000.00 · $404,185,032,000.00 · $474,864,000,000.00 · $500,000,000,000.00 · $808,370,064,000.00 · $949,728,000,000.00 · $1,424,592,000,000.00 · $1,616,740,128,000.00 · $2,374,320,000,000.00 · $4,760,036,736,000.00 · $4,914,254,592,000.00 · $5,698,368,000,000.00 · $6,648,096,000,000.00 · $21,017,621,664,000.00 · $25,221,145,996,800.00 · $42,035,243,328,000.00 · $84,070,486,656,000.00

17.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 18 of 261

Section 18 — Forensic Audit Report – MyVanuatu.vu Real Estate Portal – Ray White Vanuatu

Source File	FORENSIC-0018-forensic-audit-report-myvanuatu-vu-real-estate-portal-ray-wh-3c752bcd.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-09-24 09:09:46
Size	70,566 bytes
SHA-256	3c752bcd233f5e06807fccedd79b73001a29beb20a6f159d3135a21bc7b76f05

18.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) – prospective purchasers,
defendant	Ray White Vanuatu	uatu.vu portal and Ray White Vanuatu. Defendants: Ray White Vanuatu, MyVanuatu.vu, Automattic Inc., Elementor Ltd., ThemePunch, Yoast BV, Rock Lobster LLC, Word

18.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (30)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 2511	sent management platform High 2016–2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 15 U.S.C. § 45; GDPR Art. 5, 6, 7; ePr
15 U.S.C. § 45	atform High 2016–2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 15 U.S.C. § 45; GDPR Art. 5, 6, 7; ePrivacy Directive
GDPR Art. 5	–2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 15 U.S.C. § 45; GDPR Art. 5, 6, 7; ePrivacy Directive Art. 5(3); Va
18 U.S.C. § 1030	aintext HTML (v2 and v3) High 2016–2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030; GDPR Art. 32; NIST SP 800-53 IA-5 capt
GDPR Art. 32	nd v3) High 2016–2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030; GDPR Art. 32; NIST SP 800-53 IA-5 captchakey in cont
GDPR Art. 44	-Agent High 2016–2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511; GDPR Art. 44–49; ePrivacy Art. 5(3) fonts.googleapis
GDPR Art. 6	6 18 U.S.C. § 2511; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); GDPR Art. 6 facebook.com/MyVanuatuProperty/ 18 P
18 U.S.C. § 1343	raywhite.com subdomain Medium 2016–2026 18 U.S.C. § 1343; CAN-SPAM 15 U.S.C. § 7701 vanuatu.vu@r
15 U.S.C. § 7701	um 2016–2026 18 U.S.C. § 1343; CAN-SPAM 15 U.S.C. § 7701 vanuatu.vu@raywhite.com disclosed 28
GDPR Art. 8	2016–2026 COPPA 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506; GDPR Art. 8; Vanuatu HDCA 2024 Contact and newslett
GDPR Art. 13	link on the landing page High 2016–2026 GDPR Art. 13, 14; CCPA § 1798.100; Vanuatu DPPA 2024
Penal Code § 502	iolation per day. • State: California Penal Code § 502 (unauthorized computer access – $10,000
Civ. Code § 1798.140	computer access – $10,000); California Civ. Code § 1798.140 (CCPA/CPRA – $7,500 per intentional vio
Penal Code § 33.02	on); New York Penal Law § 156.55; Texas Penal Code § 33.02; Florida Statutes § 815.06. • Federal
5 U.S.C. § 552	s); 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act – $50,120); 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act – $5,000); 42 U.S.C. § 19
42 U.S.C. § 1983	5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act – $5,000); 42 U.S.C. § 1983. • Military (UCMJ): Article 92, Articl
GDPR Article 8	ollment), this creates direct COPPA and GDPR Article 8 exposure. Legal Exposure: COPPA 15 U.
County Code § 22	4; Cook County Ordinance Ch. 30; Harris County Code § 22; Maricopa County Ordinance § 15; San Di
County Code § 4.5	ricopa County Ordinance § 15; San Diego County Code § 4.5. State Penal Codes: California Penal C
Civ. Code § 1798.100	Pa.C.S. §§ 7601–7651, 5741; California Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq. (CCPA/CPRA); Cal. Bus. & Prof.
Prof. Code § 17200	98.100 et seq. (CCPA/CPRA); Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200; NY GBL § 349; Texas DTPA. Federal U.
18 U.S.C. § 1836	nce; misappropriation of trade secrets (18 U.S.C. § 1836); civil rights torts (42 U.S.C. §§ 1981
18 U.S.C. § 2701	nalytics, OneSignal, Fonts, Facebook 18 U.S.C. § 2701 (SCA) $10,000 Analytics, OneSignal, ses
18 U.S.C. § 1028	state portal. Count IV – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028 (Identity Fraud): Identity exposure via
18 U.S.C. § 1029	ct disclosure. Count V – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029 (Access Device Fraud): Unauthorized use
18 U.S.C. § 371	man Rights. Count XXIX – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Conspiracy): Conspiracy to commit offe
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	& 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304 & 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 & Title 47, Telecommunications § 230

18.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (30)

18.4 Dollar Figures (113)

$1.09 · $1.37 · $1.83 · $2.74 · $5.47 · $5.48 · $5.66 · $5.67 · $9.13 · $1,000.00 · $5,000.00 · $5,787.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $11,574.00 · $28,935.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $57,870.00 · $58,010.00 · $59,907.00 · $86,806.00 · $100,000.00 · $173,611.00 · $173,750.00 · $347,222.00 · $648,348.00 · $694,444.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $1,736,111.00 · $3,472,222.00 · $3,480,556.00 · $3,594,444.00 · $5,208,333.00 · $10,000,000.00 · $10,416,667.00 · $10,425,000.00 · $20,833,333.00 · $38,900,888.00 · $41,666,667.00 · $104,166,667.00 · $208,333,333.00 · $208,833,333.00 · $215,666,667.00 · $312,500,000.00 · $500,000,000.00 · $625,000,000.00 · $625,500,000.00 · $1,000,000,000.00 · $2,334,053,333.00 · $2,500,000,000.00 · $3,500,000,000.00 · $5,000,000,000.00 · $5,012,000,000.00 · $5,174,400,000.00 · $7,000,000,000.00 · $7,500,000,000.00 · $15,000,000,000.00 · $15,012,000,000.00 · $15,220,000,000.00 · $17,500,000,000.00 · $30,440,000,000.00 · $35,000,000,000.00 · $35,084,000,000.00 · $36,220,800,000.00 · $45,660,000,000.00 · $52,500,000,000.00 · $56,010,400,000.00 · $76,100,000,000.00 · $91,320,000,000.00 · $105,000,000,000.00 · $105,084,000,000.00 · $152,200,000,000.00 · $152,565,280,000.00 · $157,508,736,000.00 · $182,640,000,000.00 · $228,300,000,000.00 · $365,280,000,000.00 · $392,072,800,000.00 · $456,600,000,000.00 · $457,094,000,000.00 · $457,695,840,000.00 · $472,526,208,000.00 · $684,900,000,000.00 · $913,200,000,000.00 · $915,391,680,000.00 · $945,052,416,000.00 · $1,369,800,000,000.00 · $1,371,282,000,000.00 · $1,704,992,016,000.00 · $1,826,400,000,000.00 · $1,830,783,360,000.00 · $1,890,104,832,000.00 · $2,739,600,000,000.00 · $2,742,564,000,000.00 · $3,652,800,000,000.00 · $5,114,976,048,000.00 · $5,479,200,000,000.00 · $5,485,128,000,000.00 · $9,132,000,000,000.00 · $10,229,952,096,000.00 · $18,264,000,000,000.00 · $18,307,833,600,000.00 · $18,901,048,320,000.00 · $20,459,904,192,000.00 · $27,396,000,000,000.00 · $54,792,000,000,000.00 · $54,851,280,000,000.00 · $102,299,520,960,000.00 · $163,679,233,536,000.00 · $204,599,041,920,000.00 · $409,198,083,840,000.00 · $1,000,000,000,000,000,000.00

18.5 Dates (1)

2016-11-18

Section 19 of 261

Section 19 — Forensic Audit Report — VFSC Virtual Asset Service Provider — Vanuatu Financial Services Commission

Source File	FORENSIC-0019-forensic-audit-report-vfsc-virtual-asset-service-provider-vf-412790f2.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-09-21 08:46:27
Size	64,428 bytes
SHA-256	412790f2b3cf6e90cd70bc585517513fcaebd75dee8b6c167d2c7c888e412408

19.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All individuals	District Court — District of Columbia Plaintiffs: All individuals whose PII was intercepted without consent (Class Action). Defendants: Vanuatu Fi
defendant	Vanuatu Financial Services Commission	epted without consent (Class Action). Defendants: Vanuatu Financial Services Commission (VFSC); Zest IT (zestit.co.nz); Automatt

19.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (30)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 2511	ng without prior consent High 1997-2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 47 U.S.C. § 605; Cal. Civ. Code § 1798
47 U.S.C. § 605	onsent High 1997-2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 47 U.S.C. § 605; Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100; GDPR Art. 5
Civ. Code § 1798.100	18 U.S.C. § 2511; 47 U.S.C. § 605; Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100; GDPR Art. 5-7; ePrivacy Dir. 2002/58/E
GDPR Art. 5	.S.C. § 605; Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100; GDPR Art. 5-7; ePrivacy Dir. 2002/58/EC 2.2 Goog
15 U.S.C. § 45	onsent High 1997-2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 15 U.S.C. § 45; GDPR Art. 6-7; Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.1
GDPR Art. 6	-2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 15 U.S.C. § 45; GDPR Art. 6-7; Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.140(ae) 2.3
Civ. Code § 1798.140(ae)	11; 15 U.S.C. § 45; GDPR Art. 6-7; Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.140(ae) 2.3 WordPress Version 7.1.1 exposed
18 U.S.C. § 1030	d via meta generator tag High 1997-2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030; Cal. Penal Code § 502; GDPR Art. 32
Penal Code § 502	g High 1997-2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030; Cal. Penal Code § 502; GDPR Art. 32 2.4 xmlrpc.php endpoin
GDPR Art. 32	8 U.S.C. § 1030; Cal. Penal Code § 502; GDPR Art. 32 2.4 xmlrpc.php endpoint exposed via
18 U.S.C. § 1028	/3092, oEmbed endpoints) High 1997-2026 18 U.S.C. § 1028; Cal. Penal Code § 502; GDPR Art. 32
Civ. Code § 1798.150	ST SP 800-53 SC-7; OWASP A05:2021; Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150 2.10 Missing Permissions-Policy head
Prof. Code § 17200	2025-2026 18 U.S.C. § 1028; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 2.25 Inline JS / style blocks withou
15 U.S.C. § 6801	ics without consent High 2025-2026 GLBA 15 U.S.C. § 6801; GDPR Art. 44-49; FATF Recommendation 1
GDPR Art. 44	t High 2025-2026 GLBA 15 U.S.C. § 6801; GDPR Art. 44-49; FATF Recommendation 16 2.1
County Code § 22	d data transmission a violation. Harris County Code § 22 — each unauthorized tracking event a vi
Penal Code § 33.02	per tracking event; NY GBL § 349. Tex. Penal Code § 33.02 — state jail felony. N.J. Stat. Ann. §
18 U.S.C. § 1343	1030 (CFAA) — up to 10 years per count. 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud) — $1,000,000 fine and 20 y
18 U.S.C. § 1961	$1,000,000 fine and 20 years per count. 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (RICO) — pattern of racketeering via §
Penal Code § 502(c)(2)	ounty Law. Same as 2.1. State Law. Cal. Penal Code § 502(c)(2); N.Y. Penal Law § 156.05; Illinois BIPA
18 U.S.C. § 1029	2511; 18 U.S.C. § 1030; 15 U.S.C. § 45; 18 U.S.C. § 1029. Military Law. Article 92; Article 107.
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)	utory framework as in 2.1, primary hook 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5) and NIST SI-7. Counts: 27,840,000 (8 sc
5 U.S.C. § 552	n. § 2C:20-31. Federal U.S.C. Titles 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 15 U.S.C. §§ 45, 6801, 6501-6506, 770
17 U.S.C. § 501	15 U.S.C. §§ 45, 6801, 6501-6506, 7701; 17 U.S.C. § 501; 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 245, 371, 1001,
29 U.S.C. § 794	89, 1590, 1951, 1956, 1961, 2511, 3571; 29 U.S.C. § 794d; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981-1986, 12181; 47 U.S
50 U.S.C. § 1702	12181; 47 U.S.C. §§ 230, 301, 333, 605; 50 U.S.C. § 1702. Military UCMJ Articles Article 92; A
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	ivity (1997-2026). Count V — FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair and deceptive trade practices
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 2
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2, and Title 47, Tel
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	5a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2, and Title 47, Telecommunications § 2

19.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (13)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I — Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Unlawful interception of electronic communications (1997-2026).	plugin developer; and Does 1-50. Count I — Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Unlawful interception of electronic communications (1997-2026). Count II — CFAA (18 U
Count II — CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers (1997-2026).	lectronic communications (1997-2026). Count II — CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers (1997-2026). Count III — Wire Fraud (18 U.S
Count III — Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Scheme to defraud by transmitting tracking data (1997-2026).	s to protected computers (1997-2026). Count III — Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Scheme to defraud by transmitting tracking data (1997-2026). Count IV — RICO (1
Count IV — RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Pattern of racketeering activity (1997-2026).	ansmitting tracking data (1997-2026). Count IV — RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Pattern of racketeering activity (1997-2026). Count V — FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a))
Count V — FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair and deceptive trade practices (1997-2026).	of racketeering activity (1997-2026). Count V — FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair and deceptive trade practices (1997-2026). Count VI — California Consumer Pr
Count VI — California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150): Failure to provide opt-out, sale of personal information (2020-2026).	eceptive trade practices (1997-2026). Count VI — California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150): Failure to provide opt-out, sale of personal infor
Count VII — GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Failure to protect nonpublic personal information (1997-2026).	of personal information (2020-2026). Count VII — GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Failure to protect nonpublic personal information (1997-2026). Count VIII — Privacy Ac
Count VIII — Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Unauthorized maintenance of records on individuals (1997-2026).	lic personal information (1997-2026). Count VIII — Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Unauthorized maintenance of records on individuals (1997-2026). Count IX — Biv
Count IX — Bivens Constitutional Tort: Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations (1997-2026).	f records on individuals (1997-2026). Count IX — Bivens Constitutional Tort: Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations (1997-2026). Count X — Common Law Invasion of
Count X — Common Law Invasion of Privacy (all four branches) (1997-2026).	fth Amendment violations (1997-2026). Count X — Common Law Invasion of Privacy (all four branches) (1997-2026). Count XI — Violation of GDPR (EU) 201
Count XI — Violation of GDPR (EU) 2016/679 Arts. 5, 6, 13, 32 (2018-2026).	acy (all four branches) (1997-2026). Count XI — Violation of GDPR (EU) 2016/679 Arts. 5, 6, 13, 32 (2018-2026). Count XII — Violation of ePrivacy Dir
Count XII — Violation of ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC Art. 5(3) (2002-2026).	/679 Arts. 5, 6, 13, 32 (2018-2026). Count XII — Violation of ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC Art. 5(3) (2002-2026). Count XIII — Violation of FATF Recomm
Count XIII — Violation of FATF Recommendation 16 (Travel Rule) (2019-2026).	ve 2002/58/EC Art. 5(3) (2002-2026). Count XIII — Violation of FATF Recommendation 16 (Travel Rule) (2019-2026). Damages Sought: Compensatory, stat

19.4 Dollar Figures (125)

$0.00 · $0.01 · $0.02 · $0.03 · $0.05 · $0.18 · $0.27 · $0.36 · $0.37 · $0.55 · $0.60 · $0.72 · $0.74 · $1.45 · $1.64 · $1.81 · $1.83 · $2.73 · $3.48 · $3.68 · $5.04 · $6.96 · $10.44 · $11.00 · $16.20 · $21.90 · $22.00 · $33.00 · $36.00 · $40.10 · $44.00 · $87.00 · $98.40 · $100.00 · $108.00 · $110.00 · $164.00 · $221.00 · $262.80 · $264.00 · $528.00 · $750.00 · $792.00 · $972.00 · $1,056.00 · $1,848.00 · $2,088.00 · $2,160.00 · $2,604.00 · $2,640.00 · $3,696.00 · $5,000.00 · $5,304.00 · $5,544.00 · $5,904.00 · $7,392.00 · $7,500.00 · $8,030.00 · $9,840.00 · $10,000.00 · $14,616.00 · $15,000.00 · $16,060.00 · $18,228.00 · $18,480.00 · $23,328.00 · $24,084.00 · $32,112.00 · $37,128.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,840.00 · $63,512.00 · $79,196.00 · $80,300.00 · $96,360.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $141,696.00 · $161,272.00 · $163,296.00 · $192,720.00 · $236,160.00 · $289,008.00 · $362,880.00 · $385,344.00 · $709,320.00 · $762,144.00 · $950,352.00 · $963,600.00 · $991,872.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $1,576,200.00 · $1,653,120.00 · $1,935,264.00 · $3,000,000.00 · $4,308,240.00 · $5,000,000.00 · $7,180,400.00 · $8,511,840.00 · $18,914,400.00 · $51,698,880.00 · $86,164,800.00 · $1,000,000,000.00 · $17,400,000,000.00 · $26,100,000,000.00 · $34,800,000,000.00 · $52,200,000,000.00 · $69,600,000,000.00 · $130,500,000,000.00 · $139,200,000,000.00 · $174,000,000,000.00 · $174,417,600,000.00 · $348,000,000,000.00 · $522,000,000,000.00 · $1,744,176,000,000.00 · $3,828,000,000,000.00 · $10,440,000,000,000.00 · $17,400,000,000,000.00 · $27,840,000,000,000.00 · $34,800,000,000,000.00 · $52,200,000,000,000.00 · $10,027,340,650,000,000.00 · $30,082,021,950,000,000.00 · $40,109,362,600,000,000.00 · $80,218,725,200,000,000.00

19.5 Dates (3)

2025-06-27 · 2026-08-20 · 2026-09-14

Section 20 of 261

Section 20 — Comprehensive Forensic Audit and Legal Analysis — Ladco Defense Technologies

Source File	FORENSIC-0020-comprehensive-forensic-audit-and-legal-analysis-ladco-defens-1c999255.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-09-24 02:38:49
Size	58,161 bytes
SHA-256	1c9992554aed633b7c605233eddf9cbebc9358d89726fdc08c8f33caaaef3233

20.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

20.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (45)

Citation	Source excerpt
GDPR Art. 7	ns [1]. ePrivacy Directive Art. 5(3); GDPR Art. 7; Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3); CCP
5 U.S.C. § 552	ive Art. 5(3); GDPR Art. 7; Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3); CCPA Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100(
Civ. Code § 1798.100(b)	cy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3); CCPA Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100(b); FTC Act 15 U.S.C. § 45(a); Wiretap Act
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	A Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100(b); FTC Act 15 U.S.C. § 45(a); Wiretap Act 18 U.S.C. § 2511; CFAA 18
18 U.S.C. § 2511	FTC Act 15 U.S.C. § 45(a); Wiretap Act 18 U.S.C. § 2511; CFAA 18 U.S.C. § 1030 [1]. Google LL
18 U.S.C. § 1030	(a); Wiretap Act 18 U.S.C. § 2511; CFAA 18 U.S.C. § 1030 [1]. Google LLC v. CNIL, Case C-507/1
GDPR Art. 13	adata for third-party processing [1]. GDPR Art. 13(1)(e); Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b);
15 U.S.C. § 7701	or COPPA age gates [1]. CAN-SPAM Act 15 U.S.C. § 7701; GDPR Art. 7, 13; COPPA 15 U.S.C. § 650
15 U.S.C. § 6501	5 U.S.C. § 7701; GDPR Art. 7, 13; COPPA 15 U.S.C. § 6501; CCPA § 1798.100; ePrivacy Directive Ar
15 U.S.C. § 6801	PCI-DSS Req. 4.1; FTC Act § 45(a); GLBA 15 U.S.C. § 6801; GDPR Art. 32 [1, 2]. FTC v. Wyndham
GDPR Art. 32	FTC Act § 45(a); GLBA 15 U.S.C. § 6801; GDPR Art. 32 [1, 2]. FTC v. Wyndham Worldwide Corp
44 U.S.C. § 3541	P 800-53 SC-8; DoD STIG V-225562; FISMA 44 U.S.C. § 3541 [1, 2]. FTC v. Wyndham Worldwide Corp
GDPR Art. 35	ata Protection Impact Assessment [1]. GDPR Art. 35; UN Guiding Principles Principle 17; G2
18 U.S.C. § 1343	shes predicate acts of wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 [3]. Similarly, FinCEN's public conta
Fla. Stat. § 501.171	orida Information Protection Act (FIPA, Fla. Stat. § 501.171) and administrative sanctions under Flo
29 U.S.C. § 794	Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. § 794d) and Title II of the Americans with Di
42 U.S.C. § 12131	e Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12131) [4, 5]. The use of image-based submit
44 U.S.C. § 3501	3); 18 U.S.C. § 1343; 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (PRA); GLBA 15 U.S.C. § 6801 [3].
Fla. Stat. § 39.202	reporter identities to Mixpanel [4]. Fla. Stat. § 39.202; Fla. Stat. § 501.171 (FIPA); Fla. Stat
Fla. Stat. § 119.07	§ 39.202; Fla. Stat. § 501.171 (FIPA); Fla. Stat. § 119.07; GDPR Art. 32; Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.42
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)	, 2, 3]. Under the Federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)), the intentional interception of any w
18 U.S.C. § 2520	l interception devices [1, 3, 7]. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2520, affected users are entitled to civil r
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(C)	ly causes damage without authorization (18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(C)) or accessing a protected computer with
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)	ut authorization to obtain information (18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)) exposes actors to criminal penalties a
42 U.S.C. § 1983	e law face direct civil liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and conspiracy liability under 42 U.S.C
42 U.S.C. § 1985	. § 1983 and conspiracy liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 [8, 9, 10]. Under Monell v. Department
Civil Code § 1798.100	ghts Act (CPRA), codified at California Civil Code § 1798.100 et seq., mandate that covered businesse
Civ. Code § 1798.135	utomated opt-out signals, violates Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.135 [2, 6]. Under CPRA enforcement standard
Penal Code § 631	nia Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA, Cal. Penal Code § 631)—impose strict, two-party consent requi
Fla. Stat. § 501.201	and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA, Fla. Stat. § 501.201) and Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade
GDPR Article 6	g digital data processing [1, 2]. Under GDPR Article 6(1), processing personal data—including
GDPR Art. 6	ure Lawful Basis & Consent GDPR Art. 6(1)(a), Art. 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3) [1, 2
GDPR Art. 83	up to €20M or 4% global turnover under GDPR Art. 83(5) [1, 4]. Transparency & Notice
GDPR Art. 5	fundamental processing principles under GDPR Art. 5 [1, 2]. Data Security & Integrit
GDPR Art. 33	atutory breach reporting triggers under GDPR Art. 33/34 [4]. Impact Assessment (DPIA)
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ght and accountability [4, 10, 12]. 22 U.S.C. § 2295a (Assistance to Independent States of t
50 U.S.C. § 1702	d U.S. foreign policy interests [12]. 50 U.S.C. § 1702 (International Emergency Economic Power
10 U.S.C. § 2304	ts or evade statutory oversight [12]. 10 U.S.C. § 2304 (Competition Requirements for Federal C
47 U.S.C. § 230	money laundering provisions [10, 12]. 47 U.S.C. § 230 (Communications Decency Act): Establish
31 U.S.C. § 1341(a)	plicit statutory authorization violates 31 U.S.C. § 1341(a) [16]. Knowing violations trigger mandat
31 U.S.C. § 1350	s of up to two years imprisonment under 31 U.S.C. § 1350 [16]. Concurrently, the Bona Fide Nee
31 U.S.C. § 1502(a)	Concurrently, the Bona Fide Needs Rule (31 U.S.C. § 1502(a)) dictates that an appropriation limited
5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)	the Administrative Procedure Act (APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)) [15]. Arbitrarily deleting contract sa
Civ. Code § 1798.100	0+ [1] CCPA / CPRA & CIPA Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.; Cal. Penal Code § 631 [1, 2, 7
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	& 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304 & 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 & Title 47, Telecommunications § 230

20.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

20.4 Dollar Figures (26)

20.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 21 of 261

Section 21 — Forensic Opinion – Hero by LINC-ED / FusionAuth Portal – Gateway to Port Vila International School

Source File	FORENSIC-0021-opinion-analysis-of-hero-by-linc-ed-fusionauth-portal-88367e30.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-09-23 14:59:12
Size	22,009 bytes
SHA-256	88367e30f194e807b4afb136b2a864077fde174c438ca4452aa90462887115b1

21.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

21.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (4)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	& 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304 & 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 & Title 47, Telecommunications § 230

21.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

21.4 Dollar Figures (0)

—

21.5 Dates (1)

2026-09-23

Section 22 of 261

Section 22 — Forensic Audit Report – Glenn Beck Torch (glennbeck.com/torch)

Source File	FORENSIC-0022-audited-entity-glenn-beck-torch-glennbeck-dot-come-torch-56a42fb9.html
Created	September 14, 2026
Modified	2026-09-14 14:04:22
Size	60,170 bytes
SHA-256	56a42fb983b1e92c1a42b6a7712221c011ebcc572678ac6f58d4f7a47daa9e8a

22.1 Parties (3)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All individuals	STATES DISTRICT COURT – CIVIL ACTION Plaintiffs: All individuals whose PII was intercepted without consent (Class Action). Defendants: Glenn Beck
defendant	Glenn Beck	epted without consent (Class Action). Defendants: Glenn Beck; Mercury Radio Arts, Inc.; Vercel Inc.;
defendant	Glenn Beck operates a website	. Factual Allegations (1997‑2026) Defendant Glenn Beck operates a website at https://glennbeck.com since 1997. The Torch

22.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (22)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 2511	ng Without Prior Consent High 1997‑2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap), 47 U.S.C. § 605, Cal. Civ. C
47 U.S.C. § 605	h 1997‑2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap), 47 U.S.C. § 605, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA), GDPR
Civ. Code § 1798.100	§ 2511 (Wiretap), 47 U.S.C. § 605, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA), GDPR Art. 5‑7, ePrivacy Dir. 20
GDPR Art. 5	605, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA), GDPR Art. 5‑7, ePrivacy Dir. 2002/58/EC GTM‑545KRVV
GDPR Art. 13	No Clear Opt‑Out Medium 1997‑2026 CCPA, GDPR Art. 13‑14, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 Privacy p
5 U.S.C. § 552	ssive Metadata Collection Low 1997‑2026 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act), GDPR Art. 5 Schema.org
15 U.S.C. § 6801	e Data High 2025‑2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511, 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA), CCPA, GDPR Torch Insider $8/mon
County Code § 22	violation. Harris County, TX: Harris County Code § 22 (privacy) – each unauthorized tracking
Penal Code § 502	Law (1997‑2026): California: Cal. Penal Code § 502 (Unauthorized Computer Access) – each G
Civ. Code § 1798.150	separate violation. Additionally, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150 (CCPA, effective 2020) provides statuto
Penal Code § 33.02	(consumer fraud) applies. Texas: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02 (Breach of Computer Security) – each un
18 U.S.C. § 1030	minal: up to 5 years per count. CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): – “intentionally accesses a protected
18 U.S.C. § 1343	0 years per count, fines. Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): – “transmits … any writings … by mean
18 U.S.C. § 1961	0 years imprisonment per count. RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): – pattern of racketeering activity (m
Penal Code § 631	ifornia's Invasion of Privacy Act (Cal. Penal Code § 631) for unauthorized interception. Third
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	ivity (1997‑2026). Count V – FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair and deceptive trade practices
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507‑2,
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507‑2, and Title 47, Tel
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	5a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507‑2, and Title 47, Telecommunications § 2
28 U.S.C. § 1331	nue This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), § 1332 (diversity),
15 U.S.C. § 45	Count V – Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 45): Defendants engaged in unfair and dece

22.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (20)

22.4 Dollar Figures (84)

$0.00 · $0.02 · $0.06 · $0.07 · $0.11 · $0.31 · $1.00 · $3.60 · $4.20 · $6.60 · $8.00 · $18.00 · $18.62 · $24.00 · $100.00 · $168.00 · $216.00 · $252.00 · $396.00 · $720.00 · $750.00 · $1,000.00 · $1,117.00 · $2,160.00 · $2,500.00 · $4,000.00 · $4,320.00 · $5,000.00 · $5,184.00 · $6,048.00 · $8,640.00 · $9,504.00 · $10,000.00 · $12,000.00 · $15,000.00 · $24,000.00 · $26,808.00 · $30,000.00 · $36,288.00 · $40,000.00 · $42,336.00 · $48,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $60,000.00 · $66,528.00 · $100,000.00 · $120,000.00 · $157,680.00 · $183,960.00 · $187,656.00 · $289,080.00 · $473,040.00 · $551,880.00 · $828,400.00 · $867,240.00 · $946,080.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $1,103,760.00 · $1,734,480.00 · $1,892,160.00 · $2,207,520.00 · $2,485,200.00 · $3,468,960.00 · $4,970,400.00 · $9,940,800.00 · $348,000,000.00 · $500,000,000.00 · $870,000,000.00 · $13,920,000,000.00 · $17,440,320,000.00 · $20,000,000,000.00 · $30,000,000,000.00 · $55,080,000,000.00 · $110,000,000,000.00 · $118,800,000,000.00 · $119,173,252,000.00 · $216,000,000,000.00 · $216,678,640,000.00 · $250,000,000,000.00 · $348,000,000,000.00 · $400,000,000,000.00 · $648,000,000,000.00 · $975,053,880,000.00 · $18,000,000,000,000.00

22.5 Dates (2)

2026-08-28 · 2026-09-14

Section 23 of 261

Section 23 — Forensic Audit Report – Prian Property (prianproperty.com)

Source File	FORENSIC-0023-audited-entity-prian-property-prianproperty-dot-com-a635bc9c.html
Created	September 16, 2026
Modified	2026-09-16 11:21:32
Size	60,201 bytes
SHA-256	a635bc9c19bee67f5c7c3d301aa79c1a5ccd316ef91911766d2066e71ca92874

23.1 Parties (3)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All individuals	STATES DISTRICT COURT – CIVIL ACTION Plaintiffs: All individuals whose PII was intercepted without consent (Class Action). Defendants: Brand Depo
defendant	Brand Depo LLC	epted without consent (Class Action). Defendants: Brand Depo LLC; Google LLC; Yandex LLC; Cloudflare, In
defendant	Brand Depo LLC operates a real estate website	. Factual Allegations (2020‑2026) Defendant Brand Depo LLC operates a real estate website at https://prianproperty.com since at least Janu

23.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (21)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 2511	aximum per count under the Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511). 1.1 Domain Origin, Code Producers &
47 U.S.C. § 605	onsent High 2020‑2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511, 47 U.S.C. § 605, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100, GDPR Art. 5
Civ. Code § 1798.100	18 U.S.C. § 2511, 47 U.S.C. § 605, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100, GDPR Art. 5‑7, ePrivacy Dir. 2002/58/E
GDPR Art. 5	.S.C. § 605, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100, GDPR Art. 5‑7, ePrivacy Dir. 2002/58/EC, Kazakhstan
18 U.S.C. § 1030	ording High 2020‑2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511, 18 U.S.C. § 1030, CCPA, GDPR Art. 5‑7 dns-prefetch to mc
GDPR Art. 7	– Zero Consent Mechanism High 2020‑2026 GDPR Art. 7, ePrivacy Directive, CCPA, FTC Act § 5
GDPR Art. 13	No Clear Opt‑Out Medium 2020‑2026 CCPA, GDPR Art. 13‑14, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 Footer on
County Code § 22	ansmission. Harris County, TX: Harris County Code § 22 – unauthorized tracking event. Seco
Penal Code § 502	Law (2020‑2026): California: Cal. Penal Code § 502 – each GTM script execution is a separa
Civ. Code § 1798.150	execution is a separate violation. Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150 (CCPA) – $100‑$750 per consumer per inc
Penal Code § 33.02	s E felony; NY GBL § 349. Texas: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02 – state jail felony. New Jersey: N.J.
18 U.S.C. § 1343	up to 10 years per count. Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): $1,000,000 fine + 20 years per count.
18 U.S.C. § 1961	,000 fine + 20 years per count. RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): pattern of racketeering activity.
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	ivity (2020‑2026). Count V – FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair and deceptive trade practices
5 U.S.C. § 552	(2020‑2026). Count VII – Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Unauthorized maintenance of records
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507‑2,
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507‑2, and Title 47, Tel
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	5a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507‑2, and Title 47, Telecommunications § 2
28 U.S.C. § 1331	nue This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), § 1332 (diversity),
15 U.S.C. § 45	Count V – Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 45): Defendants engaged in unfair and dece

23.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (20)

23.4 Dollar Figures (60)

$0.01 · $0.02 · $0.11 · $0.19 · $0.68 · $1.37 · $6.40 · $6.48 · $6.85 · $12.32 · $41.00 · $82.00 · $100.00 · $411.00 · $739.00 · $750.00 · $985.00 · $1,970.00 · $5,000.00 · $6,895.00 · $9,870.00 · $10,000.00 · $13,790.00 · $15,000.00 · $15,020.00 · $17,750.00 · $29,975.00 · $35,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $59,950.00 · $69,090.00 · $89,925.00 · $124,250.00 · $179,850.00 · $300,360.00 · $359,700.00 · $540,160.00 · $719,400.00 · $901,080.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $1,270,610.00 · $1,620,480.00 · $1,802,160.00 · $3,240,960.00 · $3,604,320.00 · $6,481,920.00 · $200,000,000.00 · $300,000,000.00 · $360,000,000.00 · $400,000,000.00 · $500,000,000.00 · $720,000,000.00 · $1,080,000,000.00 · $1,440,000,000.00 · $2,520,000,000.00 · $3,568,752,000.00 · $3,608,640,000.00 · $6,488,640,000.00 · $19,465,920,000.00 · $29,198,880,000.00

23.5 Dates (3)

2020-01-01 · 2026-09-11 · 2026-09-16

Section 24 of 261

Section 24 — Forensic Audit: Algorithmic Failure Analysis

Source File	FORENSIC-0024-r2-87bd8740.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-09-12 07:15:59
Size	95,588 bytes
SHA-256	87bd87401fcdf073dbfa9010ebde76a2c2fe16e6bb43dac3b93b106ef3346aeb

24.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

24.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (0)

Citation	Source excerpt
no statutes extracted

24.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

24.4 Dollar Figures (0)

—

24.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 25 of 261

Section 25 — Forensic Audit Report – properstar.com

Source File	FORENSIC-0025-audited-entity-properstar-sa-list-globally-sàrl-e7079824.html
Created	September 30, 2026
Modified	2026-09-30 05:17:21
Size	41,529 bytes
SHA-256	e7079824285ae32ee22d2fc1f82360aa967ac15d3992f45b3c319f17b01f63d8

25.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Properstar
defendant	Properstar SA	l affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Properstar SA; List Globally Sàrl; Google LLC; John D

25.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (24)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 2511	to Foreign Jurisdiction High 2018–2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 18 U.S.C. § 1343; GDPR Art. 6, 44; CCP
18 U.S.C. § 1343	iction High 2018–2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 18 U.S.C. § 1343; GDPR Art. 6, 44; CCPA § 1798.100 gtm-d
GDPR Art. 6	026 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 18 U.S.C. § 1343; GDPR Art. 6, 44; CCPA § 1798.100 gtm-data JSON cont
15 U.S.C. § 45	re‑granted) High 2018–2026 FTC Act § 5; 15 U.S.C. § 45; GDPR Art. 7; ePrivacy Directive 2002/5
GDPR Art. 7	2018–2026 FTC Act § 5; 15 U.S.C. § 45; GDPR Art. 7; ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC cookiesC
18 U.S.C. § 1030	kens in Client‑Side Code High 2018–2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA); 18 U.S.C. § 1836 (DTSA) googleM
18 U.S.C. § 1836	High 2018–2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA); 18 U.S.C. § 1836 (DTSA) googleMapKey , __INSTRUMENTATION
Civ. Code § 1798.100	‑Checked Consent) Medium 2018–2026 Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.; 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA) perfor
15 U.S.C. § 6801	2026 Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.; 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA) performanceCookies: true, advert
GDPR Art. 44	hout Adequate Safeguards High 2018–2026 GDPR Art. 44‑49; Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 50 U.S
5 U.S.C. § 552	2018–2026 GDPR Art. 44‑49; Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702 Swiss hosting; no St
50 U.S.C. § 1702	rt. 44‑49; Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702 Swiss hosting; no Standard Contractual
47 U.S.C. § 605	rposes High 2018–2026 18 U.S.C. § 1343; 47 U.S.C. § 605 Exfiltration of email and behavioral da
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)	ption of electronic communication under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a) and a wire fraud violation under 18 U.S
Penal Code § 631	0 fine per count. • State: California Penal Code § 631 – Wiretapping – Felony, up to $10,000 f
Professions Code § 17200	ation. • State: California Business & Professions Code § 17200 – Unfair competition – $2,500 per viola
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	er violation. • Federal: FTC Act § 5 (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) – $50,120 per violation; GLBA (15 U.S.
County Code § 22	ort, International: • County: Harris County Code § 22‑11 – Unauthorized computer access – $1,
Penal Code § 33.02	cess – $1,000 per day. • State: Texas Penal Code § 33.02 – Breach of computer security – Felony,
Penal Code § 502	rity – Felony, $10,000 fine; California Penal Code § 502 – $10,000 fine. • Federal: 18 U.S.C.
County Code § 4.5	ricopa County Ordinance § 15; San Diego County Code § 4.5. State Penal Codes: California Penal C
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	& 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304 & 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 & Title 47, Telecommunications § 230

25.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (8)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted, used, and disclosed electronic communications containing PII without consent.	oes 1‑10 (executives and engineers) Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted, used, and disclosed electro
Count II – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Defendants devised a scheme to defraud users of their personal data for commercial gain.	tions containing PII without consent. Count II – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Defendants devised a scheme to defraud users of their personal data for commerci
Count III – Violation of CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants accessed protected computers without authorization to exfiltrate data.	ir personal data for commercial gain. Count III – Violation of CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants accessed protected computers without authorization to exfiltr
Count IV – Unfair and Deceptive Practices (FTC Act § 5): Defendants engaged in dark patterns to obtain consent.	out authorization to exfiltrate data. Count IV – Unfair and Deceptive Practices (FTC Act § 5): Defendants engaged in dark patterns to obtain consent. Count V –
Count V – Invasion of Privacy (Common Law Tort): Defendants intruded upon plaintiffs' seclusion.	d in dark patterns to obtain consent. Count V – Invasion of Privacy (Common Law Tort): Defendants intruded upon plaintiffs' seclusion. Count VI – Violation of C
Count VI – Violation of CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Defendants failed to obtain opt‑in consent for the sale of personal information.	intruded upon plaintiffs' seclusion. Count VI – Violation of CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Defendants failed to obtain opt‑in consent for the sale o
Count VII – Violation of GDPR (EU 2016/679): Defendants unlawfully transferred personal data to a third country.	for the sale of personal information. Count VII – Violation of GDPR (EU 2016/679): Defendants unlawfully transferred personal data to a third country. Count VII
Count VIII – Bivens Claim (Fourth Amendment): Defendants acted under color of law to conduct unreasonable search and seizure of data.	red personal data to a third country. Count VIII – Bivens Claim (Fourth Amendment): Defendants acted under color of law to conduct unreasonable search and seizu

25.4 Dollar Figures (75)

$7.15 · $500.00 · $1,000.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $100,000.00 · $250,000.00 · $300,000.00 · $450,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $1,317,620.00 · $3,007,200.00 · $3,952,860.00 · $4,000,000.00 · $5,000,000.00 · $15,000,000.00 · $18,000,000.00 · $27,000,000.00 · $60,000,000.00 · $79,057,200.00 · $180,432,000.00 · $432,000,000.00 · $648,000,000.00 · $900,000,000.00 · $1,000,000,000.00 · $1,051,404,620.00 · $3,024,000,000.00 · $3,600,000,000.00 · $4,330,368,000.00 · $4,536,000,000.00 · $4,743,432,000.00 · $5,000,000,000.00 · $13,152,000,000.00 · $19,728,000,000.00 · $21,600,000,000.00 · $28,460,592,000.00 · $30,312,576,000.00 · $39,456,000,000.00 · $59,184,000,000.00 · $78,912,000,000.00 · $85,381,776,000.00 · $86,400,000,000.00 · $113,842,368,000.00 · $118,368,000,000.00 · $131,802,048,000.00 · $151,200,000,000.00 · $157,824,000,000.00 · $236,736,000,000.00 · $395,406,144,000.00 · $604,800,000,000.00 · $657,600,000,000.00 · $790,812,288,000.00 · $796,896,576,000.00 · $1,000,000,000,000.00 · $1,581,624,576,000.00 · $1,972,800,000,000.00 · $2,630,016,000,000.00 · $3,465,448,128,000.00 · $3,945,600,000,000.00 · $7,890,048,000,000.00 · $7,891,200,000,000.00 · $10,396,344,384,000.00 · $15,780,096,000,000.00 · $20,792,688,768,000.00 · $31,560,192,000,000.00 · $41,585,377,536,000.00 · $1,284,584,000,000,000.00 · $1,927,576,000,000,000.00 · $12,874,834,048,000,000.00 · $64,242,000,000,000,000.00 · $256,864,224,000,000,000.00 · $338,423,405,888,000,000.00

25.5 Dates (2)

2018-08-10 · 2026-09-30

Section 26 of 261

Section 26 — Formal Complaint to Texas Real Estate Commission – Ron Reyes, Liza Reyes, and Julia Rodriguez

Source File	FORENSIC-0026-forensic-audit-review-and-regulatory-remediation-demand-kell-e67ea65c.html
Created	October 1, 2026
Modified	2026-10-01 06:59:06
Size	50,482 bytes
SHA-256	e67ea65cd0349ed4bfde29bda15c500bab66ed3739381f77478fc1e16cd4843a

26.1 Parties (1)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
respondent	Ron Reyes	ner & CEO, Ladco Defense Technologies Respondents: Ron Reyes, TREC License #429376, Keller Williams Heritage, 1717

26.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (11)

Citation	Source excerpt
Rule 535	als — TRELA § 1101.652(b)(2), (6); TREC Rule 535.155(d) Evidence: Ron Reyes stated tha
18 U.S.C. § 1030	LA § 1101.652(b)(2); TREC Rule 535.155; 18 U.S.C. § 1030; 18 U.S.C. § 2511. COUNT 6 Decep
18 U.S.C. § 2511	); TREC Rule 535.155; 18 U.S.C. § 1030; 18 U.S.C. § 2511. COUNT 6 Deceptive Trade Practice
Commerce Code § 17.41	tive Trade Practices — Texas Business & Commerce Code § 17.41 et seq. Evidence: The respondents' ma
Commerce Code § 521.052	y — TREC Rule 535.159; Texas Business & Commerce Code § 521.052 Evidence: The respondents' use of thi
GDPR Art. 6	LA § 1101.652(b)(2); TREC Rule 535.155; GDPR Art. 6 16 Font Awesome beta version 6.0.0-b
GDPR Art. 7	(b)(2); TREC Rule 535.155; FTC Act § 5; GDPR Art. 7 18 Internal hostname localhost expos
22 U.S.C. § 2295	wledge. This document is authorized via 22 U.S.C. § 2295a and 50 U.S.C. § 1702 and 10 U.S.C. § 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	is authorized via 22 U.S.C. § 2295a and 50 U.S.C. § 1702 and 10 U.S.C. § 2304 and 26 C.F.R. § 1.
10 U.S.C. § 2304	U.S.C. § 2295a and 50 U.S.C. § 1702 and 10 U.S.C. § 2304 and 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 and Title 47, T
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	U.S.C. § 1702 and 10 U.S.C. § 2304 and 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 and Title 47, Telecommunications § 23

26.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (13)

Header	Source excerpt
COUNT 1 Misrepresentation of Credentials — TRELA § 1101.652(b)(2), (6); TREC Rule 535.155(d)	Act, TREC Rules, and Statutory Law COUNT 1 Misrepresentation of Credentials — TRELA § 1101.652(b)(2), (6); TREC Rule 535.155(d) Evidence: Ron Reyes stated that
COUNT 2 Unauthorized Data Mining — TRELA § 1101.652(b)(2); TREC Rule 535.159	)(2), (6); TREC Rule 535.155(d). COUNT 2 Unauthorized Data Mining — TRELA § 1101.652(b)(2); TREC Rule 535.159 Evidence: Ron Reyes asked whether the
COUNT 3 Failure to Follow Client Instructions — TREC Rule 535.156	01.652(b)(2); TREC Rule 535.159. COUNT 3 Failure to Follow Client Instructions — TREC Rule 535.156 Evidence: The client explicitly state
COUNT 4 Breach of Fiduciary Duty — TRELA § 1101.652(b)(2); TREC Rule 535.159	." Statute: TREC Rule 535.156. COUNT 4 Breach of Fiduciary Duty — TRELA § 1101.652(b)(2); TREC Rule 535.159 Evidence: Ron Reyes failed to act in
COUNT 5 Unauthorized Transmission of Tracking Pixels and Scripts — TRELA § 1101.652(b)(2); TREC Rule 535.155	01.652(b)(2); TREC Rule 535.159. COUNT 5 Unauthorized Transmission of Tracking Pixels and Scripts — TRELA § 1101.652(b)(2); TREC Rule 535.155 Evidence: Ron Reye
COUNT 6 Deceptive Trade Practices — Texas Business & Commerce Code § 17.41 et seq.	U.S.C. § 1030; 18 U.S.C. § 2511. COUNT 6 Deceptive Trade Practices — Texas Business & Commerce Code § 17.41 et seq. Evidence: The respondents' material m
COUNT 7 Abandonment of Client — Julia Rodriguez — TRELA § 1101.652(b)(2); TREC Rule 535.156	et seq.; TRELA § 1101.652(b)(6). COUNT 7 Abandonment of Client — Julia Rodriguez — TRELA § 1101.652(b)(2); TREC Rule 535.156 Evidence: Julia Rodriguez engaged i
COUNT 8 Discriminatory Treatment — Julia Rodriguez — TRELA § 1101.652(b)(2); TREC Rule 535.155	01.652(b)(2); TREC Rule 535.156. COUNT 8 Discriminatory Treatment — Julia Rodriguez — TRELA § 1101.652(b)(2); TREC Rule 535.155 Evidence: Julia Rodriguez respon
COUNT 9 Common Business Address — Keller Williams Heritage	535.155; Texas Fair Housing Act. COUNT 9 Common Business Address — Keller Williams Heritage Evidence: Ron Reyes, Liza Reyes, and
COUNT 10 Unauthorized Electronic Surveillance and Deployment of Tracking Scripts — 18 U.S.C. § 1030; 18 U.S.C. § 2511; TRELA § 1101.652(b)(2)	01.652(b)(2); TREC Rule 535.155. COUNT 10 Unauthorized Electronic Surveillance and Deployment of Tracking Scripts — 18 U.S.C. § 1030; 18 U.S.C. § 2511; TRELA §
COUNT 11 False Statement Regarding Transmission of Buyer Representation Agreement — TRELA § 1101.652(b)(2), (6); TREC Rule 535.155	§ 2511; TRELA § 1101.652(b)(2). COUNT 11 False Statement Regarding Transmission of Buyer Representation Agreement — TRELA § 1101.652(b)(2), (6); TREC Rule 535.1
COUNT 12 Violation of Confidentiality and Data Privacy — TREC Rule 535.159; Texas Business & Commerce Code § 521.052	2(b)(2), (6); TREC Rule 535.155. COUNT 12 Violation of Confidentiality and Data Privacy — TREC Rule 535.159; Texas Business & Commerce Code § 521.052 Evidence:
Count Violation	e to safeguard consumer data. Count Violation Severity Statutory / TREC Cross-Refe

26.4 Dollar Figures (0)

—

26.5 Dates (2)

2026-09-30 · 2026-10-01

Section 27 of 261

Section 27 — Forensic and Corporate Intelligence Report — Speech Reader

Source File	FORENSIC-0027-hobbs-forensic-and-corporate-intelligence-report-speech-read-7dac8f0d.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-09-25 04:25:09
Size	41,523 bytes
SHA-256	7dac8f0da83a5c2ea59ee47449ec345b4937cac1f18d89099d0907779a819e4c

27.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

27.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (0)

Citation	Source excerpt
no statutes extracted

27.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

27.4 Dollar Figures (0)

—

27.5 Dates (1)

2024-07-01

Section 28 of 261

Section 28 — Forensic Audit Report — Alliance Real Estate Business Center — LDT-FAR-2026-0929-ALLIANCE-RO

Source File	FORENSIC-0028-forensic-audit-report-alliance-real-estate-business-center-l-41dfe6df.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-09-29 09:02:57
Size	58,462 bytes
SHA-256	41dfe6dfc9a1c8fcca62e631f95a3ae4db118775e9bafb7f15b15efda4fe96c7

28.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected natural persons	Counts — Draft for Federal Complaint Plaintiffs: All affected natural persons whose data was transmitted, aggregated, or exposed by the audited page (Class Acti
defendant	Alliance Real Estate Business Center S.R.L	e nine (9) Alliance Real Estate agents. Defendants: Alliance Real Estate Business Center S.R.L., Lukian.ai, Google LLC, Cloudflare Inc., Meta Platforms Inc., Ve

28.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (28)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 2511	agmanager.com/gtag/js?id=G-QTBW83ZSVH"> 18 U.S.C. § 2511; GDPR Art. 6; ePrivacy Art. 5(3) V-0
GDPR Art. 6	/js?id=G-QTBW83ZSVH"> 18 U.S.C. § 2511; GDPR Art. 6; ePrivacy Art. 5(3) V-02 Consent-Def
GDPR Art. 7	nt','default',{analytics_storage: …}) GDPR Art. 7; Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.135 V-03 Abse
Civ. Code § 1798.135	lytics_storage: …}) GDPR Art. 7; Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.135 V-03 Absence of Any Visible Cookie C
18 U.S.C. § 1030	d: d6d53f0d-4040-4d7a-8424-f0b3301696fd 18 U.S.C. § 1030; GDPR Art. 32 V-05 Tenant Configurat
GDPR Art. 32	d7a-8424-f0b3301696fd 18 U.S.C. § 1030; GDPR Art. 32 V-05 Tenant Configuration Payload Fu
GDPR Art. 5	sh() with full config 18 U.S.C. § 1030; GDPR Art. 5(1)(f) V-06 Nine Agents' Personal Mob
18 U.S.C. § 1028	ward@alliance.ro, stefan@alliance.ro, … 18 U.S.C. § 1028; GDPR Art. 5 V-08 Agent Photographs
Civ. Code § 1798.100	, оксана дмитриева GDPR Art. 6, 7; Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 V-10 Google Reviewers' Profile Photo
15 U.S.C. § 45	e_place_id: ChIJTzxDGhLlukARVGxYx_2EHSo 15 U.S.C. § 45 V-14 Inconsistent / Misattributed Ag
47 U.S.C. § 605	High All <script src> third-party loads 47 U.S.C. § 605; NIST SI-7 V-19 Missing Referrer-Pol
17 U.S.C. § 512	ser reviews in Google data-* attributes 17 U.S.C. § 512; GDPR Art. 6 V-23 Real-Time RSC Payl
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)	n Chain High Multi-CDN dependency chain 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5) V-40 Client-Side RSC Payload Contain
County Code § 22	(computers/telecommunications); Harris County Code § 22 (privacy). • State: Cal. Penal Code §
Penal Code § 502	ty Code § 22 (privacy). • State: Cal. Penal Code § 502 (unauthorized computer access); Cal. Pe
Penal Code § 631	02 (unauthorized computer access); Cal. Penal Code § 631 (wiretapping); N.Y. Penal Law §§ 156.00
Penal Code § 33.02	; N.Y. Penal Law §§ 156.00–156.55; Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. • Federal: 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA) —
Civ. Code § 1798.150	§ 1030; 15 U.S.C. § 45. • State: Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150. • International: GDPR Art. 5(1)(f), A
GDPR Art. 4	ying contact data within the meaning of GDPR Art. 4(1) and are exposed to any party who scr
47 U.S.C. § 227	site. • Federal: 18 U.S.C. § 1028; 47 U.S.C. § 227 (TCPA). • State: Cal. Civ. Code § 179
Prof. Code § 17200	Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. • International: GDPR Art. 5, 6, 32;
Civ. Code § 1798.81.5	SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SI-7. • State: Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.81.5. • Tort: Negligent security; breach of
GDPR Art. 3	quarely within the territorial scope of GDPR Art. 3(2)(a) and Romanian Law 190/2018. •
42 U.S.C. § 1983	identified in discovery. Count XIV — 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Reserved for state actors identified i
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2,
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2, and Title 47, Tel
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	5a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2, and Title 47, Telecommunications § 2

28.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (18)

28.4 Dollar Figures (19)

$100.00 · $750.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $15,709,540.00 · $942,572,400.00 · $56,554,344,000.00 · $1,357,304,256,000.00 · $9,501,129,792,000.00 · $41,324,220,000,000.00 · $123,972,660,000,000.00 · $247,945,320,000,000.00 · $495,890,640,000,000.00 · $8,926,430,776,250,000.00

28.5 Dates (1)

2026-09-29

Section 29 of 261

Section 29 — Forensic Audit Report – kwsanantonio.com (Revision 3)

Source File	FORENSIC-0029-forensic-audit-report-kwsanantonio-com-revision-3-9857c334.html
Created	September 30, 2026
Modified	2026-09-30 18:09:09
Size	94,806 bytes
SHA-256	9857c3342a248bb14ce8acf23d5635ee4cb2f2c1ea45634369e00cbfe73b1e50

29.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	strict of Texas, San Antonio Division Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Keller Will
defendant	Keller Williams Heritage	l affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Keller Williams Heritage; Keller Williams Realty, Inc.; Texas Cr

29.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (46)

Citation	Source excerpt
County Code § 12.04	\n/api/\r\n/preview/" County: Bexar County Code § 12.04 — $1,000. State: Tex. Penal Code § 16.0
Penal Code § 16.02	unty Code § 12.04 — $1,000. State: Tex. Penal Code § 16.02 — Felony; Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 501.0
Com. Code § 501.001	enal Code § 16.02 — Felony; Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 501.001 — $7,500. Federal: 18 U.S.C. § 2511 — $
18 U.S.C. § 2511	Com. Code § 501.001 — $7,500. Federal: 18 U.S.C. § 2511 — $10,000 + treble; 18 U.S.C. § 1343 —
18 U.S.C. § 1343	l: 18 U.S.C. § 2511 — $10,000 + treble; 18 U.S.C. § 1343 — $1,000,000 + 20 years. UCMJ: Art. 134
GDPR Art. 6	rt: Invasion of privacy. International: GDPR Art. 6, 44 — €20M or 4%; ePrivacy — €250,000.
Penal Code § 33.02	-beta3/css/all.min.css"/> State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. Federal: 18 U.S.C. § 1030 — CFAA — $5,0
18 U.S.C. § 1030	tate: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. Federal: 18 U.S.C. § 1030 — CFAA — $5,000 + treble; FTC Act § 5.
15 U.S.C. § 6801	0. Federal: FTC Act § 5 — $50,120; GLBA 15 U.S.C. § 6801 — $100,000. International: GDPR Art. 7
GDPR Art. 7	.S.C. § 6801 — $100,000. International: GDPR Art. 7 — €10M or 2%; ePrivacy — €250,000.
18 U.S.C. § 1836	al: 18 U.S.C. § 1030 — $5,000 + treble; 18 U.S.C. § 1836 — DTSA — $5,000,000. Tort: Negligence p
GDPR Art. 44	0. Federal: FTC Act § 5. International: GDPR Art. 44 — €20M or 4%. COUNT 23 TREC Consum
42 U.S.C. § 12181	w=400&q=75"/> Federal: ADA Title III (42 U.S.C. § 12181) — $75,000 first violation; Section 508
29 U.S.C. § 794	— $75,000 first violation; Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d) — $75,000. State: Tex. Hum. Res. Code
Res. Code § 121.001	.C. § 794d) — $75,000. State: Tex. Hum. Res. Code § 121.001. COUNT 55 Generic title="Image" Too
Commerce Code § 501.001	Code §§ 16.02, 33.02; Texas Business & Commerce Code § 501.001 (TDPSA); California Penal Code §§ 502,
Civ. Code § 1798.100	rnia Penal Code §§ 502, 631; California Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.; New York Penal Law §§ 156.00‑1
47 U.S.C. § 605	1; 42 U.S.C. § 12181; 29 U.S.C. § 794d; 47 U.S.C. § 605; 5 U.S.C. § 552a. Military UCMJ Artic
5 U.S.C. § 552	181; 29 U.S.C. § 794d; 47 U.S.C. § 605; 5 U.S.C. § 552a. Military UCMJ Articles: 92, 107, 12
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	ceptive Acts or Practices (FTC Act § 5, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Defendants engaged in deceptive cooki
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)	raud and Abuse Act – Data Interference (18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)): Defendants exposed configuration data
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(c)	lation of the Wiretap Act – Disclosure (18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(c)): Defendants disclosed intercepted comm
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(d)	I – Violation of the Wiretap Act – Use (18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(d)): Defendants used intercepted content f
18 U.S.C. § 2701	lawful Access to Stored Communications (18 U.S.C. § 2701): Defendants accessed stored electronic
18 U.S.C. § 2702	ul Disclosure of Stored Communications (18 U.S.C. § 2702): Defendants divulged stored communicat
15 U.S.C. § 7701	unt XV – Violation of the CAN‑SPAM Act (15 U.S.C. § 7701): Defendants collected email and behavi
18 U.S.C. § 2510	Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq.): Defendants intercepted and di
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(6)	d Abuse Act – Trafficking in Passwords (18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(6)): Defendants exposed tokens enabling un
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(7)	mputer Fraud and Abuse Act – Extortion (18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(7)): Exposure of staging infrastructure cr
18 U.S.C. § 2710	on of the Video Privacy Protection Act (18 U.S.C. § 2710): Video content tracked alongside PII.
47 U.S.C. § 227	the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. § 227): Lead collection forms lack required d
15 U.S.C. § 1681	ation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. § 1681): Improper collection and sharing of co
12 U.S.C. § 3401	of the Right to Financial Privacy Act (12 U.S.C. § 3401 et seq.): Financial data captured throu
18 U.S.C. § 2703	ation of the Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. § 2703): Failure to obtain required authorizat
Penal Code § 631	alifornia Invasion of Privacy Act (Cal. Penal Code § 631): Defendants aided, agreed with, or emp
Penal Code § 632	alifornia Invasion of Privacy Act (Cal. Penal Code § 632): Defendants eavesdropped on confidenti
Civ. Code § 1798.80	e California Consumer Records Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.80 et seq.): Defendants failed to protect
Civ. Code § 1798.83	he California Shine the Light Law (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.83): Failure to disclose personal informat
Com. Code § 521.001	rcement and Protection Act (Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 521.001): Exposure of internal identifiers faci
Com. Code § 17.41	eptive Trade Practices Act (Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 17.41 et seq.): Deceptive acts, meta contradi
Rem. Code § 134.001	Theft Liability Act (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 134.001): Unlawful appropriation of personal da
Rem. Code § 134	rm Trade Secrets Act (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 134A.001): Disclosure of internal identifie
22 U.S.C. § 2295	he utmost diligence, in accordance with 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	, in accordance with 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	th 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	& 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304 & 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 & Title 47, Telecommunications § 230

29.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (60)

29.4 Dollar Figures (80)

$1,000.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $75,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $250,000.00 · $300,000.00 · $600,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $1,042,590.00 · $1,390,120.00 · $3,000,000.00 · $3,007,200.00 · $4,000,000.00 · $4,500,000.00 · $5,000,000.00 · $15,000,000.00 · $18,000,000.00 · $36,000,000.00 · $60,000,000.00 · $83,407,200.00 · $180,432,000.00 · $270,000,000.00 · $432,000,000.00 · $500,000,000.00 · $864,000,000.00 · $900,000,000.00 · $2,500,000,000.00 · $3,024,000,000.00 · $3,600,000,000.00 · $4,330,368,000.00 · $5,004,432,000.00 · $6,048,000,000.00 · $6,480,000,000.00 · $13,152,000,000.00 · $21,600,000,000.00 · $26,304,000,000.00 · $30,026,592,000.00 · $30,312,576,000.00 · $39,456,000,000.00 · $45,360,000,000.00 · $78,912,000,000.00 · $86,400,000,000.00 · $90,079,776,000.00 · $120,106,368,000.00 · $131,802,048,000.00 · $151,200,000,000.00 · $157,824,000,000.00 · $197,280,000,000.00 · $315,648,000,000.00 · $395,406,144,000.00 · $500,000,000,000.00 · $591,840,000,000.00 · $604,800,000,000.00 · $657,600,000,000.00 · $790,812,288,000.00 · $840,744,576,000.00 · $1,183,680,000,000.00 · $1,581,624,576,000.00 · $1,972,800,000,000.00 · $2,367,360,000,000.00 · $2,630,016,000,000.00 · $3,656,154,048,000.00 · $3,945,600,000,000.00 · $7,890,048,000,000.00 · $7,891,200,000,000.00 · $10,968,462,144,000.00 · $15,780,096,000,000.00 · $21,936,924,288,000.00 · $31,560,192,000,000.00 · $43,873,848,576,000.00 · $424,397,700,000,000.00 · $848,795,400,000,000.00 · $4,254,020,955,840,000.00 · $6,365,965,500,000,000.00 · $21,219,885,000,000,000.00 · $84,879,540,000,000,000.00 · $117,992,206,955,840,000.00

29.5 Dates (2)

2024-01-23 · 2026-09-30

Section 30 of 261

Section 30 — Forensic Audit Report – Law Office of Kathleen M. Dotoli

Source File	FORENSIC-0030-audited-entity-law-office-of-kathleen-m-dotoli-f5bf805a.html
Created	September 7, 2026
Modified	2026-09-09 04:31:40
Size	56,105 bytes
SHA-256	f5bf805abec263989272c1d956bf65b54ef03145cfcf2dd0b2b1079c5af7caa9

30.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All individuals	STATES DISTRICT COURT – CIVIL ACTION Plaintiffs: All individuals whose PII was intercepted without consent (Class Action). Defendants: Law Office
defendant	Law Office	epted without consent (Class Action). Defendants: Law Office of Kathleen M. Dotoli; Kathleen M. Dotoli (individually); Edi

30.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (25)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 1961	titutes a racketeering enterprise under 18 U.S.C. § 1961. Total deterministic counts derived fr
18 U.S.C. § 2511	ng Without Prior Consent High 2015‑2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap), 47 U.S.C. § 605, Cal. Civ. C
47 U.S.C. § 605	h 2015‑2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap), 47 U.S.C. § 605, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA), GDPR
Civ. Code § 1798.100	§ 2511 (Wiretap), 47 U.S.C. § 605, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA), GDPR Art. 5‑7, ePrivacy Dir. 20
GDPR Art. 5	605, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA), GDPR Art. 5‑7, ePrivacy Dir. 2002/58/EC GTM‑MZSVR2R
GDPR Art. 7	efault – Invalid Consent High 2015‑2026 GDPR Art. 7, ePrivacy Directive, CCPA, NJ Consumer
5 U.S.C. § 552	out Encryption/Consent Medium 2015‑2026 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act), GLBA § 6801, CCPA, GDPR
GDPR Art. 44	ansfer Without Consent Medium 2015‑2026 GDPR Art. 44‑49, ePrivacy, CCPA fonts-cdn.edit.site
GDPR Art. 13	No Clear Opt‑Out Medium 2015‑2026 CCPA, GDPR Art. 13‑14, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 Footer li
County Code § 8	6) remain consistent. See also Monmouth County Code § 8‑1 (similar). Los Angeles County, CA (
Penal Code § 502	horization” element. California: Cal. Penal Code § 502 (Unauthorized Computer Access) – each G
Civ. Code § 1798.150	separate violation. Additionally, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150 (CCPA) provides statutory damages of $7
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)	ansion – Federal Law: Wiretap Act: 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a) – “intentionally intercepts … any wire,
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)	minal: up to 5 years per count. CFAA: 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C) – “intentionally accesses a protected c
18 U.S.C. § 1343	0 years per count, fines. Wire Fraud: 18 U.S.C. § 1343 – “transmits … any writings … by means
15 U.S.C. § 45	Third Expansion – Federal: FTC Act § 5 (15 U.S.C. § 45) – unfair/deceptive acts; each visitor
Penal Code § 33.02	l Code § 502, NY Penal Law § 156.00, TX Penal Code § 33.02, FL Stat. § 815.01, etc. Federal U.S.
18 U.S.C. § 1030	$10,000 + treble All tracking CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030) $5,000 + treble Unauthorized access
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	eteering activity. Count V – FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair and deceptive trade practices.
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507‑2,
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507‑2, and Title 47, Tel
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	5a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507‑2, and Title 47, Telecommunications § 2
28 U.S.C. § 1331	nue This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), § 1332 (diversity),
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)	per in the District of New Jersey under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the defendants reside and opera

30.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (20)

30.4 Dollar Figures (67)

$0.00 · $0.01 · $0.02 · $0.06 · $0.15 · $0.60 · $1.20 · $3.60 · $9.00 · $14.40 · $36.00 · $72.00 · $82.20 · $216.00 · $540.00 · $750.00 · $864.00 · $927.00 · $1,000.00 · $1,728.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $5,184.00 · $6,048.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $12,096.00 · $12,960.00 · $15,000.00 · $20,833.00 · $26,280.00 · $30,000.00 · $36,288.00 · $50,120.00 · $52,560.00 · $60,000.00 · $78,840.00 · $90,720.00 · $120,000.00 · $157,680.00 · $315,360.00 · $406,700.00 · $473,040.00 · $630,720.00 · $946,080.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $1,220,100.00 · $1,892,160.00 · $2,440,200.00 · $3,000,000.00 · $4,880,400.00 · $12,000,000.00 · $48,000,000.00 · $100,000,000.00 · $120,000,000.00 · $144,000,000.00 · $240,576,000.00 · $288,576,000.00 · $480,000,000.00 · $500,000,000.00 · $510,166,800.00 · $927,576,000.00 · $1,000,000,000.00 · $2,000,000,000.00 · $2,782,728,000.00 · $4,174,092,000.00 · $82,200,000,000.00

30.5 Dates (1)

2026-09-07

Section 31 of 261

Section 31 — Forensic Audit Report – Coinbase Wallet Account and Coinbase Wallet Terms of Service

Source File	FORENSIC-0031-audited-entity-coinbase-wallet-account-and-coinbase-wallet-t-933c4337.html
Created	September 11, 2026
Modified	2026-09-11 19:01:10
Size	52,269 bytes
SHA-256	933c43376677c13523635f495b24728a7f9eebec7b5a6d7e7be054763e991f94

31.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All individuals	STATES DISTRICT COURT – CIVIL ACTION Plaintiffs: All individuals who used Coinbase Wallet (Class Action). Defendants: Coinbase B
defendant	Coinbase Bermuda Technologies Limited	used Coinbase Wallet (Class Action). Defendants: Coinbase Bermuda Technologies Limited; Coinbase Global, Inc.; Coinbase, Inc.;

31.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (14)

Citation	Source excerpt
9 U.S.C. § 1	le Contractual Overreach High 2012‑2026 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. (FAA), Cal. Civ. Code § 1670.5,
Civ. Code § 1670.5	2‑2026 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. (FAA), Cal. Civ. Code § 1670.5, UCC § 2-302 Appendix 1: Arbitration Ag
15 U.S.C. § 45	R. Civ. P. 23, Cal. Civ. Code § 1670.5, 15 U.S.C. § 45 "Waiver of Class, Collective, Represent
Prof. Code § 17200	h 2012‑2026 15 U.S.C. § 45, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 "You grant to us a non-exclusive, world
GDPR Art. 7	High 2012‑2026 Singapore PDPA § 13, 15, GDPR Art. 7 "If you reside in the EEA, you acknowle
47 U.S.C. § 230	Medium 2012‑2026 U.S. Const. amend. I, 47 U.S.C. § 230 Content Moderation section referencing
15 U.S.C. § 1	g – Restraint of Trade Medium 2012‑2026 15 U.S.C. § 1 (Sherman Act), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §
Prof. Code § 16600	5 U.S.C. § 1 (Sherman Act), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600 "Disguise your location through IP prox
Com. Code § 17.50	2009). Texas (2012‑2026): Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 17.50 – deceptive trade practices. Third
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507‑2,
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507‑2, and Title 47, Tel
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	5a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507‑2, and Title 47, Telecommunications § 2
28 U.S.C. § 1331	nue This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), § 1332 (diversity),

31.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (20)

31.4 Dollar Figures (50)

$0.02 · $0.16 · $0.75 · $0.96 · $9.60 · $10.00 · $45.12 · $58.00 · $100.00 · $332.00 · $500.00 · $576.00 · $1,000.00 · $1,382.00 · $2,500.00 · $2,707.00 · $5,000.00 · $9,677.00 · $13,824.00 · $25,000.00 · $42,048.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $64,968.00 · $96,768.00 · $126,144.00 · $252,288.00 · $420,480.00 · $454,776.00 · $504,576.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $1,261,440.00 · $1,976,400.00 · $2,522,880.00 · $5,045,760.00 · $5,929,200.00 · $11,858,400.00 · $23,716,800.00 · $5,500,000,000.00 · $7,064,064,000.00 · $10,000,000,000.00 · $25,000,000,000.00 · $30,000,000,000.00 · $50,000,000,000.00 · $70,640,640,000.00 · $182,619,360,000.00 · $332,035,200,000.00 · $500,000,000,000.00 · $996,105,600,000.00 · $10,000,000,000,000.00

31.5 Dates (2)

2026-09-08 · 2026-09-11

Section 32 of 261

Section 32 — Forensic Audit Report – Temasek (temasek.com.sg)

Source File	FORENSIC-0032-audited-entity-temasek-temasek-com-sg-homepage-73a3944a.html
Created	September 7, 2026
Modified	2026-09-09 05:16:33
Size	60,483 bytes
SHA-256	73a3944aa9afe88e2916daeee5f5fcd1a05bcb133fc2bad6d904c2865b806fec

32.1 Parties (3)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All individuals	STATES DISTRICT COURT – CIVIL ACTION Plaintiffs: All individuals whose PII was intercepted without consent (Class Action). Defendants: Temasek Ho
defendant	Temasek Holdings	epted without consent (Class Action). Defendants: Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited; Google LLC; LinkedIn
defendant	Temasek operates a website	. Factual Allegations (1998‑2026) Defendant Temasek operates a website at https://www.temasek.com.sg/en/index since 199

32.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (21)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 2511	ng Without Prior Consent High 1998‑2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap), 47 U.S.C. § 605, Cal. Civ. C
47 U.S.C. § 605	h 1998‑2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap), 47 U.S.C. § 605, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA), GDPR
Civ. Code § 1798.100	§ 2511 (Wiretap), 47 U.S.C. § 605, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA), GDPR Art. 5‑7, ePrivacy Dir. 20
GDPR Art. 5	605, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA), GDPR Art. 5‑7, ePrivacy Dir. 2002/58/EC GTM‑PWJ89FF
GDPR Art. 7	cient/Implicit Consent Medium 1998‑2026 GDPR Art. 7, ePrivacy, CCPA, FTC Act § 5 Cookie ban
GDPR Art. 13	No Clear Opt‑Out Medium 1998‑2026 CCPA, GDPR Art. 13‑14, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 Privacy p
County Code § 22	violation. Harris County, TX: Harris County Code § 22 (privacy) – each unauthorized tracking
Penal Code § 502	Law (1998‑2026): California: Cal. Penal Code § 502 (Unauthorized Computer Access) – each G
Civ. Code § 1798.150	separate violation. Additionally, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150 (CCPA, effective 2020) provides statuto
Penal Code § 33.02	(consumer fraud) applies. Texas: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02 (Breach of Computer Security) – each un
18 U.S.C. § 1030	minal: up to 5 years per count. CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): – “intentionally accesses a protected
18 U.S.C. § 1343	0 years per count, fines. Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): – “transmits … any writings … by mean
18 U.S.C. § 1961	0 years imprisonment per count. RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): – pattern of racketeering activity (m
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	ivity (1998‑2026). Count V – FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair and deceptive trade practices
5 U.S.C. § 552	(2020‑2026). Count VII – Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Unauthorized maintenance of records
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507‑2,
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507‑2, and Title 47, Tel
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	5a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507‑2, and Title 47, Telecommunications § 2
28 U.S.C. § 1331	nue This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), § 1332 (diversity),
15 U.S.C. § 45	Count V – Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 45): Defendants engaged in unfair and dece

32.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (20)

32.4 Dollar Figures (61)

$0.00 · $0.01 · $0.07 · $0.14 · $0.60 · $0.64 · $4.20 · $8.40 · $14.80 · $36.00 · $38.40 · $178.00 · $252.00 · $504.00 · $750.00 · $864.00 · $2,304.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $6,048.00 · $10,000.00 · $12,096.00 · $15,000.00 · $26,280.00 · $30,000.00 · $35,000.00 · $42,336.00 · $50,120.00 · $55,296.00 · $60,000.00 · $78,840.00 · $84,672.00 · $120,000.00 · $157,680.00 · $183,960.00 · $315,360.00 · $367,920.00 · $387,072.00 · $551,880.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $1,103,760.00 · $1,682,880.00 · $2,207,520.00 · $4,415,040.00 · $5,048,640.00 · $10,097,280.00 · $20,194,560.00 · $840,000,000.00 · $1,680,000,000.00 · $11,760,000,000.00 · $15,000,000,000.00 · $16,840,320,000.00 · $30,000,000,000.00 · $98,049,600,000.00 · $120,960,000,000.00 · $178,272,000,000.00 · $336,000,000,000.00 · $350,000,000,000.00 · $534,816,000,000.00 · $802,224,000,000.00 · $14,784,000,000,000.00

32.5 Dates (1)

2026-09-07

Section 33 of 261

Section 33 — Forensic Audit Report – Internet Brands (Wix Site)

Source File	FORENSIC-0033-audited-entity-internet-brands-wix-hosted-homepage-95e23e30.html
Created	September 7, 2026
Modified	2026-09-09 05:10:44
Size	61,331 bytes
SHA-256	95e23e305c7d7a75075a441edeaf0749025cbbc46538b1768968965d83b9c7d6

33.1 Parties (3)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All individuals	STATES DISTRICT COURT – CIVIL ACTION Plaintiffs: All individuals whose PII was intercepted without consent (Class Action). Defendants: Internet B
defendant	Internet Brands	epted without consent (Class Action). Defendants: Internet Brands (MH Sub I, LLC); Wix.com Ltd.; Google LL
defendant	Internet Brands operates a website	. Factual Allegations (2002‑2026) Defendant Internet Brands operates a website at https://www.internetbrands.com/ since 2002.

33.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (22)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 2511	ng Without Prior Consent High 2002‑2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap), 47 U.S.C. § 605, Cal. Civ. C
47 U.S.C. § 605	h 2002‑2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap), 47 U.S.C. § 605, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA), GDPR
Civ. Code § 1798.100	§ 2511 (Wiretap), 47 U.S.C. § 605, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA), GDPR Art. 5‑7, ePrivacy Dir. 20
GDPR Art. 5	605, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA), GDPR Art. 5‑7, ePrivacy Dir. 2002/58/EC GTM‑WD47WCS
GDPR Art. 7	Tracking Without Opt‑In High 2002‑2026 GDPR Art. 7, ePrivacy Directive, CCPA, NJ Consumer
GDPR Art. 44	ansfer Without Consent Medium 2002‑2026 GDPR Art. 44‑49, ePrivacy, CCPA fonts-cdn.wixstatic.
GDPR Art. 13	No Clear Opt‑Out Medium 2002‑2026 CCPA, GDPR Art. 13‑14, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 Privacy p
18 U.S.C. § 1343	ird‑Party Cookie Sharing High 2002‑2026 18 U.S.C. § 1343, 47 U.S.C. § 605, CCPA, GDPR Wix and Go
County Code § 22	Harris County, TX (2002‑2026): Harris County Code § 22 (privacy) – each unauthorized tracking
Penal Code § 502	026): California (2002‑2026): Cal. Penal Code § 502 (Unauthorized Computer Access) – each G
Civ. Code § 1798.150	separate violation. Additionally, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150 (CCPA, effective 2020) provides statuto
Penal Code § 33.02	aud) applies. Texas (2002‑2026): Tex. Penal Code § 33.02 (Breach of Computer Security) – each un
18 U.S.C. § 1030	minal: up to 5 years per count. CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030, enacted 1984, amended 1994, 1996, 2001
18 U.S.C. § 1961	0 years imprisonment per count. RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961, enacted 1970, amended 1984, 1988, 1990
15 U.S.C. § 45	ion – Federal (2002‑2026): FTC Act § 5 (15 U.S.C. § 45, enacted 1914, amended 1938, 1975, 1980
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	ivity (2002‑2026). Count V – FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair and deceptive trade practices
5 U.S.C. § 552	(2020‑2026). Count VII – Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Unauthorized maintenance of records
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507‑2,
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507‑2, and Title 47, Tel
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	5a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507‑2, and Title 47, Telecommunications § 2
28 U.S.C. § 1331	nue This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), § 1332 (diversity),

33.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (20)

33.4 Dollar Figures (78)

$0.00 · $0.01 · $0.04 · $0.06 · $0.07 · $0.19 · $0.60 · $2.40 · $3.60 · $4.20 · $8.80 · $11.40 · $36.00 · $101.00 · $144.00 · $216.00 · $252.00 · $684.00 · $750.00 · $864.00 · $2,500.00 · $3,456.00 · $5,000.00 · $5,184.00 · $6,048.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $15,000.00 · $16,416.00 · $24,192.00 · $26,280.00 · $30,000.00 · $35,000.00 · $36,288.00 · $42,336.00 · $50,120.00 · $60,000.00 · $78,840.00 · $105,120.00 · $114,912.00 · $120,000.00 · $157,680.00 · $183,960.00 · $315,360.00 · $473,040.00 · $511,820.00 · $551,880.00 · $630,720.00 · $946,080.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $1,103,760.00 · $1,261,440.00 · $1,535,460.00 · $1,892,160.00 · $2,207,520.00 · $3,070,920.00 · $6,141,840.00 · $720,000,000.00 · $1,440,000,000.00 · $2,880,000,000.00 · $5,000,000,000.00 · $5,760,000,000.00 · $10,000,000,000.00 · $10,080,000,000.00 · $14,434,560,000.00 · $28,800,000,000.00 · $43,200,000,000.00 · $50,000,000,000.00 · $55,624,800,000.00 · $57,600,000,000.00 · $100,000,000,000.00 · $101,136,000,000.00 · $200,000,000,000.00 · $288,000,000,000.00 · $303,408,000,000.00 · $455,112,000,000.00 · $1,440,000,000,000.00 · $8,832,000,000,000.00

33.5 Dates (1)

2026-09-07

Section 34 of 261

Section 34 — Print Version — Forensic and Corporate Intelligence Report

Source File	FORENSIC-0034-print-version-forensic-and-corporate-intelligence-report-e81a3038.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-09-25 04:42:36
Size	40,213 bytes
SHA-256	e81a303820eda8dd934cb5748a9138248383a6faa0943f5cf4db47a2ed341c70

34.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

34.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (1)

Citation	Source excerpt
26 C.F.R. 1.507	U.S. Code § 1702 & 10 U.S. Code § 2304; 26 C.F.R. 1.507-2 — Special Rules; Transfer To, Or Oper

34.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

34.4 Dollar Figures (0)

—

34.5 Dates (1)

2024-07-01

Section 35 of 261

Section 35 — Forensic Audit Report — Cambridge Core 404 Page — LDT-FAR-2026-0928-CAMBRIDGE-404

Source File	FORENSIC-0035-forensic-audit-report-cambridge-core-404-page-ldt-far-2026-0-60d2daa6.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-09-28 03:43:00
Size	58,492 bytes
SHA-256	60d2daa60cf2bccc4bfbc8bc91f984614059fa37e6d55a2573989e18de7499f0

35.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected natural persons	Counts — Draft for Federal Complaint Plaintiffs: All affected natural persons whose data was transmitted by the audited page (Class Action, Fed. R. Civ. P. 23).
defendant	Cambridge University Press & Assessment	age (Class Action, Fed. R. Civ. P. 23). Defendants: Cambridge University Press & Assessment, OneTrust LLC, Functional Software Inc. (Sentry), Google LLC, Sharea

35.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (24)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 1030	on High Inline <script> — Sentry.init() 18 U.S.C. § 1030; 18 U.S.C. § 2511; Cal. Penal Code § 50
18 U.S.C. § 2511	ript> — Sentry.init() 18 U.S.C. § 1030; 18 U.S.C. § 2511; Cal. Penal Code § 502 V-02 Google A
Penal Code § 502	8 U.S.C. § 1030; 18 U.S.C. § 2511; Cal. Penal Code § 502 V-02 Google Analytics Universal Anal
GDPR Art. 6	High Inline GA loader 18 U.S.C. § 2511; GDPR Art. 6; ePrivacy Art. 5(3) V-03 Google Tag
15 U.S.C. § 45	aded Pre-Consent High Inline GTM loader 15 U.S.C. § 45; Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 V-04 OneT
Civ. Code § 1798.100	Inline GTM loader 15 U.S.C. § 45; Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 V-04 OneTrust Consent Reload Loop (W
Civ. Code § 1798.135	nt) High OTConsentApplied listener Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.135; GDPR Art. 7(3) V-05 Shareaholic Thi
GDPR Art. 7	ied listener Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.135; GDPR Art. 7(3) V-05 Shareaholic Third-Party Scri
47 U.S.C. § 605	areaholic.net include 18 U.S.C. § 1030; 47 U.S.C. § 605 V-06 CloudFront External Embed (embe
18 U.S.C. § 1028	ESSAGE_DATA__, __PLATFORM_FOOTER_DATA__ 18 U.S.C. § 1028; Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150 V-10 Disc
Civ. Code § 1798.150	RM_FOOTER_DATA__ 18 U.S.C. § 1028; Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150 V-10 Disclosed IP Addresses of Live
GDPR Art. 5	50, 45.41.133.17 Cal. Penal Code § 502; GDPR Art. 5(1)(f) V-11 Preload/Prefetch of Third
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)	n Chain High Multi-CDN dependency chain 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5) V-21 Counter Reporter Bot-Scoring Te
County Code § 22	(computers/telecommunications); Harris County Code § 22 (privacy). • State: Cal. Penal Code §
Penal Code § 631	02 (unauthorized computer access); Cal. Penal Code § 631 (wiretapping); N.Y. Penal Law §§ 156.00
Penal Code § 33.02	; N.Y. Penal Law §§ 156.00–156.55; Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. • Federal: 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA) —
County Code § 4.5	Ordinance § 15 (wiretapping); San Diego County Code § 4.5 (data security). • State: Cal. Penal
42 U.S.C. § 1983	ional privacy; Bivens Fourth Amendment; 42 U.S.C. § 1983. • International: GDPR Arts. 5, 6, 7;
Gen. Bus. Law § 899-	§ 1798.150; Cal. Penal Code § 502; N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 899-aa. • International: GDPR Art. 5(1)(f)
Civ. Code § 1798.81.5	SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SI-7. • State: Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.81.5. • Tort: Negligent security; breach of
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2,
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2, and Title 47, Tel
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	5a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2, and Title 47, Telecommunications § 2

35.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (17)

35.4 Dollar Figures (19)

$100.00 · $750.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $4,108,240.00 · $246,494,400.00 · $14,789,664,000.00 · $354,951,936,000.00 · $2,484,663,552,000.00 · $10,810,305,000,000.00 · $32,430,915,000,000.00 · $64,861,830,000,000.00 · $129,723,660,000,000.00 · $5,824,940,160,000,000.00

35.5 Dates (1)

2026-09-28

Section 36 of 261

Section 36 — Forensic Audit Report – Supreme Court of NSW – supremecourt.nsw.gov.au

Source File	FORENSIC-0036-forensic-audit-report-supreme-court-of-nsw-supremecourt-nsw–870cbd32.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-09-24 17:29:27
Size	69,391 bytes
SHA-256	870cbd3213bdc1154e35e5b297b8254538629bafe1d6cb92f9ed26c844a82767

36.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	igh Court of Australia – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Representative Proceeding) — Australian
defendant	The State	n was processed without lawful basis. Defendants: The State of New South Wales; the NSW Department of Communities and

36.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (9)

Citation	Source excerpt
GDPR Art. 6	1988 (Cth) APP 1; PPIPA 1998 (NSW); EU GDPR Art. 6, 7 for EU visitors Absence in entire do
GDPR Art. 5	995 (Cth) Part 10.7. • International: GDPR Art. 5, 6, 7, 32; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); Budapest
GDPR Art. 32	CSC Essential Eight. • International: GDPR Art. 32; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); Budapest Conventio
Directive (EU) 2016/2102	Art. 5, 6, 44–49; EU Web Accessibility Directive (EU) 2016/2102 (analogous); UN Convention on the Right
GDPR Art. 44	995 (Cth) Part 10.7. • International: GDPR Art. 44–49; UK GDPR; Budapest Convention; Counc
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	& 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304 & 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 & Title 47, Telecommunications § 230

36.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (30)

36.4 Dollar Figures (112)

$1.83 · $2.37 · $3.65 · $4.56 · $4.74 · $5.47 · $9.12 · $2,894.00 · $5,000.00 · $5,787.00 · $10,000.00 · $11,574.00 · $14,468.00 · $17,361.00 · $23,148.00 · $29,005.00 · $50,120.00 · $69,444.00 · $173,611.00 · $289,352.00 · $347,222.00 · $578,704.00 · $694,444.00 · $868,056.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $1,041,667.00 · $1,344,965.00 · $1,388,889.00 · $1,740,278.00 · $4,166,667.00 · $10,416,667.00 · $17,361,111.00 · $20,833,333.00 · $34,722,222.00 · $41,666,667.00 · $52,083,333.00 · $62,500,000.00 · $80,697,904.00 · $83,333,333.00 · $104,416,667.00 · $250,000,000.00 · $500,000,000.00 · $1,000,000,000.00 · $1,041,666,667.00 · $1,250,000,000.00 · $1,500,000,000.00 · $1,750,000,000.00 · $2,000,000,000.00 · $2,083,333,333.00 · $2,500,000,000.00 · $2,506,000,000.00 · $3,500,000,000.00 · $4,841,874,167.00 · $6,000,000,000.00 · $7,000,000,000.00 · $7,610,000,000.00 · $8,750,000,000.00 · $10,500,000,000.00 · $14,000,000,000.00 · $15,220,000,000.00 · $17,542,000,000.00 · $22,830,000,000.00 · $25,000,000,000.00 · $30,440,000,000.00 · $38,050,000,000.00 · $42,000,000,000.00 · $45,660,000,000.00 · $50,000,000,000.00 · $60,880,000,000.00 · $76,282,640,000.00 · $91,320,000,000.00 · $114,150,000,000.00 · $116,206,000,000.00 · $136,980,000,000.00 · $175,000,000,000.00 · $182,640,000,000.00 · $228,300,000,000.00 · $228,847,920,000.00 · $273,960,000,000.00 · $350,000,000,000.00 · $365,280,000,000.00 · $456,600,000,000.00 · $457,695,840,000.00 · $547,920,000,000.00 · $730,560,000,000.00 · $761,000,000,000.00 · $813,442,000,000.00 · $913,200,000,000.00 · $915,391,680,000.00 · $1,095,840,000,000.00 · $1,522,000,000,000.00 · $1,826,400,000,000.00 · $2,191,680,000,000.00 · $2,283,000,000,000.00 · $3,539,453,640,000.00 · $3,652,800,000,000.00 · $4,566,000,000,000.00 · $5,479,200,000,000.00 · $7,305,600,000,000.00 · $9,132,000,000,000.00 · $9,153,916,800,000.00 · $10,618,360,920,000.00 · $18,264,000,000,000.00 · $21,236,721,840,000.00 · $21,916,800,000,000.00 · $42,473,443,680,000.00 · $91,320,000,000,000.00 · $177,972,318,400,000.00 · $182,640,000,000,000.00 · $249,161,245,760,000.00 · $355,944,636,800,000.00 · $711,889,273,600,000.00

36.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 37 of 261

Section 37 — The Architecture of Sovereign Expropriation — Expanded Forensic Research Brief

Source File	FORENSIC-0037-the-architecture-of-sovereign-expropriation-expanded-forensi-80e4e2ec.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-09-30 10:15:19
Size	142,461 bytes
SHA-256	80e4e2ec53117f2c3fd78e99e7422ce050f4cea80e4cbf614001d34d58ae573b

37.1 Parties (1)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
respondent	State	ility of further exhaustion. 13.3 The Respondent State and the Complicit Institutions 13.3.1 The arbitration is directed against the respondent state. The compl

37.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (2)

Citation	Source excerpt
31 C.F.R. 1010.610	. 632); USA PATRIOT Act Section 319(b); 31 C.F.R. 1010.610; FATF Recommendation 16; Basel Committe
31 C.F.R. 1010.670	s of 31 U.S.C. 5318 and implemented via 31 C.F.R. 1010.670) grants the Secretary of the Treasury a

37.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

37.4 Dollar Figures (18)

$1.50 · $2.00 · $4.00 · $7.00 · $13.60 · $49.00 · $59.00 · $60.00 · $120.00 · $8,000.00 · $10,000.00 · $59,000,000.00 · $60,000,000.00 · $120,000,000.00 · $1,500,000,000.00 · $4,000,000,000.00 · $13,600,000,000.00 · $932,168,000,000.00

37.5 Dates (2)

2001-09-11 · 2026-09-30

Section 38 of 261

Section 38 — Forensic Audit Report – kwsanantonio.com

Source File	FORENSIC-0038-forensic-audit-report-kwsanantonio-dot-com-ce72a67b.html
Created	September 30, 2026
Modified	2026-09-30 17:49:05
Size	54,883 bytes
SHA-256	ce72a67b215037392a15284cf1d584c7206357620ca30a98be587d6cb272e065

38.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	strict of Texas, San Antonio Division Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Keller Will
defendant	Keller Williams Heritage	l affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Keller Williams Heritage; Keller Williams Realty, Inc.; Texas Cr

38.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (19)

Citation	Source excerpt
County Code § 22	bsent authentication. County: Bexar County Code § 22‑11 – $1,000/day. State: Tex. Penal Code
Penal Code § 33.02	Code § 22‑11 – $1,000/day. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02 – Felony, $10,000 fine + 2‑10 years. Fe
18 U.S.C. § 1030	ny, $10,000 fine + 2‑10 years. Federal: 18 U.S.C. § 1030 – CFAA – $5,000/violation + treble; 18
18 U.S.C. § 1836	030 – CFAA – $5,000/violation + treble; 18 U.S.C. § 1836 – DTSA – $5,000,000. UCMJ: Art. 92 (fai
18 U.S.C. § 1343	. Federal: 18 U.S.C. § 1030 – CFAA; 18 U.S.C. § 1343 – wire fraud. State: Tex. Penal Code §
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	ontent":""}}] Federal: FTC Act § 5 (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) – $50,120/violation; 18 U.S.C. § 1343
Com. Code § 501.001	§ 1343 – wire fraud. State: Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 501.001 (TDPSA) – $7,500/violation. Tort: Decep
18 U.S.C. § 2511	" …>…</a> Federal: FTC Act § 5; 18 U.S.C. § 2511. State: Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 501.001.
42 U.S.C. § 12181	e behavior. Federal: ADA Title III (42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.) – $75,000 first violation; Sec
29 U.S.C. § 794	– $75,000 first violation; Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d) – $75,000/violation. State: Tex. Hum.
Res. Code § 121.001	) – $75,000/violation. State: Tex. Hum. Res. Code § 121.001 et seq. 3. 9-Interval Determi
Commerce Code § 501.001	Code §§ 16.02, 33.02; Texas Business & Commerce Code § 501.001 (TDPSA); California Penal Code §§ 502,
Civ. Code § 1798.100	rnia Penal Code §§ 502, 631; California Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.; New York Penal Law §§ 156.00‑1
47 U.S.C. § 605	1; 42 U.S.C. § 12181; 29 U.S.C. § 794d; 47 U.S.C. § 605; 5 U.S.C. § 552a. Military UCMJ Artic
5 U.S.C. § 552	181; 29 U.S.C. § 794d; 47 U.S.C. § 605; 5 U.S.C. § 552a. Military UCMJ Articles: 92, 107, 12
22 U.S.C. § 2295	he utmost diligence, in accordance with 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	, in accordance with 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	th 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	& 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304 & 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 & Title 47, Telecommunications § 230

38.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (10)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511)	, Inc.; Platform.sh; John Does 1‑20 Count I – Violation of Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) Count II – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 13
Count II – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343)	ion of Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) Count II – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343) Count III – CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030)
Count III – CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030)	nt II – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343) Count III – CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030) Count IV – FTC Act § 5 / TDPSA / CCPA
Count IV – FTC Act § 5 / TDPSA / CCPA	Count III – CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030) Count IV – FTC Act § 5 / TDPSA / CCPA Count V – Common‑law Invasion of Priv
Count V – Common‑law Invasion of Privacy	Count IV – FTC Act § 5 / TDPSA / CCPA Count V – Common‑law Invasion of Privacy Count VI – Negligence Per Se (securit
Count VI – Negligence Per Se (security headers, CSRF, UUID leaks)	nt V – Common‑law Invasion of Privacy Count VI – Negligence Per Se (security headers, CSRF, UUID leaks) Count VII – Misappropriation of Trade
Count VII – Misappropriation of Trade Secrets (18 U.S.C. § 1836)	(security headers, CSRF, UUID leaks) Count VII – Misappropriation of Trade Secrets (18 U.S.C. § 1836) Count VIII – ADA / Section 508 Access
Count VIII – ADA / Section 508 Accessibility	n of Trade Secrets (18 U.S.C. § 1836) Count VIII – ADA / Section 508 Accessibility Count IX – GDPR / ePrivacy Count X
Count IX – GDPR / ePrivacy	III – ADA / Section 508 Accessibility Count IX – GDPR / ePrivacy Count X – Bivens Fourth/Fifth/Sixth/E
Count X – Bivens Fourth/Fifth/Sixth/Eighth Amendment	sibility Count IX – GDPR / ePrivacy Count X – Bivens Fourth/Fifth/Sixth/Eighth Amendment Damages Sought: Compensatory $500M,

38.4 Dollar Figures (80)

$2.50 · $500.00 · $729.70 · $1,000.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $75,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $250,000.00 · $300,000.00 · $600,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $1,042,590.00 · $1,390,120.00 · $3,007,200.00 · $4,500,000.00 · $5,000,000.00 · $15,000,000.00 · $18,000,000.00 · $36,000,000.00 · $60,000,000.00 · $83,407,200.00 · $180,432,000.00 · $270,000,000.00 · $432,000,000.00 · $864,000,000.00 · $900,000,000.00 · $3,024,000,000.00 · $3,600,000,000.00 · $4,330,368,000.00 · $5,004,432,000.00 · $6,048,000,000.00 · $6,480,000,000.00 · $13,152,000,000.00 · $21,600,000,000.00 · $26,304,000,000.00 · $30,026,592,000.00 · $30,312,576,000.00 · $39,456,000,000.00 · $45,360,000,000.00 · $78,912,000,000.00 · $86,400,000,000.00 · $90,079,776,000.00 · $120,106,368,000.00 · $131,802,048,000.00 · $151,200,000,000.00 · $157,824,000,000.00 · $197,280,000,000.00 · $315,648,000,000.00 · $395,406,144,000.00 · $500,000,000,000.00 · $591,840,000,000.00 · $604,800,000,000.00 · $657,600,000,000.00 · $742,408,656,000.00 · $790,812,288,000.00 · $840,744,576,000.00 · $1,183,680,000,000.00 · $1,581,624,576,000.00 · $1,972,800,000,000.00 · $2,367,360,000,000.00 · $2,630,016,000,000.00 · $3,656,154,048,000.00 · $3,945,600,000,000.00 · $7,890,048,000,000.00 · $7,891,200,000,000.00 · $10,968,462,144,000.00 · $15,780,096,000,000.00 · $21,936,924,288,000.00 · $31,560,192,000,000.00 · $43,873,848,576,000.00 · $424,397,700,000,000.00 · $848,795,400,000,000.00 · $4,254,020,955,840,000.00 · $6,365,965,500,000,000.00 · $21,219,885,000,000,000.00 · $84,879,540,000,000,000.00 · $117,992,206,955,840,000.00

38.5 Dates (2)

2024-01-23 · 2026-09-30

Section 39 of 261

Section 39 — Forensic Audit Report — Ministry of Defence of Ukraine (mod.gov.ua)

Source File	FORENSIC-0039-forensic-audit-report-ministry-of-defence-of-ukraine-mod-dot-0dbdfe63.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-09-21 11:46:10
Size	67,133 bytes
SHA-256	0dbdfe633a5704624d47e5adfe353626f1cd375da7ed11628a6b0ceaa9e7042e

39.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All individuals	District Court — District of Columbia Plaintiffs: All individuals whose PII was intercepted without consent (Class Action). Defendants: Ministry o
defendant	Ministry	epted without consent (Class Action). Defendants: Ministry of Defence of Ukraine (in its sovereign capacity only to the e

39.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (23)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 2511	) loaded without consent High 2012–2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 47 U.S.C. § 605; GDPR Art. 5–7; ePriva
47 U.S.C. § 605	onsent High 2012–2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 47 U.S.C. § 605; GDPR Art. 5–7; ePrivacy Dir. 2002/58/E
GDPR Art. 5	2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 47 U.S.C. § 605; GDPR Art. 5–7; ePrivacy Dir. 2002/58/EC Art. 5(3)
GDPR Art. 6	onsent High 2023–2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511; GDPR Art. 6; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); Ukraine Law on Per
18 U.S.C. § 1030	elemetry instrumentation High 2024–2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030; GDPR Art. 6, 32; Ukraine Law on Person
Civ. Code § 1798.150	preload High 2001–2026 NIST SC-8; Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150 (analogous) 2.8 Missing X-Frame-Opti
GDPR Art. 32	arty origin Medium 2023–2026 NIST SI-7; GDPR Art. 32 2.11 Google Analytics / GTM noscript
GDPR Art. 44	foreign cloud providers High 2001–2026 GDPR Art. 44–49; Ukraine Law on Personal Data Protec
15 U.S.C. § 45	KbmynTjhOvsH0KzdvN28 ) Medium 2001–2026 15 U.S.C. § 45; GDPR Art. 5(1)(c) 2.22 RSC streamin
18 U.S.C. § 1028	k naming and structure Medium 2024–2026 18 U.S.C. § 1028; GDPR Art. 32 2.24 Cross-origin scri
Penal Code § 502	–$2,500 per occurrence. • State: Cal. Penal Code § 502 — $10,000 per violation; Cal. Civ. Code
GDPR Art. 28	udflare's role as a sub-processor under GDPR Art. 28 (processor obligations) and Art. 44–49
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)	me as 2.1, with specific application of 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5) (causing damage to a protected computer
47 C.F.R. § 15.5	S.C. § 1030(a)(5); 47 U.S.C. § 605; FCC 47 C.F.R. § 15.5; ITU-R SM.329; GDPR Art. 32; ITU Radio
5 U.S.C. § 552	1343; 15 U.S.C. § 45; 47 U.S.C. § 605; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (RICO). US State
18 U.S.C. § 1961	§ 45; 47 U.S.C. § 605; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (RICO). US State Analogous Cal. Pena
Penal Code § 33.02	w §§ 156.00–156.55, 250.00–250.05; Tex. Penal Code § 33.02; Ill. BIPA 740 ILCS 14/15. Military
18 U.S.C. § 1343	(2001–2026). Count III — Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Scheme to defraud by transmitting tra
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	ivity (2001–2026). Count V — FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair and deceptive trade practices
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2,
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2, and Title 47, Tel
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	5a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2, and Title 47, Telecommunications § 2

39.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (15)

39.4 Dollar Figures (132)

$0.00 · $0.01 · $0.02 · $0.05 · $0.06 · $0.23 · $0.40 · $0.46 · $0.50 · $0.58 · $0.63 · $0.69 · $0.86 · $1.16 · $1.37 · $2.29 · $3.00 · $3.48 · $6.00 · $6.07 · $12.00 · $13.67 · $15.12 · $18.00 · $24.16 · $27.86 · $30.00 · $34.80 · $37.70 · $42.00 · $52.00 · $70.00 · $82.20 · $100.00 · $105.84 · $137.00 · $156.00 · $180.00 · $182.50 · $209.00 · $364.00 · $459.90 · $500.00 · $750.00 · $820.00 · $835.20 · $1,000.00 · $1,001.00 · $1,248.00 · $1,450.00 · $1,672.00 · $1,680.00 · $1,800.00 · $2,500.00 · $4,320.00 · $4,932.00 · $5,000.00 · $5,016.00 · $5,518.80 · $5,846.40 · $7,007.00 · $7,500.00 · $8,220.00 · $8,736.00 · $10,000.00 · $11,760.00 · $19,680.00 · $21,840.00 · $25,405.80 · $30,240.00 · $30,456.00 · $34,800.00 · $35,112.00 · $37,956.00 · $40,140.00 · $43,200.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,048.00 · $110,000.00 · $118,368.00 · $131,340.00 · $137,760.00 · $152,616.00 · $197,280.00 · $243,600.00 · $280,980.00 · $302,400.00 · $304,869.60 · $365,472.00 · $455,472.00 · $524,160.00 · $598,416.00 · $612,576.00 · $828,576.00 · $1,058,832.00 · $1,221,036.00 · $1,313,400.00 · $1,380,960.00 · $1,576,080.00 · $1,831,392.00 · $3,000,000.00 · $3,599,496.00 · $3,669,120.00 · $5,000,000.00 · $5,999,160.00 · $7,180,992.00 · $12,706,000.00 · $14,652,432.00 · $15,760,800.00 · $15,939,132.00 · $43,193,952.00 · $71,989,920.00 · $191,264,880.00 · $30,000,000,000.00 · $45,000,000,000.00 · $55,000,000,000.00 · $60,000,000,000.00 · $125,300,000,000.00 · $225,000,000,000.00 · $300,720,000,000.00 · $660,000,000,000.00 · $780,000,000,000.00 · $900,000,000,000.00 · $2,400,000,000,000.00 · $3,007,200,000,000.00 · $6,600,000,000,000.00 · $9,423,562,500,000.00 · $18,000,000,000,000.00 · $28,270,687,500,000.00 · $30,000,000,000,000.00 · $37,694,250,000,000.00 · $75,388,500,000,000.00

39.5 Dates (1)

2026-09-21

Section 40 of 261

Section 40 — MASTER CONSOLIDATED FORENSIC AUDIT INDEX — Five-Target Aggregate — Ladco Defense Technologies

Source File	FORENSIC-0040-master-consolidated-forensic-audit-index-five-target-aggrega-2cc6a03d.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-09-25 18:29:15
Size	80,087 bytes
SHA-256	2cc6a03de0dd7ddaab663ec7e58582fcd101edf6f7af202d09f014f0a7e9dcdc

40.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

40.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (25)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ix U.S. dollars) Primary Authorities 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	Primary Authorities 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2;
10 U.S.C. § 2304	es 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2; Title 47 U.S.C. §
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	5a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2; Title 47 U.S.C. § 230 Governing S
47 U.S.C. § 230	S.C. § 2304; 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2; Title 47 U.S.C. § 230 Governing Statutes Across All Target
Regulation (EU) 2016/679	ng Statutes Across All Targets EU GDPR (Regulation (EU) 2016/679); ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC; UK GDP
18 U.S.C. § 1030	GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018; U.S. 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act);
18 U.S.C. § 2511	Act 2018; U.S. 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire F
18 U.S.C. § 1343	(CFAA); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud); 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act);
15 U.S.C. § 45	ap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud); 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506 (COPP
5 U.S.C. § 552	C Act); 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506 (COPPA); 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); California Civ. Code §
Civ. Code § 1798.100	U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); California Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq. (CCPA/CPRA); Cal. Penal Code §
Penal Code § 631	de § 1798.100 et seq. (CCPA/CPRA); Cal. Penal Code § 631 and § 638.51 (CIPA); New York Penal Law
Penal Code § 33.02	York Penal Law §§ 156.00–156.55; Texas Penal Code § 33.02; Florida Statutes § 815; Illinois 720 I
GDPR Art. 5	nconditionally before consent gate High GDPR Art. 5, 6, 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); CCPA § 1798.
GDPR Art. 32	zure blob without SRI High CFAA § 1030; GDPR Art. 32; NIST SP 800-53 SA-12 CSC-05 No Cont
GDPR Art. 44	ft Azure (U.S.) without disclosure High GDPR Art. 44–49; PIPEDA s 7.1; Budapest Convention
GDPR Art. 13	ctions without aggregation-control High GDPR Art. 13; CFAA § 1030; NIST SP 800-53 CM-7 CS
GDPR Art. 35	sessment (PIA) reference published High GDPR Art. 35; PIPEDA CSC-15 No security.txt or vu
GDPR Art. 8	te Medium COPPA 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506; GDPR Art. 8 CSC-19 No accessibility conformance
GDPR Art. 28	ly, Microsoft, Google, or OneTrust High GDPR Art. 28; CCPA § 1798.140; FTC Act § 45 CSC-2
GDPR Art. 7	n without verified consent proof Medium GDPR Art. 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); CCPA § 1798.135
GDPR Art. 6	urce — OneTrust banner code absent High GDPR Art. 6, 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); CCPA § 1798.135
GDPR Art. 83	osure: > $1.70 × 10^13. Civil exposure: GDPR Art. 83 (€20M or 4% global turnover) and CCPA §
Penal Code § 638.51	onsolidated Count XIII — Breach of Cal. Penal Code § 638.51 (CIPA pen register). Consolidated Co

40.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (42)

40.4 Dollar Figures (89)

$0.02 · $1.09 · $1.23 · $1.27 · $1.38 · $1.43 · $1.59 · $1.70 · $1.81 · $3.18 · $3.35 · $3.61 · $3.85 · $4.11 · $4.75 · $5.47 · $6.02 · $6.36 · $6.41 · $6.70 · $6.90 · $7.70 · $8.23 · $9.14 · $9.50 · $135,896.00 · $311,774.00 · $629,183.00 · $2,148,569.00 · $2,319,873.00 · $5,545,295.00 · $8,153,750.00 · $18,706,389.00 · $37,750,972.00 · $128,914,167.00 · $139,192,392.00 · $332,717,670.00 · $489,225,000.00 · $1,122,383,333.00 · $2,265,058,333.00 · $7,734,850,000.00 · $8,351,543,333.00 · $10,000,000,000.00 · $11,741,400,000.00 · $19,963,059,999.00 · $26,937,200,000.00 · $54,361,400,000.00 · $82,189,800,000.00 · $185,636,400,000.00 · $188,560,400,000.00 · $200,437,040,000.00 · $357,379,701,600.00 · $380,529,800,000.00 · $479,113,440,000.00 · $819,918,944,000.00 · $1,072,139,104,800.00 · $1,299,454,800,000.00 · $1,403,059,280,000.00 · $1,655,103,570,400.00 · $2,144,278,209,600.00 · $2,459,756,832,000.00 · $3,353,794,080,000.00 · $4,288,556,419,200.00 · $4,919,513,664,000.00 · $4,965,310,711,200.00 · $5,651,629,570,400.00 · $6,101,917,669,120.00 · $9,839,027,328,000.00 · $9,930,621,422,400.00 · $14,585,949,455,520.00 · $16,954,888,711,200.00 · $18,305,753,007,360.00 · $19,861,242,844,800.00 · $33,909,777,422,400.00 · $36,611,506,014,720.00 · $43,757,848,366,560.00 · $44,502,696,280,000.00 · $54,871,267,883,136.00 · $67,819,554,844,800.00 · $73,223,012,029,440.00 · $87,515,696,733,120.00 · $175,031,393,466,240.00 · $449,178,728,410,800.00 · $1,655,133,916,907,200.00 · $1,857,877,691,317,760.00 · $2,233,860,365,439,393.00 · $3,086,788,868,607,161.00 · $4,061,564,300,798,896.00 · $8,123,128,601,597,792.00

40.5 Dates (1)

2026-09-25

Section 41 of 261

Section 41 — Forensic Audit Report — Google Tag Manager Container AW-1068215855 — Ladco Defense Technologies

Source File	FORENSIC-0041-forensic-audit-report-google-tag-manager-container-ladco-def-9b70a1a9.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-09-25 18:22:16
Size	65,883 bytes
SHA-256	9b70a1a95c88b4280ac23b31bf629b14b82269881440b9d30e6b508016d8c73d

41.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

41.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (26)

Citation	Source excerpt
Regulation (EU) 2016/679	GTM CDN Governing Statutes EU GDPR (Regulation (EU) 2016/679); ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC; UK GDP
18 U.S.C. § 1030	GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018; U.S. 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act);
18 U.S.C. § 2511	Act 2018; U.S. 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire F
18 U.S.C. § 1343	(CFAA); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud); 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act);
15 U.S.C. § 45	ap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud); 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506 (COPP
5 U.S.C. § 552	C Act); 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506 (COPPA); 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); California Civ. Code §
Civ. Code § 1798.100	U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); California Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq. (CCPA/CPRA); Cal. Penal Code §
Penal Code § 631	de § 1798.100 et seq. (CCPA/CPRA); Cal. Penal Code § 631 and § 638.51 (CIPA); New York Penal Law
Penal Code § 33.02	York Penal Law §§ 156.00–156.55; Texas Penal Code § 33.02; Florida Statutes § 815; Illinois 720 I
22 U.S.C. § 2295	nsic Audit Report is issued pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	s issued pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2,
10 U.S.C. § 2304	to 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2, and Title 47 U.S.
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	5a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2, and Title 47 U.S.C. § 230, and is ex
47 U.S.C. § 230	§ 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2, and Title 47 U.S.C. § 230, and is executed against the audited Ja
GDPR Art. 5	acking via container AW-1068215855 High GDPR Art. 5, 6, 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); CCPA § 1798.
GDPR Art. 6	y check — no user consent gate Critical GDPR Art. 6, 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); CCPA § 1798.100
GDPR Art. 44	ogle LLC (U.S.) without disclosure High GDPR Art. 44–49; PIPEDA s 7.1; Budapest Convention;
GDPR Art. 7	nism (opt-in) before any tag fires High GDPR Art. 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); CCPA § 1798.135; C
GDPR Art. 8	A) Medium COPPA 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506; GDPR Art. 8 Entire artifact 17 No data-retention
GDPR Art. 35	act assessment reference published High GDPR Art. 35; PIPEDA Entire artifact 19 Google Ad
Penal Code § 638.51	631 (CIPA) — $5,000 per violation. Cal. Penal Code § 638.51 (pen register) — $5,000 per violation.
42 U.S.C. § 1983	(COPPA); 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 47 U.S.C. § 605. Case law: FTC v. Cox
47 U.S.C. § 605	§ 552a (Privacy Act); 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 47 U.S.C. § 605. Case law: FTC v. Cox Media Group, MindS
Prof. Code § 17200	638.51 (CIPA pen register); Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200; New York Penal Law §§ 156.00–156.55, 2
18 U.S.C. § 1836	nce; misappropriation of trade secrets (18 U.S.C. § 1836); civil rights torts (42 U.S.C. §§ 1981
GDPR Art. 83	18 U.S.C. § 1030. Civil exposure under GDPR Art. 83 (up to €20M or 4% global turnover) and

41.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (23)

41.4 Dollar Figures (65)

$1.26 · $1.64 · $2.53 · $2.75 · $579.00 · $5,000.00 · $6,143.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $11,574.00 · $23,148.00 · $34,722.00 · $53,088.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $135,896.00 · $368,556.00 · $694,444.00 · $930,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $1,388,889.00 · $2,083,333.00 · $8,153,750.00 · $22,120,000.00 · $41,666,667.00 · $50,000,000.00 · $83,333,333.00 · $350,000,000.00 · $489,225,000.00 · $530,880,000.00 · $1,000,000,000.00 · $1,522,000,000.00 · $2,000,000,000.00 · $3,716,160,000.00 · $4,566,000,000.00 · $5,000,000,000.00 · $7,000,000,000.00 · $9,132,000,000.00 · $11,741,400,000.00 · $14,000,000,000.00 · $16,159,948,800.00 · $18,264,000,000.00 · $30,440,000,000.00 · $48,479,846,400.00 · $60,880,000,000.00 · $82,189,800,000.00 · $91,320,000,000.00 · $96,959,692,800.00 · $182,640,000,000.00 · $193,919,385,600.00 · $255,330,720,000.00 · $357,379,701,600.00 · $365,280,000,000.00 · $730,560,000,000.00 · $1,072,139,104,800.00 · $2,144,278,209,600.00 · $2,711,672,790,720.00 · $4,288,556,419,200.00 · $4,989,575,891,328.00 · $5,106,614,400,000.00 · $10,213,228,800,000.00 · $32,922,760,729,881.00 · $46,640,577,700,665.00 · $54,871,267,883,136.00 · $109,742,535,766,272.00

41.5 Dates (4)

2001-01-01 · 2012-10-01 · 2018-07-24 · 2026-09-25

Section 42 of 261

Section 42 — Forensic Declaration — Header Analysis and Tracking Call Flow — LDT-FD-2026-0925-AUSSIEPROPERTY-EN

Source File	FORENSIC-0042-forensic-declaration-header-analysis-and-tracking-call-flow–84b79efe.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-09-25 13:58:28
Size	55,334 bytes
SHA-256	84b79efec285992ab4917466ee6c55a7a9264b215c28ef6ad66c274ad4c5f848

42.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

42.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (0)

Citation	Source excerpt
no statutes extracted

42.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

42.4 Dollar Figures (0)

—

42.5 Dates (1)

2026-09-25

Section 43 of 261

Section 43 — Forensic Audit Report — Hurricane Electric — he.net — Ladco Defense Technologies

Source File	FORENSIC-0043-forensic-audit-report-hurricane-electric-he-net-ladco-defens-21d5aff5.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-09-25 16:22:27
Size	81,888 bytes
SHA-256	21d5aff524ff3e24fc478ebc574722bf6de9175282d26352cd9d5b28113d29bf

43.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

43.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (27)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	nsic Audit Report is issued pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	s issued pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2,
10 U.S.C. § 2304	to 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2, and Title 47 U.S.
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	5a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2, and Title 47 U.S.C. § 230, and is ex
47 U.S.C. § 230	§ 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2, and Title 47 U.S.C. § 230, and is executed against the public-fac
Penal Code § 631	nia Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) Cal. Penal Code § 631; U.S. 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA); 18 U.S.C
18 U.S.C. § 1030	Act (CIPA) Cal. Penal Code § 631; U.S. 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act);
18 U.S.C. § 2511	de § 631; U.S. 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire F
18 U.S.C. § 1343	(CFAA); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud); 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act);
15 U.S.C. § 45	ap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud); 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506 (COPP
5 U.S.C. § 552	C Act); 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506 (COPPA); 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); GDPR (EU) 2016/679; ePr
GDPR Art. 5	es unconditionally without consent High GDPR Art. 5, 6, 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); CCPA § 1798.
GDPR Art. 32	declared or enforced High CFAA § 1030; GDPR Art. 32; NIST SP 800-53 SI-10; OWASP Top 10 A05
GDPR Art. 13	ut aggregation-control statement Medium GDPR Art. 13; CCPA § 1798.100 760 Mission Court, Fre
GDPR Art. 35	sessment (PIA) reference published High GDPR Art. 35; PIPEDA Entire portal 15 No security
GDPR Art. 8	te Medium COPPA 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506; GDPR Art. 8 Entire portal 17 No accessibility co
GDPR Art. 28	for Google Ads or Google Analytics High GDPR Art. 28; CCPA § 1798.140; FTC Act § 45 Entire p
GDPR Art. 6	consent banner in the HTML source High GDPR Art. 6, 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); CCPA § 1798.135
GDPR Art. 44	for Google Analytics (U.S.-based) High GDPR Art. 44–49; PIPEDA s 7.1; Budapest Convention g
Civ. Code § 1798.100	tion. United States State. California Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq. (CCPA/CPRA) — $7,500 per intent
Penal Code § 33.02	York Penal Law §§ 156.00–156.55. Texas Penal Code § 33.02. Florida Statutes § 815. Illinois 720 IL
Directive (EU) 2016/2102	Privacy Directive 2002/58/EC Art. 5(3); Directive (EU) 2016/2102; EU Charter of Fundamental Rights Arts.
42 U.S.C. § 1983	C. § 45; §§ 6501–6506; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 47 U.S.C. § 605. United States State
47 U.S.C. § 605	506; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 47 U.S.C. § 605. United States State. California Civ.
Prof. Code § 17200	eq.; Cal. Penal Code § 631; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200; New York Penal Law §§ 156.00–156.55, 2
18 U.S.C. § 1836	nce; misappropriation of trade secrets (18 U.S.C. § 1836); civil rights torts (42 U.S.C. §§ 1981
GDPR Art. 83	18 U.S.C. § 1030. Civil exposure under GDPR Art. 83 (up to €20M or 4% global turnover). Tor

43.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (34)

43.4 Dollar Figures (78)

$0.02 · $1.25 · $1.93 · $2.50 · $3.35 · $3.86 · $5.69 · $6.70 · $2,893.00 · $5,000.00 · $5,787.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $14,468.00 · $30,710.00 · $53,088.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $144,676.00 · $173,611.00 · $347,222.00 · $629,183.00 · $868,056.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $1,842,592.00 · $8,680,556.00 · $10,416,667.00 · $20,833,333.00 · $37,750,972.00 · $52,083,333.00 · $110,555,520.00 · $250,000,000.00 · $500,000,000.00 · $520,833,333.00 · $1,250,000,000.00 · $1,750,000,000.00 · $2,265,058,333.00 · $2,653,332,480.00 · $3,500,000,000.00 · $5,000,000,000.00 · $7,610,000,000.00 · $8,750,000,000.00 · $12,500,000,000.00 · $15,220,000,000.00 · $18,573,327,360.00 · $22,830,000,000.00 · $38,050,000,000.00 · $45,660,000,000.00 · $54,361,400,000.00 · $80,788,209,408.00 · $87,500,000,000.00 · $91,320,000,000.00 · $114,150,000,000.00 · $182,640,000,000.00 · $228,300,000,000.00 · $242,364,628,224.00 · $380,500,000,000.00 · $380,529,800,000.00 · $456,600,000,000.00 · $484,729,256,448.00 · $969,458,512,896.00 · $1,141,500,000,000.00 · $1,655,103,570,400.00 · $2,283,000,000,000.00 · $2,844,620,000,000.00 · $4,566,000,000,000.00 · $4,965,310,711,200.00 · $5,689,240,000,000.00 · $9,694,585,128,960.00 · $9,930,621,422,400.00 · $14,223,100,000,000.00 · $19,861,242,844,800.00 · $30,202,209,742,080.00 · $142,231,000,000,000.00 · $247,048,300,625,940.00 · $314,425,109,887,560.00 · $449,178,728,410,800.00 · $898,357,456,821,600.00

43.5 Dates (4)

2019-04-02 · 2023-07-01 · 2024-07-01 · 2026-09-25

Section 44 of 261

Section 44 — US Forensic Debt Clock — Ladco Defense Technologies

Source File	FORENSIC-0044-us-reverse-debt-clock-forensic-audit-recovery-tracker-4cfca3a1.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-09-26 04:12:46
Size	44,948 bytes
SHA-256	4cfca3a1a9b665e8b31a22fb541740942b8191676da2375ced6679ad9d356b27

44.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

44.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (0)

Citation	Source excerpt
no statutes extracted

44.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

44.4 Dollar Figures (43)

$0.00 · $2,406.00 · $4,389.00 · $15,995.00 · $21,922.00 · $27,618.00 · $51,487.00 · $68,392.00 · $409,301.00 · $1,329,920.00 · $5,545,295.00 · $11,840,795.00 · $332,717,670.00 · $19,963,060,000.00 · $261,041,306,208.00 · $479,113,440,000.00 · $1,133,621,641,129.00 · $1,202,779,048,140.00 · $1,739,167,321,935.00 · $3,353,794,080,000.00 · $5,615,792,178,907.00 · $5,705,397,091,756.00 · $13,152,452,866,010.00 · $14,585,949,455,520.00 · $16,844,820,686,111.00 · $23,346,832,812,565.00 · $30,940,873,618,706.00 · $32,753,924,855,625.00 · $33,013,475,477,349.00 · $43,757,848,366,560.00 · $44,502,696,280,000.00 · $54,871,267,883,136.00 · $68,479,713,262,117.00 · $87,515,696,733,120.00 · $88,045,345,623,388.00 · $175,031,393,466,240.00 · $220,646,053,347,131.00 · $449,178,728,410,800.00 · $456,233,438,325,395.00 · $1,655,133,916,907,200.00 · $1,857,877,691,317,760.00 · $4,061,563,930,798,896.00 · $48,738,767,169,586,749,440.00

44.5 Dates (1)

2026-09-25

Section 45 of 261

Section 45 — Forensic Audit Report — CSC / Corporation Service Company — cscglobal.com — Ladco Defense Technologies

Source File	FORENSIC-0045-forensic-audit-report-csc-corporation-service-company-cscglo-76ea663d.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-09-25 16:19:23
Size	85,100 bytes
SHA-256	76ea663dc9a14ec8d9a458275669660c0040b3476d5e03d94e20cd964a1e037c

45.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

45.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (31)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	nsic Audit Report is issued pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	s issued pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2,
10 U.S.C. § 2304	to 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2, and Title 47 U.S.
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	5a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2, and Title 47 U.S.C. § 230, and is ex
47 U.S.C. § 230	§ 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2, and Title 47 U.S.C. § 230, and is executed against the public-fac
18 U.S.C. § 1030	ited States Department of Justice under 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act),
18 U.S.C. § 2511	Justice under 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act), 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire F
18 U.S.C. § 1343	(CFAA), 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act), 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud), and 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC A
15 U.S.C. § 45	ct), 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud), and 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act), in addition to the civil and
5 U.S.C. § 552	C Act); 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506 (COPPA); 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); California Civ. Code §
Civ. Code § 1798.100	U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); California Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq. (CCPA/CPRA); Cal. Penal Code §
Penal Code § 631	de § 1798.100 et seq. (CCPA/CPRA); Cal. Penal Code § 631 (CIPA); New York Penal Law §§ 156.00–15
Penal Code § 33.02	York Penal Law §§ 156.00–156.55; Texas Penal Code § 33.02; Florida Statutes § 815; Illinois 720 I
GDPR Art. 5	fore any consent gate is evaluated High GDPR Art. 5, 6, 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); CCPA § 1798.
GDPR Art. 32	ntegrity (SRI) hashes High CFAA § 1030; GDPR Art. 32; NIST SP 800-53 SA-12 bootstrap.min.css
GDPR Art. 44	ge (U.S.-based) without disclosure High GDPR Art. 44–49; PIPEDA s 7.1; Budapest Convention c
GDPR Art. 13	hout aggregation-control statement High GDPR Art. 13; CFAA § 1030; NIST SP 800-53 CM-7 Locat
GDPR Art. 35	sessment (PIA) reference published High GDPR Art. 35; PIPEDA Entire portal 15 No security
GDPR Art. 8	te Medium COPPA 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506; GDPR Art. 8 Entire portal 19 No accessibility co
GDPR Art. 28	crosoft Azure, Google, or OneTrust High GDPR Art. 28; CCPA § 1798.140; FTC Act § 45 Entire p
GDPR Art. 7	e without verified consent proof Medium GDPR Art. 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); CCPA § 1798.135 ty
GDPR Art. 6	de not present in the audited file High GDPR Art. 6, 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); CCPA § 1798.135
GDPR Art. 22	Behavioural Experimentation Disclosure. GDPR Art. 22 prohibits automated decision-making wit
Civ. Code § 1798.135	6506. United States State. California Civ. Code § 1798.135; Cal. Penal Code § 631. International
GDPR Art. 21	nies visitors the right to object under GDPR Art. 21. Violation #33 — Microsoft Azu
Directive (EU) 2016/2102	Privacy Directive 2002/58/EC Art. 5(3); Directive (EU) 2016/2102; EU Charter of Fundamental Rights Arts.
42 U.S.C. § 1983	C. § 45; §§ 6501–6506; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 47 U.S.C. § 605; Bank Secrecy Act; USA
47 U.S.C. § 605	506; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 47 U.S.C. § 605; Bank Secrecy Act; USA PATRIOT Act § 32
Prof. Code § 17200	eq.; Cal. Penal Code § 631; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200; New York Penal Law §§ 156.00–156.55, 2
18 U.S.C. § 1836	nce; misappropriation of trade secrets (18 U.S.C. § 1836); civil rights torts (42 U.S.C. §§ 1981
GDPR Art. 83	18 U.S.C. § 1030. Civil exposure under GDPR Art. 83 (up to €20M or 4% global turnover). Tor

45.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (34)

45.4 Dollar Figures (111)

$1.23 · $1.38 · $1.81 · $1.89 · $2.79 · $3.62 · $3.78 · $4.11 · $5.59 · $6.90 · $8.23 · $4,340.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $8,680.00 · $10,000.00 · $21,701.00 · $30,382.00 · $46,082.00 · $53,088.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $230,410.00 · $260,417.00 · $434,028.00 · $520,833.00 · $607,639.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $1,302,083.00 · $1,822,917.00 · $2,148,569.00 · $2,764,944.00 · $13,824,722.00 · $15,625,000.00 · $26,041,667.00 · $31,250,000.00 · $36,458,333.00 · $78,125,000.00 · $109,375,000.00 · $128,914,167.00 · $165,896,667.00 · $375,000,000.00 · $750,000,000.00 · $829,483,333.00 · $1,562,500,000.00 · $1,875,000,000.00 · $2,187,500,000.00 · $2,625,000,000.00 · $3,981,520,000.00 · $5,000,000,000.00 · $5,250,000,000.00 · $7,734,850,000.00 · $11,415,000,000.00 · $13,125,000,000.00 · $18,375,000,000.00 · $19,907,600,000.00 · $22,830,000,000.00 · $27,870,640,000.00 · $34,245,000,000.00 · $37,500,000,000.00 · $52,500,000,000.00 · $57,075,000,000.00 · $68,490,000,000.00 · $79,905,000,000.00 · $121,235,318,400.00 · $136,980,000,000.00 · $139,353,200,000.00 · $171,225,000,000.00 · $185,636,400,000.00 · $239,715,000,000.00 · $262,500,000,000.00 · $273,960,000,000.00 · $342,450,000,000.00 · $363,705,955,200.00 · $367,500,000,000.00 · $410,940,000,000.00 · $479,430,000,000.00 · $606,176,592,000.00 · $684,900,000,000.00 · $727,411,910,400.00 · $821,880,000,000.00 · $958,860,000,000.00 · $1,141,500,000,000.00 · $1,299,454,800,000.00 · $1,454,823,820,800.00 · $1,598,100,000,000.00 · $1,818,529,776,000.00 · $2,876,580,000,000.00 · $3,424,500,000,000.00 · $3,637,059,552,000.00 · $4,109,400,000,000.00 · $4,364,471,462,400.00 · $4,794,300,000,000.00 · $5,651,629,570,400.00 · $6,849,000,000,000.00 · $7,274,119,104,000.00 · $9,588,600,000,000.00 · $13,698,000,000,000.00 · $16,954,888,711,200.00 · $19,177,200,000,000.00 · $20,547,000,000,000.00 · $33,909,777,422,400.00 · $43,644,714,624,000.00 · $67,819,554,844,800.00 · $218,223,573,120,000.00 · $410,940,000,000,000.00 · $575,316,000,000,000.00 · $993,080,350,144,320.00 · $1,324,107,133,525,760.00 · $1,655,133,916,907,200.00 · $3,310,267,833,814,400.00

45.5 Dates (1)

2026-09-25

Section 46 of 261

Section 46 — Internal Audit — Ladco Defense Technologies Forensic Accounting Program

Source File	FORENSIC-0046-internal-audit-ladco-defense-technologies-forensic-accountin-63704003.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-09-26 03:59:01
Size	29,620 bytes
SHA-256	637040034d5c70aac0a94561b6406d5c4dd84138a3c1349870f2ca3275b44b5c

46.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

46.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (0)

Citation	Source excerpt
no statutes extracted

46.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

46.4 Dollar Figures (13)

$0.00 · $1.70 · $4.06 · $13.10 · $30.90 · $33.00 · $40.00 · $68.50 · $88.00 · $220.00 · $220.60 · $15,995.00 · $409,301.00

46.5 Dates (1)

2026-09-25

Section 47 of 261

Section 47 — Forensic Audit Report — Google Tag Manager Container AW-1068215855 — Ladco Defense Technologies

Source File	FORENSIC-0047-forensic-audit-report-google-tag-manager-container-aw-106821-55330286.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-09-25 18:16:19
Size	73,709 bytes
SHA-256	553302867a7c0f33220807a51d2ec0d5bc3c44241e1375cd85ef27015a17a482

47.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

47.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (26)

Citation	Source excerpt
Regulation (EU) 2016/679	GTM CDN Governing Statutes EU GDPR (Regulation (EU) 2016/679); ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC; UK GDP
18 U.S.C. § 1030	GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018; U.S. 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act);
18 U.S.C. § 2511	Act 2018; U.S. 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire F
18 U.S.C. § 1343	(CFAA); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud); 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act);
15 U.S.C. § 45	ap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud); 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506 (COPP
5 U.S.C. § 552	C Act); 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506 (COPPA); 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); California Civ. Code §
Civ. Code § 1798.100	U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); California Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq. (CCPA/CPRA); Cal. Penal Code §
Penal Code § 631	de § 1798.100 et seq. (CCPA/CPRA); Cal. Penal Code § 631 and § 638.51 (CIPA); New York Penal Law
Penal Code § 33.02	York Penal Law §§ 156.00–156.55; Texas Penal Code § 33.02; Florida Statutes § 815; Illinois 720 I
22 U.S.C. § 2295	nsic Audit Report is issued pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	s issued pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2,
10 U.S.C. § 2304	to 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2, and Title 47 U.S.
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	5a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2, and Title 47 U.S.C. § 230, and is ex
47 U.S.C. § 230	§ 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2, and Title 47 U.S.C. § 230, and is executed against the audited Ja
GDPR Art. 5	acking via container AW-1068215855 High GDPR Art. 5, 6, 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); CCPA § 1798.
GDPR Art. 6	y check — no user consent gate Critical GDPR Art. 6, 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); CCPA § 1798.100
GDPR Art. 44	ogle LLC (U.S.) without disclosure High GDPR Art. 44–49; PIPEDA s 7.1; Budapest Convention;
GDPR Art. 7	nism (opt-in) before any tag fires High GDPR Art. 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); CCPA § 1798.135; C
GDPR Art. 8	A) Medium COPPA 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506; GDPR Art. 8 Entire artifact 17 No data-retention
GDPR Art. 35	act assessment reference published High GDPR Art. 35; PIPEDA Entire artifact 19 Google Ad
Penal Code § 638.51	631 (CIPA) — $5,000 per violation. Cal. Penal Code § 638.51 (pen register) — $5,000 per violation.
42 U.S.C. § 1983	(COPPA); 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 47 U.S.C. § 605. Case law: FTC v. Cox
47 U.S.C. § 605	§ 552a (Privacy Act); 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 47 U.S.C. § 605. Case law: FTC v. Cox Media Group, MindS
Prof. Code § 17200	638.51 (CIPA pen register); Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200; New York Penal Law §§ 156.00–156.55, 2
18 U.S.C. § 1836	nce; misappropriation of trade secrets (18 U.S.C. § 1836); civil rights torts (42 U.S.C. §§ 1981
GDPR Art. 83	18 U.S.C. § 1030. Civil exposure under GDPR Art. 83 (up to €20M or 4% global turnover) and

47.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (23)

47.4 Dollar Figures (65)

$1.48 · $1.92 · $2.75 · $2.96 · $579.00 · $5,000.00 · $6,143.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $11,574.00 · $23,148.00 · $34,722.00 · $53,088.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $135,896.00 · $250,000.00 · $368,556.00 · $694,444.00 · $930,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $1,388,889.00 · $2,083,333.00 · $8,153,750.00 · $22,120,000.00 · $41,666,667.00 · $50,000,000.00 · $83,333,333.00 · $350,000,000.00 · $489,225,000.00 · $530,880,000.00 · $1,000,000,000.00 · $1,522,000,000.00 · $2,000,000,000.00 · $3,716,160,000.00 · $4,566,000,000.00 · $5,000,000,000.00 · $7,000,000,000.00 · $9,132,000,000.00 · $11,741,400,000.00 · $14,000,000,000.00 · $16,159,948,800.00 · $18,264,000,000.00 · $30,440,000,000.00 · $48,479,846,400.00 · $54,792,000,000.00 · $60,880,000,000.00 · $82,189,800,000.00 · $91,320,000,000.00 · $96,959,692,800.00 · $182,640,000,000.00 · $193,919,385,600.00 · $357,379,701,600.00 · $365,280,000,000.00 · $581,758,156,800.00 · $730,560,000,000.00 · $1,072,139,104,800.00 · $1,095,840,000,000.00 · $2,144,278,209,600.00 · $2,191,680,000,000.00 · $4,288,556,419,200.00 · $58,969,365,674,880.00 · $83,539,934,706,080.00 · $98,282,276,124,800.00 · $196,564,552,249,600.00

47.5 Dates (1)

2026-09-25

Section 48 of 261

Section 48 — Forensic Audit Report — International Monetary Fund — imf.org — Ladco Defense Technologies

Source File	FORENSIC-0048-forensic-audit-report-international-monetary-fund-imf-org-la-a27af1c6.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-09-25 16:07:51
Size	79,272 bytes
SHA-256	a27af1c6a64050789ddbad4cb773f5fbc4914ba2856355105a94c3fd120c88a3

48.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

48.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (29)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	nsic Audit Report is issued pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	s issued pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2,
10 U.S.C. § 2304	to 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2, and Title 47 U.S.
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	5a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2, and Title 47 U.S.C. § 230, and is ex
47 U.S.C. § 230	§ 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2, and Title 47 U.S.C. § 230, and is executed against the public-fac
22 U.S.C. § 288	rnational Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. § 288 et seq.) applies to civil suit and judi
18 U.S.C. § 1030	nize unauthorized computer access under 18 U.S.C. § 1030, does not immunize wiretapping under 18
18 U.S.C. § 2511	30, does not immunize wiretapping under 18 U.S.C. § 2511, and does not immunize wire fraud under
18 U.S.C. § 1343	and does not immunize wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Federal criminal jurisdiction attaches
15 U.S.C. § 45	ap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud); 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act); 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act
5 U.S.C. § 552	(Wire Fraud); 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act); 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); California Civ. Code §
Civ. Code § 1798.100	U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); California Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.; Cal. Penal Code § 631; New Yor
Penal Code § 631	rnia Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.; Cal. Penal Code § 631; New York Penal Law §§ 156.00–156.55; B
GDPR Art. 5	JPTDPL31) without a consent banner High GDPR Art. 5, 6, 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); CCPA § 1798.
GDPR Art. 44	leaking IP, User-Agent and Referer High GDPR Art. 44–49; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); CFAA § 1030; Wi
GDPR Art. 32	declared or enforced High CFAA § 1030; GDPR Art. 32; NIST SP 800-53 SI-10; OWASP Top 10 A05
GDPR Art. 6	onsent banner or preference center High GDPR Art. 6, 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); CCPA § 1798.135
GDPR Art. 13	igation or header (only in footer) High GDPR Art. 13, 14; PIPEDA Schedule 1 cl 4.8 Header na
GDPR Art. 8	te Medium COPPA 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506; GDPR Art. 8 Entire portal 17 No data retention s
GDPR Art. 35	sessment (PIA) reference published High GDPR Art. 35; PIPEDA Entire portal 19 No security
GDPR Art. 28	nce for Google, AddEvent, Sitecore High GDPR Art. 28; CCPA § 1798.140; FTC Act § 45 Entire p
Penal Code § 33.02	York Penal Law §§ 156.00–156.55. Texas Penal Code § 33.02. Florida Statutes § 815. Illinois 720 IL
Civ. Code § 1798.135	6506. United States State. California Civ. Code § 1798.135 (CCPA opt-out); Cal. Penal Code § 631 (
Directive (EU) 2016/2102	Privacy Directive 2002/58/EC Art. 5(3); Directive (EU) 2016/2102; EU Charter of Fundamental Rights Arts.
42 U.S.C. § 1983	C. § 45; §§ 6501–6506; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 47 U.S.C. § 605. United States State
47 U.S.C. § 605	506; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 47 U.S.C. § 605. United States State. California Civ.
Prof. Code § 17200	eq.; Cal. Penal Code § 631; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200; New York Penal Law §§ 156.00–156.55, 2
18 U.S.C. § 1836	nce; misappropriation of trade secrets (18 U.S.C. § 1836); civil rights torts (42 U.S.C. §§ 1981
GDPR Art. 83	18 U.S.C. § 1030. Civil exposure under GDPR Art. 83 (up to €20M or 4% global turnover). Tor

48.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (32)

48.4 Dollar Figures (79)

$1.20 · $1.59 · $3.18 · $3.61 · $3.85 · $5.47 · $6.02 · $7.70 · $5,000.00 · $5,787.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $17,361.00 · $28,935.00 · $53,088.00 · $61,443.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $347,222.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $1,041,667.00 · $1,157,407.00 · $1,736,111.00 · $2,319,873.00 · $3,686,556.00 · $20,833,333.00 · $62,500,000.00 · $69,444,444.00 · $104,166,667.00 · $139,192,392.00 · $221,193,333.00 · $500,000,000.00 · $1,500,000,000.00 · $2,500,000,000.00 · $3,500,000,000.00 · $4,166,666,667.00 · $5,000,000,000.00 · $5,308,640,000.00 · $8,351,543,333.00 · $10,500,000,000.00 · $15,220,000,000.00 · $17,500,000,000.00 · $37,160,480,000.00 · $45,660,000,000.00 · $76,100,000,000.00 · $91,320,000,000.00 · $100,000,000,000.00 · $136,980,000,000.00 · $161,635,282,240.00 · $182,640,000,000.00 · $200,437,040,000.00 · $228,300,000,000.00 · $273,960,000,000.00 · $456,600,000,000.00 · $484,905,846,720.00 · $547,920,000,000.00 · $700,000,000,000.00 · $913,200,000,000.00 · $969,811,693,440.00 · $1,403,059,280,000.00 · $1,939,623,386,880.00 · $2,909,435,080,320.00 · $3,044,000,000,000.00 · $6,017,988,000,000.00 · $6,101,917,669,120.00 · $9,132,000,000,000.00 · $18,053,964,000,000.00 · $18,264,000,000,000.00 · $18,305,753,007,360.00 · $30,089,940,000,000.00 · $36,528,000,000,000.00 · $36,611,506,014,720.00 · $63,912,690,697,600.00 · $73,223,012,029,440.00 · $1,203,597,600,000,000.00 · $1,207,620,499,356,544.00 · $1,393,408,268,488,320.00 · $1,857,877,691,317,760.00 · $3,715,755,382,635,520.00

48.5 Dates (1)

2026-09-25

Section 49 of 261

Section 49 — Reverse US Debt Clock — Ladco Defense Technologies

Source File	FORENSIC-0049-us-forensic-debt-clock-ladco-defense-technologies-7b19ef9f.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-09-26 04:26:22
Size	51,837 bytes
SHA-256	7b19ef9f16754f30d9233d2f74a5ff384dd36ff3a5cd45e4293ec50f030d5ab4

49.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

49.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (0)

Citation	Source excerpt
no statutes extracted

49.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

49.4 Dollar Figures (76)

$0.00 · $1.00 · $2.71 · $8.58 · $26.45 · $1,449.00 · $2,286.00 · $2,406.00 · $3,241.00 · $4,283.00 · $4,389.00 · $5,493.00 · $6,750.00 · $8,414.00 · $9,893.00 · $11,445.00 · $15,995.00 · $16,420.00 · $21,922.00 · $27,618.00 · $51,487.00 · $68,392.00 · $75,702.00 · $116,833.00 · $360,796.00 · $409,301.00 · $645,164.00 · $25,365,340.00 · $31,008,358,703.00 · $119,841,279,881.00 · $151,481,047,789.00 · $185,951,226,329.00 · $259,386,367,494.00 · $261,041,306,208.00 · $494,640,766,571.00 · $605,135,145,124.00 · $756,939,181,903.00 · $979,473,719,768.00 · $1,108,440,303,410.00 · $1,133,621,640,657.00 · $1,133,621,641,129.00 · $1,202,779,048,140.00 · $1,362,330,076,018.00 · $1,663,306,579,668.00 · $1,739,167,321,935.00 · $1,824,582,324,680.00 · $1,839,231,463,417.00 · $1,999,164,649,360.00 · $2,308,362,675,428.00 · $2,378,777,925,315.00 · $2,965,393,761,981.00 · $2,974,655,066,811.00 · $5,615,792,178,907.00 · $5,705,397,091,756.00 · $7,089,774,546,485.00 · $7,440,374,503,588.00 · $9,350,803,218,184.00 · $13,089,843,405,144.00 · $13,152,452,866,010.00 · $16,844,820,686,111.00 · $23,346,832,812,565.00 · $30,940,873,618,706.00 · $32,753,924,855,625.00 · $33,013,475,477,349.00 · $40,203,581,403,756.00 · $44,502,696,280,000.00 · $54,871,267,883,136.00 · $68,479,713,262,117.00 · $88,045,345,623,388.00 · $115,559,571,930,557.00 · $220,646,053,347,131.00 · $449,178,728,410,800.00 · $955,547,997,779,810.00 · $1,655,133,916,907,200.00 · $1,857,877,691,317,760.00 · $4,061,563,930,798,896.00

49.5 Dates (1)

2026-09-25

Section 50 of 261

Section 50 — Forensic Declaration — LDT-FD-2026-0925-AUSSIEPROPERTY-EN

Source File	FORENSIC-0050-forensic-declaration-header-analysis-and-tracking-call-flow-afbd94c5.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-09-25 14:19:52
Size	58,015 bytes
SHA-256	afbd94c590bb97004571d2c38bdf478bf41a1b3c166d4ca955cc3fed720b729d

50.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

50.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (0)

Citation	Source excerpt
no statutes extracted

50.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

50.4 Dollar Figures (0)

—

50.5 Dates (1)

2026-09-25

Section 51 of 261

Section 51 — Forensic Audit Report — Egmont Group — egmontgroup.org — Ladco Defense Technologies

Source File	FORENSIC-0051-forensic-audit-report-egmont-group-egmontgroup-org-ladco-def-07cf0f30.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-09-25 17:59:20
Size	78,993 bytes
SHA-256	07cf0f306554a5fd932c1cc24cfa5c9c54af8fc5cc2b21956da790e597e67a8c

51.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

51.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (26)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	nsic Audit Report is issued pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	s issued pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2,
10 U.S.C. § 2304	to 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2, and Title 47 U.S.
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	5a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2, and Title 47 U.S.C. § 230, and is ex
47 U.S.C. § 230	§ 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2, and Title 47 U.S.C. § 230, and is executed against the public-fac
Regulation (EU) 2016/679	y Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. P-21); EU GDPR (Regulation (EU) 2016/679); UK GDPR; Data Protection Act 2018; Au
18 U.S.C. § 1030	t 1988 (Cth); NZ Privacy Act 2020; U.S. 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act);
18 U.S.C. § 2511	Act 2020; U.S. 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act); 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act)
15 U.S.C. § 45	(CFAA); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act); 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506 (COPP
5 U.S.C. § 552	C Act); 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506 (COPPA); 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Vanua
42 U.S.C. § 1983	(COPPA); 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Vanuatu DPPA No. 13 of 2024; Vanuatu C
GDPR Art. 5	thout a consent banner High PIPEDA s 7; GDPR Art. 5, 6, 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); Criminal Cod
GDPR Art. 44	+ User-Agent + Referer High PIPEDA s 7; GDPR Art. 44–49; ePrivacy Art. 5(3) fonts.googleapis
GDPR Art. 32	or enforced High Criminal Code s 342.1; GDPR Art. 32; NIST SP 800-53 SI-10 Absence in <head>
GDPR Art. 13	e Medium Canadian Employment Standards; GDPR Art. 13, 14 Twitter feed content referencing "C
GDPR Art. 6	r or preference center High PIPEDA s 7; GDPR Art. 6, 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); CCPA § 1798.135
GDPR Art. 8	te Medium COPPA 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506; GDPR Art. 8 Entire portal — no age gate present
GDPR Art. 35	(PIA) reference published High PIPEDA; GDPR Art. 35; Egmont Group Charter Entire portal
Civ. Code § 1798.100	1983. United States State. California Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq. (CCPA/CPRA — $7,500 per intenti
Penal Code § 631	$7,500 per intentional violation); Cal. Penal Code § 631 (CIPA — $5,000 per violation); New York
Penal Code § 33.02	York Penal Law §§ 156.00–156.55; Texas Penal Code § 33.02; Florida Statutes § 815. Australian F
GDPR Article 44	trol disclosure. Under PIPEDA s 7.1 and GDPR Article 44–49, the organization must take reasonab
Directive (EU) 2016/2102	Privacy Directive 2002/58/EC Art. 5(3); Directive (EU) 2016/2102; EU Charter of Fundamental Rights Arts.
47 U.S.C. § 605	506; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 47 U.S.C. § 605. United States State. California Civ.
Prof. Code § 17200	eq.; Cal. Penal Code § 631; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200; New York Penal Law §§ 156.00–156.55, 2
18 U.S.C. § 1836	nce; misappropriation of trade secrets (18 U.S.C. § 1836); civil rights torts (42 U.S.C. §§ 1981

51.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (31)

51.4 Dollar Figures (110)

$1.09 · $1.81 · $4.75 · $7.32 · $9.14 · $9.50 · $1,157.00 · $2,315.00 · $3,472.00 · $4,630.00 · $5,000.00 · $5,787.00 · $7,500.00 · $8,102.00 · $10,000.00 · $11,978.00 · $12,290.00 · $51,744.00 · $53,088.00 · $69,444.00 · $100,000.00 · $138,889.00 · $208,333.00 · $231,481.00 · $277,778.00 · $311,774.00 · $347,222.00 · $486,111.00 · $718,667.00 · $737,333.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $4,166,667.00 · $8,333,333.00 · $12,500,000.00 · $13,888,889.00 · $16,666,667.00 · $18,706,389.00 · $20,833,333.00 · $29,166,667.00 · $43,120,000.00 · $44,240,000.00 · $100,000,000.00 · $200,000,000.00 · $300,000,000.00 · $400,000,000.00 · $500,000,000.00 · $700,000,000.00 · $833,333,333.00 · $1,034,880,000.00 · $1,061,760,000.00 · $1,122,383,333.00 · $1,400,000,000.00 · $2,100,000,000.00 · $2,800,000,000.00 · $3,044,000,000.00 · $3,500,000,000.00 · $4,900,000,000.00 · $5,000,000,000.00 · $6,088,000,000.00 · $7,244,160,000.00 · $7,432,320,000.00 · $9,132,000,000.00 · $12,176,000,000.00 · $15,220,000,000.00 · $18,264,000,000.00 · $20,000,000,000.00 · $21,308,000,000.00 · $26,937,200,000.00 · $27,396,000,000.00 · $31,501,632,000.00 · $32,319,168,000.00 · $36,528,000,000.00 · $45,660,000,000.00 · $54,792,000,000.00 · $63,924,000,000.00 · $73,056,000,000.00 · $91,320,000,000.00 · $94,504,896,000.00 · $96,957,504,000.00 · $109,584,000,000.00 · $127,848,000,000.00 · $140,000,000,000.00 · $146,112,000,000.00 · $182,640,000,000.00 · $188,560,400,000.00 · $189,009,792,000.00 · $193,915,008,000.00 · $255,696,000,000.00 · $365,280,000,000.00 · $378,019,584,000.00 · $387,830,016,000.00 · $547,920,000,000.00 · $608,800,000,000.00 · $730,560,000,000.00 · $819,918,944,000.00 · $913,200,000,000.00 · $1,278,480,000,000.00 · $1,826,400,000,000.00 · $1,890,097,920,000.00 · $1,939,150,080,000.00 · $2,459,756,832,000.00 · $3,652,800,000,000.00 · $4,919,513,664,000.00 · $7,305,600,000,000.00 · $9,839,027,328,000.00 · $22,251,348,140,000.00 · $28,926,752,582,000.00 · $36,528,000,000,000.00 · $44,502,696,280,000.00 · $89,005,392,560,000.00

51.5 Dates (2)

2021-07-05 · 2026-09-25

Section 52 of 261

Section 52 — Corporate Notice and Forensic Policy Audit — aussieproperty.com Pty Ltd — Privacy Policy — Ladco Defense Technologies

Source File	FORENSIC-0052-corporate-notice-and-forensic-policy-audit-aussieproperty-co-e8f35e37.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-09-25 08:55:39
Size	39,178 bytes
SHA-256	e8f35e3713f395118e33f70c99819b7c6f9752c5283fd228db003c51273c164c

52.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

52.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (0)

Citation	Source excerpt
no statutes extracted

52.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

52.4 Dollar Figures (0)

—

52.5 Dates (1)

2026-09-25

Section 53 of 261

Section 53 — Transmittal Email – Formal Complaint & Forensic Audit Review to TREC

Source File	FORENSIC-0053-transmittal-email-formal-complaint-forensic-audit-review-to–8ce10bf6.html
Created	October 1, 2026
Modified	2026-10-01 07:01:51
Size	15,758 bytes
SHA-256	8ce10bf67f0168e108578cfb74cf87c169825314942e0124b6066861ccb128fa

53.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

53.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (4)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	wledge. This document is authorized via 22 U.S.C. § 2295a and 50 U.S.C. § 1702 and 10 U.S.C. § 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	is authorized via 22 U.S.C. § 2295a and 50 U.S.C. § 1702 and 10 U.S.C. § 2304 and 26 C.F.R. § 1.
10 U.S.C. § 2304	U.S.C. § 2295a and 50 U.S.C. § 1702 and 10 U.S.C. § 2304 and 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 and Title 47, T
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	U.S.C. § 1702 and 10 U.S.C. § 2304 and 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 and Title 47, Telecommunications § 23

53.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

53.4 Dollar Figures (0)

—

53.5 Dates (2)

2026-09-30 · 2026-10-01

Section 54 of 261

Section 54 — Forensic Legal Research Report: Statutory Evolution, Jurisdictional Insulation, and Color of Law Defenses Under the Federal Reserve Act (1913–2026)

Source File	FORENSIC-0054-forensic-legal-research-report-statutory-evolution-jurisdict-5aa467e5.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-09-30 12:58:13
Size	70,909 bytes
SHA-256	5aa467e56d4bf1f551583777d309a3f8281ccd351d6779d48d1672579a0caf81

54.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

54.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (29)

Citation	Source excerpt
12 U.S.C. § 632	Federal Reserve Act of 1913; Edge Act (12 U.S.C. § 632); Tucker Act (28 U.S.C. § 1491); Treaty
28 U.S.C. § 1491	Edge Act (12 U.S.C. § 632); Tucker Act (28 U.S.C. § 1491); Treaty Exception (28 U.S.C. § 1502);
28 U.S.C. § 1502	t (28 U.S.C. § 1491); Treaty Exception (28 U.S.C. § 1502); Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (28
31 U.S.C. § 5311	U.S.C. §§ 1602–1611); Bank Secrecy Act (31 U.S.C. § 5311 et seq.); Annunzio-Wylie AML Act (31 U.
31 U.S.C. § 5318(g)(3)	5311 et seq.); Annunzio-Wylie AML Act (31 U.S.C. § 5318(g)(3)); USA PATRIOT Act §§ 311, 312, 319(b);
28 U.S.C. § 1611(b)(1)	) ├── Sovereign Immunity Shields (FSIA 28 U.S.C. § 1611(b)(1); Tucker Act Tort Bar 28 U.S.C. § 1491)
22 U.S.C. § 288	────── Multilateral Absolute Immunity (22 U.S.C. § 288) 1948: Tucker Act Revision (28 U.S.C. §
50 U.S.C. § 4305(b)	ction 11 of the Federal Reserve Act and 50 U.S.C. § 4305(b). Core Defense and Alteration: Retroac
31 U.S.C. § 463	ty: H.J. Res. 192, 48 Stat. 112, former 31 U.S.C. § 463 (Enacted June 5, 1933). Core Defense
31 U.S.C. § 5302	ntrol of the Secretary of the Treasury (31 U.S.C. § 5302). Mechanism of Protection / Color of
28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1)	502. Core Defense and Alteration: 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (Tucker Act): Granted the United States
28 U.S.C. § 2680(a)	s the Discretionary Function Exception (28 U.S.C. § 2680(a)) and the Foreign Country Exception (28
28 U.S.C. § 2680(k)	(a)) and the Foreign Country Exception (28 U.S.C. § 2680(k)) . This locks the claimant into an unre
28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2)	h as the Commercial Activity Exception, 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2)). Mechanism of Protection / Color of
12 U.S.C. § 3101	7 (1977); Pub. L. 95-369, 92 Stat. 607, 12 U.S.C. § 3101 et seq. (1978). Core Defense and Alte
31 U.S.C. § 5318(g)(2)	to the victim whether a SAR was filed (31 U.S.C. § 5318(g)(2)). Courts have interpreted this safe h
31 U.S.C. § 5318	Defensive Alterations: Section 311 (31 U.S.C. § 5318A): Grants the Secretary of the Treasury
31 U.S.C. § 5318(i)	correspondent accounts. Section 312 (31 U.S.C. § 5318(i); 31 C.F.R. § 1010.610): Mandates that U
31 C.F.R. § 1010.610	ts. Section 312 (31 U.S.C. § 5318(i); 31 C.F.R. § 1010.610): Mandates that US financial institutio
31 U.S.C. § 5318(k)	risk-scoring models. Section 319(b) (31 U.S.C. § 5318(k)): Authorizes the Attorney General and S
12 U.S.C. § 343	ction 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. § 343) . While limiting emergency lending to
50 U.S.C. § 1601	§ 1701–1708); National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq.); Executive Orders 14024, 14065
50 U.S.C. § 1702	ism of Protection / Color of Law: Under 50 U.S.C. § 1702, executive asset blockings extinguish p
12 U.S.C. § 221	erve Act Pub. L. 63-43; 38 Stat. 251; 12 U.S.C. § 221 et seq. Centralized clearing of USD;
22 U.S.C. § 286	nts Act Pub. L. 79-171; 59 Stat. 512; 22 U.S.C. § 286 et seq. Established IMF and IBRD; des
12 U.S.C. § 225	rm Act Pub. L. 95-188; 91 Stat. 1387; 12 U.S.C. § 225a Codified the statutory "dual mandate
12 U.S.C. § 248	of 1980 Pub. L. 96-221; 94 Stat. 132; 12 U.S.C. § 248a Universal reserve requirements acros
50 U.S.C. § 1701	Freezes & Master Account Access Rules 50 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq.; 87 Fed. Reg. 51099; 12 C.F.R.
42 U.S.C. § 1983	er color of law (18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242; 42 U.S.C. § 1983) represent the misuse of power possesse

54.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

54.4 Dollar Figures (5)

$4.00 · $35.00 · $300.00 · $10,000.00 · $4,000,000,000.00

54.5 Dates (4)

2001-10-26 · 2010-07-21 · 2021-01-01 · 2026-09-30

Section 55 of 261

Section 55 — Forensic Statistical Pattern Audit — Real Estate & Mortgage Fraud Schemes (1991–2025)

Source File	FORENSIC-0055-forensic-statistical-pattern-audit-real-estate-mortgage-frau-d25b1dd6.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-10-11 01:43:23
Size	67,494 bytes
SHA-256	d25b1dd64295a765fe52987ebcff18fd2bec5dfce5cdd0d5d56b5050fa84ef53

55.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

55.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (24)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 1344	— charged in $500 million fraud scheme 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (bank fraud); § 1341 (mail fraud) $500,
18 U.S.C. § 1001	ments to bank and FBI, false appraisals 18 U.S.C. § 1001; § 1014 Undisclosed Oklahoman, Aug. 25,
18 U.S.C. § 1341	ed 380 investors of $8M in Ponzi scheme 18 U.S.C. § 1341; § 1343; SEC § 10(b) $8,000,000 Washing
Penal Code § 487	f grand theft in $1M mortgage scam Cal. Penal Code § 487; § 484 $1,000,000+ LA Times, Mar. 13, 1
Fla. Stat. § 817.03	ng houses he did not own to 18 families Fla. Stat. § 817.03; § 817.41 Undisclosed (18 victims) Sun-
18 U.S.C. § 1014	t to federally insured institution (RI) 18 U.S.C. § 1014 Undisclosed 1st Cir. 1996 [reference:19
18 U.S.C. § 1343	arries up to 20 years imprisonment. • 18 U.S.C. § 1343 — Wire Fraud. Each wire transmission in
12 U.S.C. § 1709	imprisonment. • National Housing Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1709 — FHA single-family mortgage insurance
31 C.F.R. § 103.18	ns (April 1996); 2,992 SARs by year-end 31 C.F.R. § 103.18 (SAR filing) Statistical baseline Ameri
Corp. Code § 25401	ttled with CA regulators Feb. 1999 Cal. Corp. Code § 25401; SEC § 10(b) $70,000,000 LA Times, Dec.
12 U.S.C. § 1715	U.S.C. § 1709 — FHA mortgage insurance; 12 U.S.C. § 1715z-1 — Section 203(k) rehabilitation mort
Rev. Code § 19.86	to defraud borrowers and lenders Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86 (Consumer Protection Act) Undisclosed W
18 U.S.C. § 1028	arries up to 20 years imprisonment. • 18 U.S.C. § 1028 — Identity Fraud (used with straw buyer
18 U.S.C. § 371	ch 2007 they misrepresented fund health 18 U.S.C. § 371; § 1343; SEC § 10(b) Fund collapse DOJ
15 U.S.C. § 77	U.S.C. § 1715z-1 — Section 203(k). • 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a) — Securities Act § 17(a); 15 U.S.C.
15 U.S.C. § 78	S.C. § 77q(a) — Securities Act § 17(a); 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) — Exchange Act § 10(b). • 31 C.F.
18 U.S.C. § 1956	1028A — Aggravated Identity Theft. • 18 U.S.C. § 1956 — Money Laundering. • 12 U.S.C. § 170
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	ion); Andris Pukke (recidivist scammer) 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); § 53(b) $100,000,000 FTC, No
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	U.S.C. § 1702 · 10 U.S.C. § 2304 · 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 · 47 U.S.C. § 230 · 17 C.F.R. § 2
47 U.S.C. § 230	S.C. § 2304 · 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 · 47 U.S.C. § 230 · 17 C.F.R. § 229.402 · N.J.S.A. §
17 C.F.R. § 229.402	.F.R. § 1.507-2 · 47 U.S.C. § 230 · 17 C.F.R. § 229.402 · N.J.S.A. § 54:10A-1 et seq. W

55.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (1)

Header	Source excerpt
count indictment 18 U.S.C. § 1344; § 1341; § 371 Undisclosed FBI, Jun. 26, 2015 [reference:97]	tgage fraud conspiracy (Fresno, CA); 15-count indictment 18 U.S.C. § 1344; § 1341; § 371 Undisclosed FBI, Jun. 26, 2015 [reference:97] Q4 2015 Michelle Austin-W

55.4 Dollar Figures (81)

$1.00 · $1.40 · $1.50 · $1.70 · $1.80 · $2.00 · $2.50 · $3.00 · $3.60 · $3.80 · $5.00 · $7.00 · $8.00 · $9.00 · $9.20 · $10.00 · $13.00 · $16.00 · $20.00 · $30.00 · $41.00 · $47.00 · $50.00 · $55.00 · $60.00 · $70.00 · $92.00 · $92.70 · $98.00 · $100.00 · $110.00 · $165.00 · $200.00 · $500.00 · $950.00 · $200,000.00 · $250,000.00 · $349,000.00 · $351,000.00 · $391,000.00 · $400,000.00 · $500,000.00 · $550,000.00 · $800,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $1,200,000.00 · $1,400,000.00 · $1,500,000.00 · $1,700,000.00 · $1,800,000.00 · $2,000,000.00 · $2,500,000.00 · $3,000,000.00 · $3,600,000.00 · $3,800,000.00 · $5,000,000.00 · $7,000,000.00 · $8,000,000.00 · $9,000,000.00 · $9,200,000.00 · $10,000,000.00 · $11,000,000.00 · $13,000,000.00 · $16,000,000.00 · $20,000,000.00 · $30,000,000.00 · $41,000,000.00 · $47,000,000.00 · $50,000,000.00 · $55,000,000.00 · $60,000,000.00 · $70,000,000.00 · $92,000,000.00 · $92,689,477.00 · $98,000,000.00 · $100,000,000.00 · $110,000,000.00 · $165,000,000.00 · $200,000,000.00 · $500,000,000.00 · $60,000,000,000.00

55.5 Dates (7)

2009-05-28 · 2013-05-21 · 2015-05-13 · 2015-07-22 · 2024-05-08 · 2025-12-31 · 2026-10-10

Section 56 of 261

Section 56 — Forensic Audit Report — Transworld Business Advisors Homepage (tworld.com)

Source File	FORENSIC-0056-forensic-audit-report-transworld-business-advisors-homepage–50ba01d1.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-10-12 15:42:26
Size	83,641 bytes
SHA-256	50ba01d18da794607da780bcb2d39ae8d90b24deab08f2a8bded9060f3d93e62

56.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	rida (West Palm Beach) — Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (nationwide and international Class Acti
defendant	Transworld Business Advisors	EU, UK, and international residents). Defendants: Transworld Business Advisors, LLC; United Franchise Group; Gorilla Dash;

56.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (55)

Citation	Source excerpt
Fla. Stat. § 501.701	tes the Florida Digital Bill of Rights (Fla. Stat. § 501.701 et seq.), the Florida Deceptive and Unf
Fla. Stat. § 501.201	ceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (Fla. Stat. § 501.201 et seq.), the California Invasion of Pr
Civ. Code § 1798.100	e California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.), the Massachusetts Wiretap Sta
Gen. Bus. Law § 899-	99), and the New York SHIELD Act (N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 899-bb), in addition to the federal and inte
18 U.S.C. § 2511	re consent (GTM-5KJXHHB) High 1980–2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511; GDPR Art. 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); Fla.
GDPR Art. 7	JXHHB) High 1980–2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511; GDPR Art. 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); Fla. Stat. § 501.7
18 U.S.C. § 1030	ne Critical 2014–2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 18 U.S.C. § 1030; Fla. Stat. § 501.701 sec-if-cpt-contai
47 U.S.C. § 605	ll.com High 2014–2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 47 U.S.C. § 605 noscript img tracking pixel 5 Cloudf
GDPR Art. 6	a9b) High 1980–2026 ePrivacy Art. 5(3); GDPR Art. 6 beacon.min.js with integrity hash 6
GDPR Art. 5	ing) Medium 1980–2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030; GDPR Art. 5 /cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-st
18 U.S.C. § 1836	en Critical 1980–2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030; 18 U.S.C. § 1836 window.graphqlToken JWT visible in sour
GDPR Art. 13	any point of collection High 1980–2026 GDPR Art. 13; CCPA § 1798.100; 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3)
5 U.S.C. § 552	980–2026 GDPR Art. 13; CCPA § 1798.100; 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3) No JIT notice 20 Absence of r
15 U.S.C. § 6501	dling (COPPA) controls Medium 1980–2026 15 U.S.C. § 6501 et seq. (COPPA) No age gate 2.2
GDPR Art. 44	ut adequacy decision Critical 1980–2026 GDPR Art. 44–49 googletagmanager.com 65 Cross-bor
GDPR Art. 46	ntractual Clauses notice High 2021–2026 GDPR Art. 46 No SCC disclosure 69 Absence of Tran
GDPR Art. 28	ing agreement disclosure High 1980–2026 GDPR Art. 28; CCPA § 1798.100 No DPA reference 71
GDPR Art. 33	ion procedure disclosure High 1980–2026 GDPR Art. 33; Fla. Stat. § 501.171 No breach notific
Fla. Stat. § 501.171	disclosure High 1980–2026 GDPR Art. 33; Fla. Stat. § 501.171 No breach notification notice 73 Abs
GDPR Art. 25	gn principle application High 1980–2026 GDPR Art. 25; CCPA § 1798.100 No privacy by design
Fla. Stat. § 934.01	disclosure of breach procedures. 85 Fla. Stat. § 934.01 et seq. — Florida Security of Communica
Penal Code § 631	lation, whichever is higher. 86 Cal. Penal Code § 631 — California Invasion of Privacy Act (w
Penal Code § 631(a)	Privacy Act (wiretapping) Critical Cal. Penal Code § 631(a) Interception of electronic communicatio
Penal Code § 632	per violation under § 637.2. 87 Cal. Penal Code § 632 — CIPA (eavesdropping on confidential c
Penal Code § 632(a)	fidential communications) Critical Cal. Penal Code § 632(a) Behavioral interaction collection captu
18 U.S.C. § 2701	ions Act — unauthorized access Critical 18 U.S.C. § 2701, § 2707 Unauthorized access to stored e
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)	2 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Critical 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C), (g) Exceeding authorized access to pro
18 U.S.C. § 1343	Wire Fraud — scheme to defraud Critical 18 U.S.C. § 1343 Scheme to defraud through undisclosed c
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	FTC Act — unfair or deceptive acts High 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) $50,120 per violation; injunctive relie
15 U.S.C. § 6801	96 GLBA — financial privacy Critical 15 U.S.C. § 6801 et seq. Non-public personal financial i
18 U.S.C. § 1961	98 RICO — pattern of racketeering High 18 U.S.C. § 1961–1962 Pattern of wire fraud and CFAA vio
18 U.S.C. § 371	fees. 99 Wire fraud conspiracy High 18 U.S.C. § 371 Conspiracy between Transworld and its v
18 U.S.C. § 1519	w. 100 Obstruction of justice Medium 18 U.S.C. § 1519 If any records related to this matter a
18 U.S.C. § 1001	stroyed. 101 False statements Medium 18 U.S.C. § 1001 False or misleading statements to feder
18 U.S.C. § 1028	vestigation. 102 Identity fraud High 18 U.S.C. § 1028 Unauthorized collection and use of pers
18 U.S.C. § 1029	users. 103 Access device fraud High 18 U.S.C. § 1029 Unauthorized access to digital credenti
18 U.S.C. § 1372	amage to critical infrastructure Medium 18 U.S.C. § 1372 Compromise of communications infrastruc
18 U.S.C. § 1370	105 Damage to telecommunications Medium 18 U.S.C. § 1370 Interference with telecommunications an
18 U.S.C. § 1361	06 Damage to government property Medium 18 U.S.C. § 1361 If government systems were compromised
18 U.S.C. § 1362	07 Damage to communication lines Medium 18 U.S.C. § 1362 Interference with communication lines a
GDPR Art. 32	111 GDPR — Security of processing High GDPR Art. 32 Failure to implement appropriate techni
County Code § 1-14	International: • County (Palm Beach County Code § 1-14): Electronic surveillance without conse
Fla. Stat. § 934.03	sent — $1,000 per violation. • State (Fla. Stat. § 934.03): Interception of electronic communicat
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)	guards — $5,000 or actual. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)): Wiretap Act — $10,000 per count, treb
Fla. Stat. § 475.25	lorida Security of Communications Act); Fla. Stat. § 475.25 (real estate brokerage discipline); Fla
Civ. Code § 1798.82	de § 1798.100 et seq. (CCPA/CPRA); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.82 (breach notification); Cal. Bus. & Prof
Prof. Code § 17200	8.82 (breach notification); Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 (UCL). Massachusetts State Law: Mass.
Penal Code § 637.2	32 $5,000 per violation V5, V87 Cal. Penal Code § 637.2 $5,000 or 3× actual V88 Mass. Gen. L
GDPR Art. 83	or 4% of turnover V16–V29, V108–V113 GDPR Art. 83(4) €10,000,000 or 2% of turnover V31–V6
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	U.S.C. § 1702 · 10 U.S.C. § 2304 · 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 · 47 U.S.C. § 230 · 17 C.F.R. § 2
47 U.S.C. § 230	S.C. § 2304 · 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 · 47 U.S.C. § 230 · 17 C.F.R. § 229.402 · N.J.S.A. §
17 C.F.R. § 229.402	.F.R. § 1.507-2 · 47 U.S.C. § 230 · 17 C.F.R. § 229.402 · N.J.S.A. § 54:10A-1 et seq. W

56.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (31)

56.4 Dollar Figures (31)

$14.27 · $22.02 · $42.50 · $66.08 · $100.00 · $1,000.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $10,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $250,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $2,914,803.00 · $15,013,355.00 · $900,801,300.00 · $54,048,078,000.00 · $1,297,153,872,000.00 · $9,080,077,104,000.00 · $39,484,939,740,672.00 · $118,454,819,222,016.00 · $236,909,638,444,032.00 · $473,819,276,888,064.00 · $2,202,859,647,529,500.00 · $3,124,137,883,926,750.00 · $14,274,530,258,991,160.00 · $22,028,596,475,295,000.00 · $66,085,789,425,885,000.00

56.5 Dates (1)

2026-10-12

Section 57 of 261

Section 57 — Forensic Audit Report — Akamai Bot Manager Behavioral Challenge Fragment (tworld.com / bizbuysell.com)

Source File	FORENSIC-0057-forensic-audit-report-akamai-bot-manager-behavioral-challeng-01dc8542.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-10-12 15:35:55
Size	66,239 bytes
SHA-256	01dc8542f3eeff6958a3900ce79afd9a42b9c980438cabe0a202ed6307e6801b

57.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	Massachusetts (Boston) — Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (nationwide and international Class Acti
defendant	Akamai Technologies	EU, UK, and international residents). Defendants: Akamai Technologies, Inc.; Transworld Business Advisors, LLC; Bus

57.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (44)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 2511	ected before consent Critical 2014–2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511; Cal. Penal Code § 631; Mass. Gen. Laws
Penal Code § 631	itical 2014–2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511; Cal. Penal Code § 631; Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272 § 99; GDPR Art
GDPR Art. 7	de § 631; Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272 § 99; GDPR Art. 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3) sec-if-cpt-containe
18 U.S.C. § 1030	send global override Critical 2014–2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030; Cal. Penal Code § 502; N.Y. Penal Law
Penal Code § 502	itical 2014–2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030; Cal. Penal Code § 502; N.Y. Penal Law § 156.05 window.XMLHttp
GDPR Art. 4	2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030; CCPA § 1798.140; GDPR Art. 4(1) Akamai sensor request query string
47 U.S.C. § 605	twork) High 2014–2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 47 U.S.C. § 605; Cal. Penal Code § 631 dD1lMTE3ODkwZTZj
GDPR Art. 5	pixel High 2014–2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030; GDPR Art. 5(1)(f) Pixel URL query string 11 No c
Fla. Stat. § 501.701	rt. 5(3); GDPR Art. 7; CCPA § 1798.135; Fla. Stat. § 501.701 No CMP in fragment 12 No cookie bann
GDPR Art. 13	policy link in fragment High 2014–2026 GDPR Art. 13; CCPA § 1798.130 Akamai privacy link po
5 U.S.C. § 552	014–2026 GDPR Art. 13; CCPA § 1798.100; 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3) No JIT notice 15 No retention
15 U.S.C. § 6501	dling (COPPA) controls Medium 2014–2026 15 U.S.C. § 6501 et seq. No age gate 20 No consent re
18 U.S.C. § 1836	URL Medium 2014–2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030; 18 U.S.C. § 1836 pixel_4cd7f427 base64 payload 38 Hid
GDPR Art. 6	e High 2014–2026 Cal. Penal Code § 631; GDPR Art. 6 Behavioral challenge interaction model
GDPR Art. 44	ut adequacy decision Critical 2014–2026 GDPR Art. 44–49 Akamai edge delivery chain 48 Cro
GDPR Art. 46	ntractual Clauses notice High 2021–2026 GDPR Art. 46 No SCC disclosure 50 Absence of Tran
GDPR Art. 28	ing agreement disclosure High 2014–2026 GDPR Art. 28; CCPA § 1798.100 No DPA reference 52
GDPR Art. 33	ion procedure disclosure High 2014–2026 GDPR Art. 33; Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93H; Cal. Civ. Cod
Civ. Code § 1798.82	Art. 33; Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93H; Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.82 No breach notification notice 54 Abs
GDPR Art. 25	gn principle application High 2014–2026 GDPR Art. 25; CCPA § 1798.100 No privacy by design
Penal Code § 631(a)	Code § 631 — wiretapping Critical Cal. Penal Code § 631(a) The fragment intercepts electronic comm
Penal Code § 632	damages per violation. 63 California Penal Code § 632 — eavesdropping on confidential communi
Penal Code § 632(a)	nfidential communications Critical Cal. Penal Code § 632(a) Behavioral interaction collection captu
18 U.S.C. § 2701	ions Act — unauthorized access Critical 18 U.S.C. § 2701, § 2707 Unauthorized access to stored e
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)	7 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Critical 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C), (g) Exceeding authorized access to pro
18 U.S.C. § 1343	Wire Fraud — scheme to defraud Critical 18 U.S.C. § 1343 Scheme to defraud through undisclosed c
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	FTC Act — unfair or deceptive acts High 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) $50,120 per violation. 70 GLBA — fin
15 U.S.C. § 6801	any financial data is co-mingled) High 15 U.S.C. § 6801 et seq. If any visitor is on a financia
18 U.S.C. § 1961	72 RICO — pattern of racketeering High 18 U.S.C. § 1961–1962 Pattern of wire fraud and CFAA vio
18 U.S.C. § 371	fees. 73 Wire fraud conspiracy High 18 U.S.C. § 371 Conspiracy between Akamai and its custo
18 U.S.C. § 1519	aw. 74 Obstruction of justice Medium 18 U.S.C. § 1519 If any records related to this matter a
Civ. Code § 1798.80	al Code §§ 631, 632, 637.2 (CIPA); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.80 et seq. (CCPA/CPRA); Cal. Civ. Code § 1
Prof. Code § 17200	8.82 (breach notification); Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 (UCL). Florida: Fla. Stat. § 501.701
Fla. Stat. § 501.201	1.701 et seq. (Digital Bill of Rights); Fla. Stat. § 501.201 et seq. (FDUTPA); Fla. Stat. § 934.01 e
Fla. Stat. § 934.01	Fla. Stat. § 501.201 et seq. (FDUTPA); Fla. Stat. § 934.01 et seq. (Florida Security of Communicat
Penal Code § 637.2	2 $5,000 per violation V42, V63 Cal. Penal Code § 637.2 $5,000 or 3× actual V64 Mass. Gen. L
GDPR Art. 83	4% of turnover V1, V11–V20, V75–V79 GDPR Art. 83(4) €10,000,000 or 2% of turnover V21–V4
Civ. Code § 1798.100	y damages. Count XI — CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Failure to provide notice and
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	U.S.C. § 1702 · 10 U.S.C. § 2304 · 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 · 47 U.S.C. § 230 · 17 C.F.R. § 2
47 U.S.C. § 230	S.C. § 2304 · 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 · 47 U.S.C. § 230 · 17 C.F.R. § 229.402 · N.J.S.A. §
17 C.F.R. § 229.402	.F.R. § 1.507-2 · 47 U.S.C. § 230 · 17 C.F.R. § 229.402 · N.J.S.A. § 54:10A-1 et seq. W

57.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (27)

57.4 Dollar Figures (30)

$2.28 · $3.52 · $10.57 · $25.00 · $100.00 · $1,000.00 · $5,000.00 · $10,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $250,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $2,411,823.00 · $8,932,678.00 · $535,960,680.00 · $32,157,640,800.00 · $771,783,379,200.00 · $5,402,483,654,400.00 · $23,490,977,313,792.00 · $70,472,931,941,376.00 · $140,945,863,882,752.00 · $281,891,727,765,504.00 · $352,364,659,706,880.00 · $2,198,778,548,312,725.00 · $2,283,322,862,900,100.00 · $3,523,646,597,068,800.00 · $10,570,939,791,206,400.00

57.5 Dates (2)

2014-01-01 · 2026-10-12

Section 58 of 261

Section 58 — MASTER AUDIT PROMPT VERSION 7.2 — Continuous Forensic Auditor Directive

Source File	FORENSIC-0058-master-audit-prompt-version-7-2-continuous-forensic-auditor–78bd0a74.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-10-11 01:16:38
Size	40,133 bytes
SHA-256	78bd0a744f352bea69ac9556eb6ee374ef83cfbfe36760cef0c8c1ebb6ec3ed5

58.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

58.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (24)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	last, Ukraine (Izmail and Broska) under 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	il and Broska) under 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2,
10 U.S.C. § 2304	er 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2, and Title 47 U.S.
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	5a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2, and Title 47 U.S.C. § 230. He is cu
47 U.S.C. § 230	§ 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2, and Title 47 U.S.C. § 230. He is currently engaged in the followi
18 U.S.C. § 1343	3; possible defamation per se; possible 18 U.S.C. § 1343 wire fraud if the "fraud" characterizat
Admin Code § 20-700	cutive Law § 63(12); CPLR § 8303-a; NYC Admin Code § 20-700 et seq.; 19 NYCRR Parts 175, 176. – Fed
County Code § 22	ook County Ordinance Chapter 30, Harris County Code § 22, Maricopa County Ordinance § 15, San Di
County Code § 4.5	ricopa County Ordinance § 15, San Diego County Code § 4.5, Westchester County Code of Ethics § 88
Professions Code § 17200	n statutes (e.g., California Business & Professions Code § 17200, New York GBL § 349 as amended by the F
Gen. Bus. Law § 349	the general state penal codes: – N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349 (deceptive, unfair, and abusive acts an
Gen. Bus. Law § 350	ss Practices Act effective 2024) – N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 350 (false advertising) – N.Y. Gen. Bus. La
Gen. Bus. Law § 350-	s. Law § 350 (false advertising) – N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 350-a (false advertising defined) – N.Y. Gen
Gen. Bus. Law § 622	's fees to prevailing plaintiff) – N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 622 (business opportunity sales) – N.Y. Gen
Gen. Bus. Law § 460	622 (business opportunity sales) – N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 460 et seq. (franchise sales) – N.Y. Gen. B
Gen. Bus. Law § 899-	§ 460 et seq. (franchise sales) – N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 899-aa (SHIELD Act data breach notification)
Admin. Code § 20-700	(frivolous conduct sanctions) – N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 20-700 et seq. (NYC consumer protection) – 19
19 NYCRR Part 175	700 et seq. (NYC consumer protection) – 19 NYCRR Part 175 (broker advertising regulations) – 19 N
19 NYCRR Part 176	175 (broker advertising regulations) – 19 NYCRR Part 176 (website and internet advertising requi
5 U.S.C. § 552	Administrative Procedure, Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) – Title 10 — Armed Forces (including
18 U.S.C. § 1836	misappropriation of trade secrets (DTSA 18 U.S.C. § 1836), civil rights torts (42 U.S.C. §§ 1981
47 U.S.C. § 605	343 — $1,000,000 per count + 20 years – 47 U.S.C. § 605 — $110,000 – COPPA — $51,744 – CCPA/CPR
42 U.S.C. § 1983	000 – G20 — $25,000 – Bivens — no cap – 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — no cap – State computer crime — $5,00
17 C.F.R. § 229.402	26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 · 47 U.S.C. § 230 · 17 C.F.R. § 229.402 · N.J.S.A. § 54:10A-1 et seq. </div>

58.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

58.4 Dollar Figures (29)

$2,500.00 · $4,000.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $25,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $75,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $120,100.00 · $429,900.00 · $499,000.00 · $550,000.00 · $796,830.00 · $875,277.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $2,914,803.00 · $52,516,620.00 · $3,150,997,200.00 · $75,623,932,800.00 · $529,367,529,600.00 · $2,301,993,571,392.00 · $6,905,980,714,176.00 · $13,811,961,428,352.00 · $27,623,922,856,704.00 · $656,743,931,668,377.00

58.5 Dates (2)

2026-10-03 · 2026-10-09

Section 59 of 261

Section 59 — Forensic Audit Report — Synergy Business Brokers (synergybb.com)

Source File	FORENSIC-0059-forensic-audit-report-synergy-business-brokers-nda-page-50f65e87.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-10-11 01:22:02
Size	96,723 bytes
SHA-256	50f65e87d5c694fc6c95e0014f59fa8e4c0a49e67bcb29104dffd4acef90b336

59.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	ict of New York (SDNY) — Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (nationwide and international Class Acti
defendant	Synergy Business Brokers	ia, EU, and international residents). Defendants: Synergy Business Brokers, LLC; Blake Taylor, President and Founder; t

59.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (62)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 2511	consent (standard path) High 2002–2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511; GDPR Art. 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); NY GB
GDPR Art. 7	path) High 2002–2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511; GDPR Art. 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); NY GBL § 349 GTM-N
18 U.S.C. § 1030	y) Critical 2002–2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 18 U.S.C. § 1030; FTC § 45 j.src='/pycyckee/' first-part
GDPR Art. 5	2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511; CCPA § 1798.100; GDPR Art. 5 tenant 1726 loaded 5 RevenueCloudFX
47 U.S.C. § 605	m) Critical 2002–2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 47 U.S.C. § 605 phone/js/1726 bundle 6 RevenueCloudF
GDPR Art. 6	12798) High 2002–2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511; GDPR Art. 6 hs-analytics.net/9012798.js 9 Datado
GDPR Art. 25	ut (partial mask only) Medium 2002–2026 GDPR Art. 25; NIST PR-IP-1 partial masking leaves se
GDPR Art. 44	r) Critical 2002–2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511; GDPR Art. 44; CCPA § 1798.100 cognitoforms.com/s/…
18 U.S.C. § 1836	losure High 2002–2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030; 18 U.S.C. § 1836 5qxQGvj-qku_EH9MILpi3w 15 Cognito Fo
GDPR Art. 13	NDA point of collection High 2002–2026 GDPR Art. 13; CCPA § 1798.100; NY SHIELD § 899-bb no
15 U.S.C. § 6501	dling (COPPA) controls Medium 2002–2026 15 U.S.C. § 6501 et seq. (COPPA) no age gate 2.2
15 U.S.C. § 7001	out disclosure High 2002–2026 ESIGN Act 15 U.S.C. § 7001; NY SHIELD § 899-bb Cognito form signat
GDPR Art. 46	ntractual Clauses notice High 2021–2026 GDPR Art. 46 no SCC disclosure 88 Absence of Tran
GDPR Art. 28	ing agreement disclosure High 2002–2026 GDPR Art. 28; CCPA § 1798.100 no DPA reference 90
GDPR Art. 33	ion procedure disclosure High 2002–2026 GDPR Art. 33; NY SHIELD § 899-aa no breach notificat
Gen. Bus. Law § 349	s and practices Critical 2002–2026 N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349 (as amended by FAIR Business Practices
Gen. Bus. Law § 350	— False advertising High 2002–2026 N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 350 Advertising of "confidential" NDA flow
Gen. Bus. Law § 350-	advertising defined High 2002–2026 N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 350-a Misrepresentation of the confidentiali
Gen. Bus. Law § 899-	able safeguards Critical 2020–2026 N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 899-bb Failure to implement reasonable admin
19 NYCRR Part 175	r deployed third-party tracking. 112 19 NYCRR Part 175 — Broker advertising regulations High 2
19 NYCRR Part 176	e page maintained by a licensee. 113 19 NYCRR Part 176 — Website and internet advertising High
Gen. Bus. Law § 622	s opportunity sales High 2002–2026 N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 622 Disclosure obligations for business opp
Gen. Bus. Law § 460	. — Franchise sales High 2002–2026 N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 460 et seq. Franchise disclosure obligation
Admin Code § 20-700	commission handling applies. 119 NYC Admin Code § 20-700 et seq. — NYC consumer protection High
Admin. Code § 20-700	nsumer protection High 2002–2026 N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 20-700 et seq. Additional consumer protection
18 U.S.C. § 2701	ions Act — unauthorized access Critical 18 U.S.C. § 2701, § 2707 Unauthorized access to stored e
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)	3 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Critical 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C), (g) Exceeding authorized access to pro
18 U.S.C. § 1343	Wire Fraud — scheme to defraud Critical 18 U.S.C. § 1343 Scheme to defraud through undisclosed c
5 U.S.C. § 552	rivacy Act — disclosure of records High 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b), (e)(3) Disclosure of records witho
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	FTC Act — unfair or deceptive acts High 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) $50,120 per violation; injunctive relie
15 U.S.C. § 6801	127 GLBA — financial privacy Critical 15 U.S.C. § 6801 et seq. Non-public personal financial i
15 U.S.C. § 1681	128 FCRA — credit information Critical 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. Collection of credit rating wit
15 U.S.C. § 7701	rney's fees. 129 CAN-SPAM Act Medium 15 U.S.C. § 7701 If email transmissions from the NDA flo
47 U.S.C. § 227	ation. 130 TCPA — call tracking High 47 U.S.C. § 227 If RevenueCloudFX call tracking was use
18 U.S.C. § 1961	133 RICO — pattern of racketeering High 18 U.S.C. § 1961–1962 Pattern of wire fraud and CFAA vio
18 U.S.C. § 371	fees. 134 Wire fraud conspiracy High 18 U.S.C. § 371 Conspiracy between Synergy and Cognito,
18 U.S.C. § 1519	w. 135 Obstruction of justice Medium 18 U.S.C. § 1519 If any records related to this matter a
18 U.S.C. § 1001	stroyed. 136 False statements Medium 18 U.S.C. § 1001 False or misleading statements to feder
18 U.S.C. § 1028	vestigation. 137 Identity fraud High 18 U.S.C. § 1028 Unauthorized collection and use of pers
18 U.S.C. § 1029	mation. 138 Access device fraud High 18 U.S.C. § 1029 Unauthorized access to digital credenti
18 U.S.C. § 1372	amage to critical infrastructure Medium 18 U.S.C. § 1372 Compromise of communications infrastruc
18 U.S.C. § 1370	140 Damage to telecommunications Medium 18 U.S.C. § 1370 Interference with telecommunications an
18 U.S.C. § 1361	41 Damage to government property Medium 18 U.S.C. § 1361 If government systems were compromised
18 U.S.C. § 1362	42 Damage to communication lines Medium 18 U.S.C. § 1362 Interference with communication lines a
18 U.S.C. § 242	143 Under color of law — § 242 Medium 18 U.S.C. § 242 If any state-licensed actor acted under
18 U.S.C. § 241	Conspiracy against rights — § 241 High 18 U.S.C. § 241 Conspiracy to deprive victims of rights
GDPR Art. 32	148 GDPR — Security of processing High GDPR Art. 32 Failure to implement appropriate techni
Penal Code § 631(a)	00 per violation. • State (California Penal Code § 631(a)): Wiretapping — $10,000. • State (Cal
Penal Code § 502(c)(1)	apping — $10,000. • State (California Penal Code § 502(c)(1)): Unauthorized computer access — $5,000
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)	d up to $1,000, plus fees. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)): Wiretap Act — $10,000 per count, treb
County Code § 22	0; Cook County Ordinance Ch. 30; Harris County Code § 22; Maricopa County Ordinance § 15; San Di
County Code § 4.5	ricopa County Ordinance § 15; San Diego County Code § 4.5; Westchester County Code of Ethics § 88
29 U.S.C. § 794	7001 (ESIGN); 15 U.S.C. § 1681 (FCRA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981–1986, 12181; 47 U.S
50 U.S.C. § 1702	; 47 U.S.C. §§ 227, 301, 333, 605, 230; 50 U.S.C. § 1702. Military UCMJ Articles: Arts. 92, 93,
18 U.S.C. § 3571	s: 225,217,000. Criminal exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 3571: $112.6 billion. Civil exposure: $656.7
42 U.S.C. § 1985	ence. Count XXXI — Civil Conspiracy (42 U.S.C. § 1985). Count XXXII — Violation of 18 U.S.
42 U.S.C. § 12181	Common Article 3. Count XXXIX — ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12181) / Section 508. Damages Sought: St
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	U.S.C. § 1702 · 10 U.S.C. § 2304 · 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 · 47 U.S.C. § 230 · 17 C.F.R. § 2
47 U.S.C. § 230	S.C. § 2304 · 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 · 47 U.S.C. § 230 · 17 C.F.R. § 229.402 · N.J.S.A. §
17 C.F.R. § 229.402	.F.R. § 1.507-2 · 47 U.S.C. § 230 · 17 C.F.R. § 229.402 · N.J.S.A. § 54:10A-1 et seq. W

59.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (40)

59.4 Dollar Figures (36)

$1.97 · $50.00 · $65.10 · $100.00 · $112.60 · $401.93 · $500.00 · $656.74 · $1,000.00 · $2,500.00 · $4,000.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $250,000.00 · $875,277.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $2,914,803.00 · $52,516,620.00 · $3,150,997,200.00 · $6,509,160,000.00 · $75,623,932,800.00 · $529,367,529,600.00 · $2,301,993,571,392.00 · $6,905,980,714,176.00 · $13,811,961,428,352.00 · $27,623,922,856,704.00 · $65,674,393,166,838.00 · $156,240,038,034,750.00 · $401,927,340,181,047.00 · $656,743,931,668,377.00 · $1,970,231,795,005,131.00

59.5 Dates (2)

2002-01-01 · 2026-10-10

Section 60 of 261

Section 60 — Forensic Statistical Pattern Report — U.S. Real Estate & Mortgage Fraud Enforcement (1991–2025)

Source File	FORENSIC-0060-forensic-statistical-pattern-report-u-s-real-estate-amp-mort-f6491c5c.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-10-11 01:50:14
Size	82,334 bytes
SHA-256	f6491c5cf938b74c7c7afa0399e00164f6374f17005a35503004a3439faf0c5a

60.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

60.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (25)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. §1344	E.D. Va. (1991) — no published opinion 18 U.S.C. §1344; §1341 $500,000,000 Washington Post 2/1
18 U.S.C. §1001	Wallace W.D. Okla. (1991) — indictment 18 U.S.C. §1001; §1014 Undisclosed Oklahoman 8/25/1991
18 U.S.C. §1341	SEC v. Fisher D. Md. (1992) — 10 counts 18 U.S.C. §1341; §1343; 15 U.S.C. §78j(b) $8,000,000 Wa
15 U.S.C. §78	92) — 10 counts 18 U.S.C. §1341; §1343; 15 U.S.C. §78j(b) $8,000,000 Washington Post 5/23/199
Penal Code §487	Cty. Super. Ct. (1993) — 28 counts Cal. Penal Code §487; §484 $1,000,000 LA Times 3/13/1993
Fla. Stat. §817.03	3 State v. Punter Fla. 17th Cir. (1993) Fla. Stat. §817.03; §817.41 18 victims Sun-Sentinel 1/29/1
18 U.S.C. §1014	nited States v. Chorney 1st Cir. (1996) 18 U.S.C. §1014 Undisclosed 1st Cir. 1996 Era
18 U.S.C. §1343	.C. §1341 (Mail Fraud, up to 20 years); 18 U.S.C. §1343 (Wire Fraud, up to 20 years); 12 U.S.C.
12 U.S.C. §1709	.C. §1343 (Wire Fraud, up to 20 years); 12 U.S.C. §1709 (FHA insurance); FIRREA (Financial Inst
31 C.F.R. §103.18	6 SAR baseline established (April 1996) 31 C.F.R. §103.18 BSA/AML 2,992 SARs American Banker 3/31
Corp. Code §25401	al. Super. Ct. (1999) — settlement Cal. Corp. Code §25401; 15 U.S.C. §78j(b) $70,000,000 LA Times
12 U.S.C. §1715	(up to 5 years); 12 U.S.C. §1709 (FHA); 12 U.S.C. §1715z-1 (Section 203(k)); 31 C.F.R. §103.18
Rev. Code §19.86	o. WA DFI (2002) — administrative Wash. Rev. Code §19.86 Undisclosed WA DFI 8/28/2002 Q2 02 H
18 U.S.C. §371	r Stearns) E.D.N.Y. (2008) — indictment 18 U.S.C. §371; §1343; 15 U.S.C. §78j(b) Fund collapse
15 U.S.C. §77	§1028 (Identity Fraud, up to 15 years); 15 U.S.C. §77q(a) (Securities Act §17(a)); 15 U.S.C.
15 U.S.C. §45(a)	ze D. Md. (2018) — FTC action 11/7/2018 15 U.S.C. §45(a); §53(b) $100,000,000 FTC 11/7/2018 Q
18 U.S.C. §1956	341; §1343; §371; §1001; §1042; §1028A; 18 U.S.C. §1956; Cal. Penal Code §487; §484; §182; N.Y.
15 U.S.C. §53(b)	plied: 15 U.S.C. §45(a) (2018 version); 15 U.S.C. §53(b) (2018 version). United States v.
15 U.S.C. §6801	privacy protections (GLBA Privacy Rule, 15 U.S.C. §6801). Lobbying context: The financial ser
22 U.S.C. § 2295	Y. BCL § 615 · N.J.S.A. § 14A:5-6 · 22 U.S.C. § 2295a · 50 U.S.C. § 1702 · 10 U.S.C. § 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	.A. § 14A:5-6 · 22 U.S.C. § 2295a · 50 U.S.C. § 1702 · 10 U.S.C. § 2304 · 26 C.F.R. § 1.
10 U.S.C. § 2304	U.S.C. § 2295a · 50 U.S.C. § 1702 · 10 U.S.C. § 2304 · 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 · 47 U.S.C. §
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	U.S.C. § 1702 · 10 U.S.C. § 2304 · 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 · 47 U.S.C. § 230 · 17 C.F.R. § 2
47 U.S.C. § 230	S.C. § 2304 · 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 · 47 U.S.C. § 230 · 17 C.F.R. § 229.402 We Author
17 C.F.R. § 229.402	.F.R. § 1.507-2 · 47 U.S.C. § 230 · 17 C.F.R. § 229.402 We Authorize This Release. \|

60.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (3)

Header	Source excerpt
Count Liability Formula	ethodology — Formulas Applied 2.1 Per-Count Liability Formula C = E × N × T (Total Count) E
count indictment 18 U.S.C. §1344; §1341; §371 Undisclosed FBI 6/26/2015	resno defendants] E.D. Cal. (2015) — 15-count indictment 18 U.S.C. §1344; §1341; §371 Undisclosed FBI 6/26/2015 Q4 15 United States v. Austin-Wilks (
count indictment	nding — E.D.N.Y. 51 USDOJ Hill — 181-count indictment 52 DOJ Chicago 40+ defendants 53 H

60.4 Dollar Figures (73)

$1.00 · $1.30 · $1.40 · $1.70 · $2.47 · $9.00 · $13.00 · $20.00 · $41.00 · $47.30 · $60.00 · $92.00 · $100.00 · $200.00 · $300.00 · $500.00 · $800.00 · $10,000.00 · $200,000.00 · $220,000.00 · $349,000.00 · $351,000.00 · $400,000.00 · $550,000.00 · $725,000.00 · $800,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $1,200,000.00 · $1,400,000.00 · $1,500,000.00 · $1,700,000.00 · $1,800,000.00 · $2,000,000.00 · $2,500,000.00 · $3,000,000.00 · $3,600,000.00 · $3,800,000.00 · $5,000,000.00 · $7,000,000.00 · $8,000,000.00 · $9,000,000.00 · $9,200,000.00 · $10,000,000.00 · $11,000,000.00 · $13,000,000.00 · $16,000,000.00 · $20,000,000.00 · $30,000,000.00 · $41,000,000.00 · $47,000,000.00 · $50,000,000.00 · $55,000,000.00 · $60,000,000.00 · $70,000,000.00 · $72,550,000.00 · $92,000,000.00 · $92,689,477.00 · $98,000,000.00 · $100,000,000.00 · $110,000,000.00 · $163,700,000.00 · $165,000,000.00 · $200,000,000.00 · $303,300,000.00 · $312,200,000.00 · $332,889,477.00 · $500,000,000.00 · $566,700,000.00 · $718,000,000.00 · $1,000,000,000.00 · $2,469,339,477.00 · $60,000,000,000.00 · $1,700,000,000,000.00

60.5 Dates (53)

2000-12-29 · 2001-08-01 · 2001-10-26 · 2002-07-12 · 2002-08-28 · 2003-11-17 · 2004-06-08 · 2007-07-11 · 2008-01-17 · 2009-02-20 · 2009-05-28 · 2009-06-11 · 2010-03-26 · 2010-07-21 · 2010-08-10 · 2011-01-12 · 2011-02-09 · 2011-02-25 · 2012-06-15 · 2012-06-25 · 2012-08-31 · 2012-09-21 · 2013-05-21 · 2014-12-16 · 2014-12-17 · 2015-02-22 · 2015-03-12 · 2015-05-13 · 2015-06-26 · 2015-07-22 · 2015-08-24 · 2016-06-16 · 2018-09-25 · 2018-11-07 · 2018-11-20 · 2018-12-04 · 2019-03-29 · 2019-07-10 · 2021-06-10 · 2024-05-08 · 2024-11-13 · 2024-11-15 · 2024-11-26 · 2025-01-14 · 2025-01-17 · 2025-09-08 · 2025-09-10 · 2025-09-25 · 2025-11-07 · 2025-12-31 · 2026-03-07 · 2026-04-29 · 2026-10-10

Section 61 of 261

Section 61 — Forensic Statistical Pattern Report — Too Big to Fail: Bailout vs. Fraud Loss Disparity (1991–2026)

Source File	FORENSIC-0061-forensic-statistical-pattern-report-too-big-to-fail-bailout–a159857e.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-10-11 02:05:27
Size	36,534 bytes
SHA-256	a159857e1bf4d3ae2ec1669de5edb8dc0eaf765def1f9cafb4858e6c22de5b6f

61.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

61.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (7)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 1343	ion) penalty = $1,000,000 per count (18 U.S.C. § 1343) P_penalty = 0.000144 × $1,000,000 =
22 U.S.C. § 2295	Y. BCL § 615 · N.J.S.A. § 14A:5-6 · 22 U.S.C. § 2295a · 50 U.S.C. § 1702 · 10 U.S.C. § 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	.A. § 14A:5-6 · 22 U.S.C. § 2295a · 50 U.S.C. § 1702 · 10 U.S.C. § 2304 · 26 C.F.R. § 1.
10 U.S.C. § 2304	U.S.C. § 2295a · 50 U.S.C. § 1702 · 10 U.S.C. § 2304 · 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 · 47 U.S.C. §
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	U.S.C. § 1702 · 10 U.S.C. § 2304 · 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 · 47 U.S.C. § 230 · 17 C.F.R. § 2
47 U.S.C. § 230	S.C. § 2304 · 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 · 47 U.S.C. § 230 · 17 C.F.R. § 229.402 We Author
17 C.F.R. § 229.402	.F.R. § 1.507-2 · 47 U.S.C. § 230 · 17 C.F.R. § 229.402 We Authorize This Release. \|

61.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

61.4 Dollar Figures (59)

$1.00 · $1.40 · $1.50 · $2.47 · $2.80 · $7.77 · $7.80 · $10.00 · $10.80 · $12.59 · $13.00 · $16.30 · $21.70 · $30.30 · $31.10 · $40.00 · $76.80 · $144.00 · $187.00 · $187.50 · $202.50 · $300.00 · $443.50 · $500.00 · $700.00 · $3,146.60 · $1,000,000.00 · $2,100,000,000.00 · $2,469,339,477.00 · $13,000,000,000.00 · $14,200,000,000.00 · $16,300,000,000.00 · $31,100,000,000.00 · $71,000,000,000.00 · $112,500,000,000.00 · $116,000,000,000.00 · $187,500,000,000.00 · $193,000,000,000.00 · $204,900,000,000.00 · $300,000,000,000.00 · $443,500,000,000.00 · $475,000,000,000.00 · $500,000,000,000.00 · $700,000,000,000.00 · $710,000,000,000.00 · $1,200,000,000,000.00 · $1,201,000,000,000.00 · $1,400,000,000,000.00 · $1,500,000,000,000.00 · $7,770,000,000,000.00 · $10,000,000,000,000.00 · $10,800,000,000,000.00 · $19,600,000,000,000.00 · $26,900,000,000,000.00 · $30,305,316,210,830.00 · $35,500,000,000,000.00 · $40,249,104,431,078.00 · $40,305,316,210,830.00 · $41,000,000,000,000.00

61.5 Dates (11)

2008-08-22 · 2009-09-10 · 2010-09-21 · 2011-11-28 · 2011-12-06 · 2016-09-15 · 2024-05-16 · 2025-06-17 · 2026-10-05 · 2026-10-06 · 2026-10-10

Section 62 of 261

Section 62 — Forensic Audit Report — Consentmanager CMP + OLA Ad Injection Page — LDT-FAR-2026-1002-CONSENTMANAGER-OLA

Source File	FORENSIC-0062-forensic-audit-report-consentmanager-cmp-ola-ad-injection-pa-9de848dc.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-10-02 13:09:09
Size	62,115 bytes
SHA-256	9de848dc4055f61dbe4081fd5f926bfdfad6043d66e21145fb1b795e6d36cffe

62.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected natural persons	Counts — Draft for Federal Complaint Plaintiffs: All affected natural persons whose data was transmitted, aggregated, or exposed by the audited page (Class Acti
defendant	Consentmanager AB	the page in the observed configuration. Defendants: Consentmanager AB, OLA / cdn-fileserver.com operator, strongroc

62.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (37)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 2511	://l.cdn-fileserver.com/bping.php?r=…"> 18 U.S.C. § 2511; GDPR Art. 6; ePrivacy Art. 5(3) V-0
GDPR Art. 6	r.com/bping.php?r=…"> 18 U.S.C. § 2511; GDPR Art. 6; ePrivacy Art. 5(3) V-02 US State Re
Civ. Code § 1798.100	Consent High sc=VA query parameter Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100; VCDPA; GDPR Art. 6 V-03 ASN Leak (v
GDPR Art. 5	ISP High vgd_asn=30633 query parameter GDPR Art. 5; Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 V-04 Obfu
18 U.S.C. § 1030	-lookalike) High ssld=%7B%22QQNN%22…%7D 18 U.S.C. § 1030; GDPR Art. 32 V-05 Hidden Iframe Inj
GDPR Art. 32	sld=%7B%22QQNN%22…%7D 18 U.S.C. § 1030; GDPR Art. 32 V-05 Hidden Iframe Injection Chain t
18 U.S.C. § 1343	870121/SAFEFRAME.html 18 U.S.C. § 1030; 18 U.S.C. § 1343 V-06 Automatic Redirect to strongroc
15 U.S.C. § 45	googleAdSense MediumRectangleAdPanel … 15 U.S.C. § 45; GDPR Art. 5 V-09 Beacon Fired on Ad
GDPR Art. 7	very/cmp.php?id=…"> ePrivacy Art. 5(3); GDPR Art. 7 V-11 cmp_id=0 Default (Unconfigured
GDPR Art. 3	) Med window.gdprAppliesGlobally = true GDPR Art. 3; ePrivacy Art. 5(3) V-13 Dynamic Scr
47 U.S.C. § 605	parentElement.appendChild(j) NIST SI-7; 47 U.S.C. § 605 V-14 Hidden iframe "cmp_ultrablockin
Civ. Code § 1798.150	cmp_rc(h) { … document.cookie … } Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150; GDPR Art. 5 V-16 USP API Stub Retur
18 U.S.C. § 1028	hvsid=00001790946139998034888926722129 18 U.S.C. § 1028; GDPR Art. 5 V-23 Beacon Contains Vi
Civ. Code § 1798.140	i=1790946139653498760 GDPR Art. 5; Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.140 V-24 Beacon Contains Campaign/Creati
County Code § 22	0; Cook County Ordinance Ch. 30; Harris County Code § 22; Maricopa County Ordinance § 15; San Di
County Code § 4.5	ricopa County Ordinance § 15; San Diego County Code § 4.5. • State: Cal. Penal Code § 502; Cal.
Penal Code § 502	iego County Code § 4.5. • State: Cal. Penal Code § 502; Cal. Penal Code § 631; Cal. Penal Code
Penal Code § 631	• State: Cal. Penal Code § 502; Cal. Penal Code § 631; Cal. Penal Code § 632; Cal. Penal Code
Penal Code § 632	Code § 502; Cal. Penal Code § 631; Cal. Penal Code § 632; Cal. Penal Code § 637.2; Cal. Civ. Cod
Penal Code § 637.2	Code § 631; Cal. Penal Code § 632; Cal. Penal Code § 637.2; Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.; N.Y
Penal Code § 33.02	; N.Y. Penal Law §§ 156.00–156.55; Tex. Penal Code § 33.02; Fla. Stat. §§ 815.01–815.07; Va. Code
Va. Code § 59.1-575	e § 33.02; Fla. Stat. §§ 815.01–815.07; Va. Code § 59.1-575 et seq. • Federal: 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (
18 U.S.C. § 1341	§ 1030; 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud); 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (Mail Fraud pattern); 15 U.S.C. § 45.
Prof. Code § 17200	jacent behavioral profile); Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. • Tort: Invasion of privacy. • Inte
Civ. Code § 1798.135	§ 45; 18 U.S.C. § 1030. • State: Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.135. • International: ePrivacy Art. 5(3);
Va. Code § 59.1-582	8.135 (CCPA opt-out link requirements); Va. Code § 59.1-582; Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-1306; Conn. Gen
Rev. Stat. § 6-1-1306	quirements); Va. Code § 59.1-582; Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-1306; Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-519. • Tort: D
Gen. Stat. § 42-519	582; Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-1306; Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-519. • Tort: Deceptive trade practices; mi
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)	thout a policy boundary. • Federal: 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5); NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SI-7. • State:
Civ. Code § 1798.81.5	SP 800-53 Rev. 5 SI-7. • State: Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.81.5. • Tort: Negligent security.
Rev. Stat. § 6-1-1301	ages per consumer. Count XIII — Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-1301 et seq. (CPA): Statutory damages per co
Gen. Stat. § 42-515	mages per consumer. Count XIV — Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-515 et seq. (CTDPA): Statutory damages per
42 U.S.C. § 1983	erved for federal actors. Count XIX — 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Reserved for state actors. Count XX
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2,
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2, and Title 47, Tel
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	5a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2, and Title 47, Telecommunications § 2

62.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (23)

62.4 Dollar Figures (19)

$100.00 · $750.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $110,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $398,942,908.00 · $23,936,574,480.00 · $1,436,194,468,800.00 · $34,468,667,251,200.00 · $241,280,670,758,400.00 · $1,049,198,673,468,000.00 · $3,147,596,020,404,000.00 · $6,295,192,040,808,000.00 · $7,264,882,214,400,000.00 · $12,590,384,081,616,000.00

62.5 Dates (1)

2026-10-02

Section 63 of 261

Section 63 — Forensic Audit Report — Invest in Türkiye (invest.gov.tr) — Ladco Defense Technologies

Source File	FORENSIC-0063-forensic-audit-report-invest-in-türkiye-invest-gov-tr-ladco–5d0c9d2d.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-10-07 07:01:18
Size	70,017 bytes
SHA-256	5d0c9d2d915e87643e5c20e478a712d1a9f8e1b3e0507bf1e4e9da82025eb41c

63.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	ict of New York (SDNY) — Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (nationwide and international Class Acti
defendant	Republic	s for Turkish, EU, and US residents). Defendants: Republic of Türkiye Investment Office; Presidency of

63.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (31)

Citation	Source excerpt
GDPR Art. 7	efore consent 2020–2026 · KVKK Art. 5; GDPR Art. 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3) · Head script lines
18 U.S.C. § 2511	GTM noscript iframe beacon 2020–2026 · 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 47 U.S.C. § 605 · <noscript> GTM ifram
47 U.S.C. § 605	e beacon 2020–2026 · 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 47 U.S.C. § 605 · <noscript> GTM iframe V3 High Googl
GDPR Art. 44	party chatbot widget 2020–2026 · KVKK; GDPR Art. 44; ePrivacy · cbot-widget-script V5 Med
18 U.S.C. § 1030	nt _spPageContextInfo leak 2020–2026 · 18 U.S.C. § 1030; § 1836; KVKK Art. 12 · _spPageContextI
5 U.S.C. § 552	ust-in-time privacy notice 2020–2026 · 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3); GDPR Art. 13; KVKK Art. 10 · Wh
GDPR Art. 13	ice 2020–2026 · 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3); GDPR Art. 13; KVKK Art. 10 · Whole document V15 Me
GDPR Art. 28	ent disclosure for cbot.ai 2020–2026 · GDPR Art. 28; KVKK Art. 9 · cbot widget V29 Medium
Penal Code § 631(a)	00 per violation. • State (California Penal Code § 631(a)): Wiretapping — each transmission an in
Penal Code § 502(c)(1)	10,000 per count. • State (California Penal Code § 502(c)(1)): Unauthorized computer access — $5,000
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)	devices — Class E felony. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)): Wiretap Act — $10,000 per count, treb
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)	10,000 per count, trebled. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)): CFAA — $5,000 per count, trebled. •
18 U.S.C. § 1343	$5,000 per count, trebled. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Wire Fraud — $1,000,000 per count, 20
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	b)): Privacy Act — $5,000. • Federal (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): FTC — $50,120. • Federal (47 U.S.C.
GDPR Art. 5	: Joint and several. • International (GDPR Art. 5(1)(a), 6(1)): €250,000 per violation.
18 U.S.C. § 1836	7451",…} 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C); 18 U.S.C. § 1836 (DTSA); NIST SP 800-53 CM-7; KVKK Art.
GDPR Art. 32	SA); NIST SP 800-53 CM-7; KVKK Art. 12; GDPR Art. 32 — $5,000 per count + treble. Vi
County Code § 22	0; Cook County Ordinance Ch. 30; Harris County Code § 22; Maricopa County Ordinance § 15; San Di
County Code § 4.5	ricopa County Ordinance § 15; San Diego County Code § 4.5. State Penal Codes: Cal. Penal Code §§
15 U.S.C. § 45	1362, 1370–1372, 1836; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 15 U.S.C. § 45, § 6801, § 7701; 29 U.S.C. § 794d; 42 U
29 U.S.C. § 794	§ 552a; 15 U.S.C. § 45, § 6801, § 7701; 29 U.S.C. § 794d; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981–1986, § 12181; 47 U
50 U.S.C. § 1702	12181; 47 U.S.C. §§ 301, 333, 605, 230; 50 U.S.C. § 1702. Military UCMJ Articles: Arts. 92, 93,
18 U.S.C. § 3571	= 237,121,920. Criminal exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 3571: $118.6 billion. Juridical Person
Civ. Code § 1798.100	(3) notice. Count V — CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Failure to provide notice, op
42 U.S.C. § 1985	gence. Count XVI — Civil Conspiracy (42 U.S.C. § 1985). Count XVII — Violation of 18 U.S.C
18 U.S.C. § 1372	. § 1985). Count XVII — Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1372 (critical infrastructure). Count XVI
42 U.S.C. § 12181	t. 18. Count XIX — Violation of ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12181) / Section 508. Damages Sought: (a
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and
42 U.S.C. § 1983	2a · 15 U.S.C. § 45 · 47 U.S.C. § 605 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 · 42 U.S.C. § 1985 · 22 U.S.C. § 2295a
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	· 50 U.S.C. § 1702 · 10 U.S.C. § 2304 · 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 · Turkish KVKK Law No. 6698 · Turkish

63.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (19)

63.4 Dollar Figures (111)

$1.00 · $1.02 · $1.21 · $1.30 · $1.39 · $1.53 · $1.67 · $1.77 · $1.83 · $2.13 · $2.16 · $2.20 · $2.78 · $2.99 · $3.06 · $3.17 · $3.33 · $3.52 · $3.57 · $3.89 · $4.56 · $5.57 · $6.12 · $6.33 · $7.78 · $8.49 · $8.99 · $9.12 · $9.26 · $9.40 · $10.58 · $11.28 · $11.64 · $12.67 · $12.86 · $14.03 · $15.00 · $15.24 · $15.56 · $16.76 · $19.00 · $22.56 · $27.77 · $28.19 · $29.56 · $29.60 · $30.00 · $31.92 · $36.91 · $37.69 · $41.46 · $42.57 · $50.00 · $50.51 · $52.80 · $55.00 · $55.55 · $56.38 · $59.30 · $63.85 · $105.28 · $105.60 · $106.67 · $110.73 · $111.10 · $112.76 · $117.31 · $118.60 · $138.90 · $140.00 · $176.40 · $190.00 · $194.00 · $211.10 · $214.30 · $221.47 · $277.80 · $297.96 · $304.00 · $308.60 · $380.10 · $416.70 · $442.94 · $464.10 · $492.70 · $510.40 · $634.90 · $698.30 · $751.84 · $762.92 · $833.40 · $841.90 · $988.00 · $1,000.00 · $2,500.00 · $2,997.69 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $25,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $75,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $98,800,800,000.00 · $299,768,977,969,485.00 · $1,385,528,884,341,760.00 · $1,835,586,144,192,826.00 · $2,997,689,779,694,848.00 · $8,993,069,339,084,544.00

63.5 Dates (1)

2020-01-01

Section 64 of 261

Section 64 — Forensic Audit Report – Invest in Türkiye (invest.gov.tr)

Source File	FORENSIC-0064-forensic-audit-report-invest-in-türkiye-invest-gov-tr-45e68ad0.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-10-07 06:39:43
Size	66,572 bytes
SHA-256	45e68ad08bac080f4fd4a4a05e2e29d06e3ae1cf67d114631de3ea3b3835bc72

64.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	ict of New York (SDNY) — Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (nationwide and international Class Acti
defendant	Republic	s for Turkish, EU, and US residents). Defendants: Republic of Türkiye Investment Office; Presidency of

64.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (30)

Citation	Source excerpt
GDPR Art. 7	ore consent High 2020–2026 KVKK Art. 5; GDPR Art. 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3) Head script lines 1
18 U.S.C. § 2511	M noscript iframe beacon High 2020–2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 47 U.S.C. § 605 <noscript> GTM iframe
47 U.S.C. § 605	beacon High 2020–2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 47 U.S.C. § 605 <noscript> GTM iframe 3 Google Ads g
GDPR Art. 44	rty chatbot widget High 2020–2026 KVKK; GDPR Art. 44; ePrivacy cbot-widget-script 5 Googl
18 U.S.C. § 1030	eb IDs, tenant data) Critical 2020–2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030; § 1836; KVKK Art. 12 _spPageContextInf
5 U.S.C. § 552	t-in-time privacy notice High 2020–2026 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3); GDPR Art. 13; KVKK Art. 10 Whol
GDPR Art. 13	e High 2020–2026 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3); GDPR Art. 13; KVKK Art. 10 Whole document 15 Thir
GDPR Art. 28	t disclosure for cbot.ai High 2020–2026 GDPR Art. 28; KVKK Art. 9 cbot widget 29 InvestCo
Penal Code § 631(a)	00 per violation. • State (California Penal Code § 631(a)): Wiretapping — each transmission an in
Penal Code § 502(c)(1)	10,000 per count. • State (California Penal Code § 502(c)(1)): Unauthorized computer access — $5,000
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)	devices — Class E felony. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)): Wiretap Act — $10,000 per count, treb
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)	10,000 per count, trebled. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)): CFAA — $5,000 per count, trebled. •
18 U.S.C. § 1343	$5,000 per count, trebled. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Wire Fraud — $1,000,000 per count, 20
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	b)): Privacy Act — $5,000. • Federal (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): FTC — $50,120. • Federal (47 U.S.C.
GDPR Art. 5	: Joint and several. • International (GDPR Art. 5(1)(a), 6(1)): €250,000 per violation.
18 U.S.C. § 1836	7451",…} 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C); 18 U.S.C. § 1836 (DTSA); NIST SP 800-53 CM-7 (least func
GDPR Art. 32	-7 (least functionality); KVKK Art. 12; GDPR Art. 32 — $5,000 per count + treble. Vi
County Code § 22	0; Cook County Ordinance Ch. 30; Harris County Code § 22; Maricopa County Ordinance § 15; San Di
County Code § 4.5	ricopa County Ordinance § 15; San Diego County Code § 4.5 — for US-visitor exposures. State Pen
15 U.S.C. § 45	1362, 1370–1372, 1836; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 15 U.S.C. § 45, § 6801, § 7701; 29 U.S.C. § 794d; 42 U
29 U.S.C. § 794	§ 552a; 15 U.S.C. § 45, § 6801, § 7701; 29 U.S.C. § 794d; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981–1986, § 12181; 47 U
50 U.S.C. § 1702	12181; 47 U.S.C. §§ 301, 333, 605, 230; 50 U.S.C. § 1702. Military UCMJ Articles: Arts. 92, 93,
18 U.S.C. § 3571	= 237,121,920. Criminal exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 3571: $118.6 billion. Civil exposure joint a
Civ. Code § 1798.100	(3) notice. Count V — CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Failure to provide notice, op
42 U.S.C. § 1985	gence. Count XVI — Civil Conspiracy (42 U.S.C. § 1985). Count XVII — Violation of 18 U.S.C
18 U.S.C. § 1372	. § 1985). Count XVII — Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1372 (critical infrastructure). Count XVI
42 U.S.C. § 12181	t. 18. Count XIX — Violation of ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12181) / Section 508. Damages Sought: (a
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	& 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304 & 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 & Title 47, Telecommunications § 230

64.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (19)

64.4 Dollar Figures (109)

$1.83 · $2.20 · $2.99 · $8.99 · $16.00 · $19.00 · $29.60 · $59.30 · $118.60 · $988.00 · $1,000.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $15,000.00 · $25,000.00 · $30,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $52,785.00 · $55,120.00 · $75,000.00 · $105,570.00 · $110,000.00 · $140,000.00 · $176,372.00 · $193,958.00 · $492,660.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $1,015,000.00 · $3,167,100.00 · $3,519,000.00 · $3,571,785.00 · $6,334,200.00 · $10,582,320.00 · $11,637,520.00 · $14,031,182.00 · $29,559,600.00 · $190,026,000.00 · $211,140,000.00 · $214,307,100.00 · $380,052,000.00 · $634,939,200.00 · $698,251,200.00 · $841,871,000.00 · $1,773,576,000.00 · $4,560,624,000.00 · $9,121,248,000.00 · $12,668,400,000.00 · $12,858,426,000.00 · $15,238,540,800.00 · $16,758,028,800.00 · $31,924,368,000.00 · $42,565,824,000.00 · $50,512,260,000.00 · $63,848,736,000.00 · $98,800,800,000.00 · $106,669,785,600.00 · $117,306,201,600.00 · $138,891,689,760.00 · $277,783,379,520.00 · $297,960,768,000.00 · $304,041,600,000.00 · $308,602,224,000.00 · $416,675,069,280.00 · $464,070,027,072.00 · $510,385,067,904.00 · $833,350,138,560.00 · $1,212,294,240,000.00 · $1,296,323,971,200.00 · $1,392,210,081,216.00 · $1,531,155,203,712.00 · $1,666,700,277,120.00 · $2,128,291,200,000.00 · $2,160,215,568,000.00 · $2,784,420,162,432.00 · $3,062,310,407,424.00 · $3,333,400,554,240.00 · $3,888,971,913,600.00 · $5,568,840,324,864.00 · $6,124,620,814,848.00 · $7,777,943,827,200.00 · $8,486,059,680,000.00 · $9,258,028,608,000.00 · $9,396,899,036,000.00 · $11,280,121,274,009.00 · $15,555,887,654,400.00 · $22,560,242,548,018.00 · $27,774,085,824,000.00 · $28,190,697,108,000.00 · $36,911,527,541,504.00 · $37,692,918,302,899.00 · $41,456,278,272,061.00 · $55,548,171,648,000.00 · $56,381,394,216,000.00 · $105,281,131,890,752.00 · $110,734,582,624,512.00 · $111,096,343,296,000.00 · $112,762,788,432,000.00 · $221,469,165,249,024.00 · $299,768,977,969,485.00 · $442,938,330,498,048.00 · $751,836,652,818,240.00 · $762,918,497,423,280.00 · $1,385,528,884,341,760.00 · $1,835,586,144,192,826.00 · $2,997,689,779,694,848.00 · $8,993,069,339,084,544.00

64.5 Dates (1)

2020-01-01

Section 65 of 261

Section 65 — Forensic Pattern Analysis Report — Hülya Büyükyürür — Ladco Defense Technologies

Source File	FORENSIC-0065-forensic-pattern-analysis-report-hülya-büyükyürür-ladco-defe-0e6d9a7e.html
Created	October 7, 2026
Modified	2026-10-07 07:22:53
Size	32,723 bytes
SHA-256	0e6d9a7efdd2163b75ffe063aef1c8a951d86be5d992d6ea8de904cf3381e859

65.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

65.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (0)

Citation	Source excerpt
no statutes extracted

65.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

65.4 Dollar Figures (0)

—

65.5 Dates (1)

2026-10-07

Section 66 of 261

Section 66 — Forensic Audit Report – Amara Properties (amaraproperties.com)

Source File	FORENSIC-0066-forensic-audit-report-amara-properties-amaraproperties-com-3c803d0d.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-10-05 22:29:45
Size	80,443 bytes
SHA-256	3c803d0daa357d87dc77b9e040525c8907bf65ce3c15f57bb965398d87636ab2

66.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	ict of New York (EDNY) — Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (nationwide and international Class Acti
defendant	Amara Properties	, Turkish, and California residents). Defendants: Amara Properties (Turkish LLC); the Chief Executive Offic

66.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (33)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 2511	e consent (GTM-PTS4CZVQ) High 2020–2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511; GDPR Art. 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3) Head s
GDPR Art. 7	4CZVQ) High 2020–2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511; GDPR Art. 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3) Head script 2 Go
47 U.S.C. § 605	beacon High 2020–2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 47 U.S.C. § 605 noscript block 6 Meta Pixel #2 init
GDPR Art. 6	reCAPTCHA script load Medium 2020–2026 GDPR Art. 6; ePrivacy Art. 5(3) api.js load 9 in
GDPR Art. 44	embed High 2020–2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511; GDPR Art. 44 iframe src b24-gi7ccg.bitrix24.site
18 U.S.C. § 1030	atform fingerprinting) Medium 2020–2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030; FTC § 45 powered by rexa ® 19 Email
GDPR Art. 32	rties.com) High 2020–2026 KVKK Art. 12; GDPR Art. 32 footer mailto 20 Business phone expo
GDPR Art. 13	cy policy link in footer High 2020–2026 GDPR Art. 13; CCPA § 1798.130 Footer empty legal-pol
5 U.S.C. § 552	e data-processing notice High 2020–2026 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3); GDPR Art. 13 Whole document
42 U.S.C. § 12181	ility bypass risk) Medium 2020–2026 ADA 42 U.S.C. § 12181; § 508 body.dark-mode rule 28 Captch
Penal Code § 631(a)	00 per violation. • State (California Penal Code § 631(a)): Wiretapping — each transmission is an
Penal Code § 502(c)(1)	00 per violation. • State (California Penal Code § 502(c)(1)): Unauthorized computer access — penalt
Penal Code § 33.02	vices — Class E felony. • State (Tex. Penal Code § 33.02): Breach of computer security — penalty
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)	urity — penalty per count. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)): Wiretap Act — $10,000 per count, treb
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)	10,000 per count, trebled. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)): CFAA — $5,000 per count, trebled. •
18 U.S.C. § 1343	$5,000 per count, trebled. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Wire Fraud — $1,000,000 per count, 20
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	ct — $5,000 per violation. • Federal (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): FTC unfair/deceptive practices — $50,
GDPR Art. 5	, joint and several. • International (GDPR Art. 5(1)(a), 6(1)): Lawfulness — €250,000 per
15 U.S.C. § 7701	KVKK Art. 12; GDPR Art. 32; CAN-SPAM (15 U.S.C. § 7701). Violation #20 — Business phon
47 U.S.C. § 227	x"> KVKK Art. 12; GDPR Art. 32; TCPA (47 U.S.C. § 227). Violation #21 — Physical addr
29 U.S.C. § 794	} ADA 42 U.S.C. § 12181; Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d) — $75,000 per violation. Viol
County Code § 22	0; Cook County Ordinance Ch. 30; Harris County Code § 22; Maricopa County Ordinance § 15; San Di
County Code § 4.5	ricopa County Ordinance § 15; San Diego County Code § 4.5 — each count triggers jurisdiction-spec
15 U.S.C. § 45	497, 1498, 1499, 1500; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 15 U.S.C. § 45, § 6801, § 7701; 29 U.S.C. § 794d; 42 U
50 U.S.C. § 1702	12181; 47 U.S.C. §§ 301, 333, 605, 230; 50 U.S.C. § 1702. Military UCMJ Articles: Arts. 92, 93,
18 U.S.C. § 3571	ts: 37,027,350. Criminal exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 3571 equivalent and Turkish Penal Code; civi
Civ. Code § 1798.100	nt V — Violation of the CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Failure to provide notice, op
Gen. Bus. Law § 899-	— Violation of the NY SHIELD Act (N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 899-bb): Failure to implement reasonable saf
42 U.S.C. § 1985	ence. Count XVII — Civil Conspiracy (42 U.S.C. § 1985): All defendants acted in concert. Co
18 U.S.C. § 1372	n concert. Count XVIII — Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1372 (critical infrastructure). Count XIX
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	& 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304 & 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 & Title 47, Telecommunications § 230

66.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (20)

66.4 Dollar Figures (114)

$15.90 · $34.63 · $43.70 · $61.70 · $62.67 · $188.01 · $678.70 · $868.00 · $1,000.00 · $2,500.00 · $2,604.00 · $5,000.00 · $5,208.00 · $7,500.00 · $8,702.00 · $9,569.00 · $10,000.00 · $13,021.00 · $15,000.00 · $24,306.00 · $25,000.00 · $30,000.00 · $45,746.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $52,083.00 · $55,120.00 · $75,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $140,000.00 · $156,250.00 · $263,500.00 · $293,847.00 · $312,500.00 · $522,083.00 · $574,167.00 · $781,250.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $1,458,333.00 · $2,744,792.00 · $3,125,000.00 · $9,375,000.00 · $17,630,833.00 · $18,750,000.00 · $31,325,000.00 · $34,450,000.00 · $46,875,000.00 · $75,000,000.00 · $87,500,000.00 · $164,687,500.00 · $225,000,000.00 · $450,000,000.00 · $525,000,000.00 · $751,800,000.00 · $826,800,000.00 · $1,057,850,000.00 · $1,125,000,000.00 · $1,575,000,000.00 · $2,100,000,000.00 · $2,283,000,000.00 · $3,150,000,000.00 · $3,952,500,000.00 · $5,262,600,000.00 · $5,787,600,000.00 · $6,171,225,000.00 · $6,849,000,000.00 · $7,875,000,000.00 · $13,698,000,000.00 · $14,700,000,000.00 · $20,547,000,000.00 · $22,885,032,000.00 · $25,165,512,000.00 · $25,388,400,000.00 · $27,396,000,000.00 · $27,667,500,000.00 · $34,245,000,000.00 · $41,094,000,000.00 · $63,924,000,000.00 · $68,655,096,000.00 · $75,496,536,000.00 · $82,188,000,000.00 · $102,735,000,000.00 · $120,304,050,000.00 · $137,310,192,000.00 · $150,993,072,000.00 · $164,376,000,000.00 · $177,718,800,000.00 · $185,197,040,000.00 · $191,772,000,000.00 · $205,470,000,000.00 · $274,620,384,000.00 · $301,986,144,000.00 · $360,912,150,000.00 · $383,544,000,000.00 · $410,940,000,000.00 · $555,591,120,000.00 · $721,824,300,000.00 · $767,088,000,000.00 · $772,608,189,000.00 · $1,111,182,240,000.00 · $1,443,648,600,000.00 · $1,856,565,644,160.00 · $2,041,522,053,760.00 · $2,317,824,567,000.00 · $2,777,954,400,000.00 · $4,635,649,134,000.00 · $5,185,516,800,000.00 · $6,267,067,838,128.00 · $9,271,298,268,000.00 · $9,759,864,036,000.00 · $26,367,319,582,197.00 · $34,628,059,833,957.00 · $62,670,678,381,280.00 · $188,012,035,143,840.00

66.5 Dates (1)

2020-01-01

Section 67 of 261

Section 67 — Forensic Audit Log Record — Document Inventory — Ladco Defense Technologies

Source File	FORENSIC-0067-forensic-audit-log-record-document-inventory-ladco-defense-t-65f9b06a.html
Created	October 7, 2026
Modified	2026-10-07 07:28:31
Size	25,371 bytes
SHA-256	65f9b06a1f5006241a2f4b6c6b4667c2b9c0a4af98b2afcc407bbd5621bbab1c

67.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

67.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (0)

Citation	Source excerpt
no statutes extracted

67.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

67.4 Dollar Figures (0)

—

67.5 Dates (2)

2026-10-05 · 2026-10-07

Section 68 of 261

Section 68 — Forensic Audit Report – Hepsiemlak Listing 168466-23

Source File	FORENSIC-0068-forensic-audit-report-hepsiemlak-listing-168466-23-a8eb718b.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-10-05 22:32:33
Size	72,429 bytes
SHA-256	a8eb718bd31d77ebe94d421a962efd982b3fb4f29a878a26d4935547d8549c6e

68.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	ict of New York (SDNY) — Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (nationwide and international Class Acti
defendant	Glokal Dijital Hizmetler Pazarlama ve Ticaret A	s for Turkish, EU, and US residents). Defendants: Glokal Dijital Hizmetler Pazarlama ve Ticaret A.Ş.; Doğan Holding; the CEO and CTO of Gl

68.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (29)

Citation	Source excerpt
GDPR Art. 7	rack bypass High 2019–2026 KVKK Art. 5; GDPR Art. 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3) Head GTM script
18 U.S.C. § 2511	M noscript iframe beacon High 2019–2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 47 U.S.C. § 605 noscript iframe 3 H
47 U.S.C. § 605	beacon High 2019–2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 47 U.S.C. § 605 noscript iframe 3 Hardcoded Google P
18 U.S.C. § 1030	oogle Places API key Critical 2019–2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030; § 1836; FTC § 45 window.__NUXT__ confi
GDPR Art. 32	üyükyürür) High 2019–2026 KVKK Art. 12; GDPR Art. 32 JSON-LD + sidebar 11 Agent internal
GDPR Art. 13	ing notice High 2019–2026 KVKK Art. 10; GDPR Art. 13 Whole document 40 Server-side render
Penal Code § 631(a)	00 per violation. • State (California Penal Code § 631(a)): Wiretapping — $10,000 per violation.
Penal Code § 502(c)(1)	00 per violation. • State (California Penal Code § 502(c)(1)): Unauthorized computer access — $5,000
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)	computer access — $5,000. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)): Wiretap Act — $10,000 per count, treb
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)	10,000 per count, trebled. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)): CFAA — $5,000 per count, trebled. •
18 U.S.C. § 1343	$5,000 per count, trebled. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Wire Fraud — $1,000,000 per count, 20
5 U.S.C. § 552	0,000 per count, 20 years. • Federal (5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)): Privacy Act — $5,000. • Federal
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	b)): Privacy Act — $5,000. • Federal (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): FTC — $50,120. • Federal (47 U.S.C.
GDPR Art. 5	: Joint and several. • International (GDPR Art. 5(1)(a), 6(1)): €250,000 per violation.
18 U.S.C. § 1836	3dGGUCbuE" 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C); 18 U.S.C. § 1836 (DTSA); 18 U.S.C. § 1029 (access device
18 U.S.C. § 1029	1030(a)(2)(C); 18 U.S.C. § 1836 (DTSA); 18 U.S.C. § 1029 (access device fraud); FTC § 45 — $50,1
GDPR Art. 6	without consent. ePrivacy Art. 5(3); GDPR Art. 6; KVKK Art. 5. Violation #36 — A
County Code § 22	0; Cook County Ordinance Ch. 30; Harris County Code § 22; Maricopa County Ordinance § 15; San Di
County Code § 4.5	ricopa County Ordinance § 15; San Diego County Code § 4.5 — for US-visitor exposures. State Pen
15 U.S.C. § 45	1362, 1370–1372, 1836; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 15 U.S.C. § 45, § 6801, § 7701; 29 U.S.C. § 794d; 42 U
29 U.S.C. § 794	§ 552a; 15 U.S.C. § 45, § 6801, § 7701; 29 U.S.C. § 794d; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981–1986, § 12181; 47 U
50 U.S.C. § 1702	12181; 47 U.S.C. §§ 301, 333, 605, 230; 50 U.S.C. § 1702. Military UCMJ Articles: Arts. 92, 93,
18 U.S.C. § 3571	= 111,082,050. Criminal exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 3571: $55.5 billion. Civil exposure joint an
42 U.S.C. § 1985	gence. Count XVI — Civil Conspiracy (42 U.S.C. § 1985). Count XVII — Violation of 18 U.S.C
18 U.S.C. § 1372	. § 1985). Count XVII — Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1372 (critical infrastructure). Count XVI
42 U.S.C. § 12181	egulations Art. 18. Count XIX — ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12181) / Section 508. Damages Sought: (a
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	& 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304 & 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 & Title 47, Telecommunications § 230

68.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (19)

68.4 Dollar Figures (135)

$1.26 · $2.01 · $6.04 · $13.00 · $34.20 · $55.50 · $617.10 · $1,000.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $12,155.00 · $15,000.00 · $25,000.00 · $30,000.00 · $36,465.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $55,120.00 · $72,930.00 · $75,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $121,860.00 · $134,007.00 · $140,000.00 · $182,325.00 · $263,500.00 · $340,340.00 · $640,485.00 · $729,300.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $1,015,000.00 · $2,187,900.00 · $2,431,000.00 · $2,467,465.00 · $4,375,800.00 · $7,311,600.00 · $8,040,300.00 · $9,435,830.00 · $10,939,500.00 · $20,420,400.00 · $38,429,100.00 · $43,758,000.00 · $131,274,000.00 · $145,860,000.00 · $148,048,000.00 · $262,548,000.00 · $438,696,000.00 · $482,418,000.00 · $566,149,800.00 · $656,370,000.00 · $1,050,192,000.00 · $1,225,224,000.00 · $2,305,746,000.00 · $3,150,576,000.00 · $6,301,152,000.00 · $7,351,344,000.00 · $8,751,600,000.00 · $8,882,880,000.00 · $10,525,200,000.00 · $11,576,064,000.00 · $15,752,880,000.00 · $22,054,032,000.00 · $29,405,376,000.00 · $31,978,139,680.00 · $33,968,988,000.00 · $44,108,064,000.00 · $55,337,904,000.00 · $61,712,250,000.00 · $73,676,400,000.00 · $81,032,448,000.00 · $95,934,419,040.00 · $110,270,160,000.00 · $191,868,838,080.00 · $205,837,632,000.00 · $210,038,400,000.00 · $213,189,024,000.00 · $287,803,257,120.00 · $320,593,463,760.00 · $352,560,610,560.00 · $383,737,676,160.00 · $387,365,328,000.00 · $479,672,095,200.00 · $575,606,514,240.00 · $815,255,712,000.00 · $895,387,911,040.00 · $961,780,391,280.00 · $1,057,681,831,680.00 · $1,151,213,028,480.00 · $1,439,016,285,600.00 · $1,470,268,800,000.00 · $1,492,323,168,000.00 · $1,685,009,177,600.00 · $1,923,560,782,560.00 · $2,115,363,663,360.00 · $2,302,426,056,960.00 · $2,594,066,690,842.00 · $2,686,163,733,120.00 · $2,878,032,571,200.00 · $3,847,121,565,120.00 · $4,230,727,326,720.00 · $5,055,027,532,800.00 · $5,372,327,466,240.00 · $5,706,789,984,000.00 · $5,756,065,142,400.00 · $6,395,627,934,000.00 · $6,492,562,688,640.00 · $7,782,200,072,526.00 · $10,110,055,065,600.00 · $10,744,654,932,480.00 · $15,564,400,144,970.00 · $19,186,883,802,000.00 · $19,477,688,065,920.00 · $20,220,110,131,200.00 · $24,823,617,341,760.00 · $26,004,914,318,592.00 · $28,600,177,631,911.00 · $38,373,767,604,000.00 · $38,910,996,967,718.00 · $38,955,376,131,840.00 · $72,633,867,343,565.00 · $74,470,852,025,280.00 · $76,747,535,208,000.00 · $77,910,752,263,680.00 · $136,676,264,483,136.00 · $148,941,704,050,560.00 · $201,395,012,448,299.00 · $297,883,408,101,120.00 · $518,813,338,006,320.00 · $526,677,905,302,477.00 · $965,394,884,190,111.00 · $1,268,788,578,424,286.00 · $2,013,950,124,482,994.00 · $6,041,850,373,448,982.00

68.5 Dates (1)

2019-01-01

Section 69 of 261

Section 69 — Forensic Audit Report – Richland County SC Family Court Page

Source File	FORENSIC-0069-rcscfcaudit3-d53fbe5a.html
Created	August 02, 2026
Modified	2026-08-02 10:52:27
Size	49,824 bytes
SHA-256	d53fbe5a615162baab9868e4513a72b08914397e4c46173ce645fbc46134db6e

69.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Richland C
defendant	Richland County	affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Richland County, SC; County Administrator Leonard E.; Clerk

69.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (15)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 2511	ion via Google Analytics High 2005–2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (2005+), GDPR (2018+), CCPA (2020+) Lin
18 U.S.C. § 1030	rception via Siteimprove High 2003–2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (2003+), SC Code § 16-16-20 Line contai
5 U.S.C. § 552	mages, and up to 10 years imprisonment. 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act) – unauthorized disclosur
47 U.S.C. § 605	funds are used); $5,000 per violation. 47 U.S.C. § 605 (unauthorized publication of communicat
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	ons) – $110,000 per violation. FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) – unfair/deceptive practices; $50,120
Carolina Code § 39-5-20	ata security mandates. • State: South Carolina Code § 39-5-20 (Unfair Trade Practices Act); deceptive
18 U.S.C. § 1343	C. § 1030 (CFAA) – unauthorized access; 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud) – scheme to defraud via el
County Code § 12-9	t, International: • County: Richland County Code § 12-9 (Security of information systems) – req
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)	tect personal information. • Federal: 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C) – obtaining information from a protecte
18 U.S.C. § 1361	munications; fine $1,000,000 per count. 18 U.S.C. § 1361 (government property) – damage to gover
County Code § 22-47	t, International: • County: Richland County Code § 22-47 (Privacy) – same as above. • State: S
15 U.S.C. § 6501	000; 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC) – $50,120; 15 U.S.C. § 6501 (COPPA) – $51,744 per child; 18 U.S.C.
18 U.S.C. § 3571	onts services). Criminal exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 3571: up to $500,000 per count (corporate fi
42 U.S.C. § 1983	actual + punitive Each affected user 42 U.S.C. § 1983 No cap If acting under color of law
Civ. Code § 1798.100	e California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Defendants failed to provide

69.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (7)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications of plaintiffs without consent, through the placement of tracking scripts that collect	(as platform provider). Counts: Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications of pla
Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants accessed protected computers without authorization (via the exposed API key and by exceeding authorized access to collec	agent strings, and browsing activity. Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants accessed protected computers witho
Count III – Violation of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Defendants, as federal contractors or recipients of federal funds, failed to maintain proper safeguards for personally identifiable information.	g authorized access to collect data). Count III – Violation of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Defendants, as federal contractors or recipients of federal fu
Count IV – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Defendants failed to provide notice, right to opt‑out, and other CCPA rights.	personally identifiable information. Count IV – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Defendants failed to provi
Count V – Violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and ePrivacy Directive: Defendants processed personal data of EU residents without a lawful basis and transferred data to the US without a	ht to opt‑out, and other CCPA rights. Count V – Violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and ePrivacy Directive: Defendants processed personal
Count VI – Bivens Claim (Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments): Defendants, acting under color of law, violated plaintiffs’ rights to be free from unreasonable searches, deprivation of liberty, and cru	o the US without adequate safeguards. Count VI – Bivens Claim (Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments): Defendants, acting under color of law, violated pla
Count VII – Negligence and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: Defendants’ failure to secure data and respect privacy caused emotional distress and financial harm to plaintiffs.	nishment (the latter not applicable). Count VII – Negligence and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: Defendants’ failure to secure data and respect pr

69.4 Dollar Figures (45)

$0.00 · $1.00 · $1.30 · $4.30 · $5.40 · $10.00 · $10.70 · $13.00 · $21.60 · $30.00 · $43.20 · $64.80 · $86.40 · $172.80 · $259.20 · $345.60 · $600.00 · $1,000.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $25,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $75,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $250,000.00 · $500,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $2,000,000.00 · $3,500,000.00 · $14,000,000.00 · $15,220,000.00 · $45,660,000.00 · $60,880,000.00 · $91,320,000.00 · $182,620,000.00 · $182,640,000.00 · $365,280,000.00 · $730,480,000.00 · $5,403,000,000.00 · $12,967,200,000.00 · $21,612,000,000.00

69.5 Dates (2)

2018-05-25 · 2026-08-02

Section 70 of 261

Section 70 — Forensic Audit Report – Glacier App (theglacierapp.com)

Source File	FORENSIC-0070-glacier-audit-f3be763d.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-08-03 20:06:10
Size	41,775 bytes
SHA-256	f3be763db3d546162ad94609ff7370501a45830c9a4968c5398699f453d76cb8

70.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) – all users of Glacier Ap
defendant	Glacier App	s Action) – all users of Glacier App. Defendants: Glacier App, Inc., Webflow, Inc., Cloudflare, Inc. Counts: Count I – Violation of 18 U.S.C.

70.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (31)

Citation	Source excerpt
47 U.S.C. § 605	e file is materially non‑compliant with 47 U.S.C. § 605, 18 U.S.C. § 1030, GDPR, and 42 U.S.C.
18 U.S.C. § 1030	lly non‑compliant with 47 U.S.C. § 605, 18 U.S.C. § 1030, GDPR, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The determ
42 U.S.C. § 1983	S.C. § 605, 18 U.S.C. § 1030, GDPR, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The deterministic count of violations i
18 U.S.C. § 2511	etry Medium 2023–2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030, 18 U.S.C. § 2511, GDPR Art. 5(1)(a) Script blocks (webfl
GDPR Art. 5	026 18 U.S.C. § 1030, 18 U.S.C. § 2511, GDPR Art. 5(1)(a) Script blocks (webflow.schunk.*.j
Penal Code § 631	Medium 2023–2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511, Cal. Penal Code § 631, 47 U.S.C. § 605 Cloudflare / Lottie CD
5 U.S.C. § 552	(Pop‑up) Medium 2023–2026 Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a), CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100) Pop
Civ. Code § 1798.100	ivacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a), CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100) Popup sessionStorage script 4 Dark
15 U.S.C. § 45	nt Omission) Low 2023–2026 FTC Act § 5 (15 U.S.C. § 45), UNGP Principle 11 No cookie consent b
47 U.S.C. § 333	Access) Low 2023–2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030, 47 U.S.C. § 333, UCMJ Art. 134 Browser environment flag
Ord. Code § 4.20.030	tional: • County (Santa Clara County Ord. Code § 4.20.030): Unauthorized collection of personal d
Penal Code § 502(c)(2)	00 per violation. • State (California Penal Code § 502(c)(2)): Unauthorized computer access to obtai
Penal Code § 631(a)	onment per count. • State (California Penal Code § 631(a)): Wiretapping – interception of electro
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)	enalty: $10,000 per count. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)): Unauthorized access to a protected co
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)	t + 10 years imprisonment. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)): Intentional interception of wire, ora
18 U.S.C. § 1343	er count + treble damages. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Wire fraud – use of interstate wires
47 U.S.C. § 605(a)	,000 per count + 20 years. • Federal (47 U.S.C. § 605(a)): Unauthorized publication/use of commu
Penal Code § 632	enalty: $1,000 per act. • State (Cal. Penal Code § 632): Eavesdropping on confidential communi
Prof. Code § 17200	0 per violation. • State (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200): Unfair competition (including privacy
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A)	10,000 per count + treble. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A)): Transmission of code causing damage t
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	$5,000 per count. • Federal (FTC Act 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair/deceptive practices. Penalty:
County Code § 12.05.010	y, Tort, International: • County (LA County Code § 12.05.010): Unauthorized dissemination of persona
Penal Code § 530.5	violation per consumer. • State (Cal. Penal Code § 530.5): Identity theft – unauthorized use of
18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7)	lty: $5,000 per violation. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7)): Identity fraud. Penalty: $100,000 per
15 U.S.C. § 6801	per count + 15 years. • Federal (GLBA 15 U.S.C. § 6801): Failure to protect customer informati
GDPR Art. 32	$100,000 per person. • International (GDPR Art. 32): Failure to implement appropriate secu
18 U.S.C. § 1362	Penalty: $5,000 per count. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1362): Damage to communication lines. Penalt
18 U.S.C. § 3571	nts: 0.229/sec. Criminal exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 3571: $1.15e7 (up to $500,000 per count). Ci
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

70.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (12)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA): Unauthorized access to protected computers to obtain and exfiltrate personal data (Webflow telemetry).	, Inc., Cloudflare, Inc. Counts: Count I – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA): Unauthorized access to protected computers to obtain and exfiltrate personal da
Count II – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act): Intentional interception of wire, oral, and electronic communications via telemetry hooks.	te personal data (Webflow telemetry). Count II – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act): Intentional interception of wire, oral, and electronic communicati
Count III – Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605: Unauthorized publication and use of intercepted communications.	c communications via telemetry hooks. Count III – Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605: Unauthorized publication and use of intercepted communications. Count IV – Viola
Count IV – Violation of Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Unauthorized disclosure of personal records (IP, device fingerprints, interaction data).	nd use of intercepted communications. Count IV – Violation of Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Unauthorized disclosure of personal records (IP, device fingerprint
Count V – Violation of CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Failure to secure personal information and improper data collection.	vice fingerprints, interaction data). Count V – Violation of CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Failure to secure personal information and improper data collecti
Count VI – Violation of FTC Act § 5 (15 U.S.C. § 45): Unfair/deceptive practices (dark patterns, coerced consent).	rmation and improper data collection. Count VI – Violation of FTC Act § 5 (15 U.S.C. § 45): Unfair/deceptive practices (dark patterns, coerced consent). Count V
Count VII – Tortious Intrusion upon Seclusion: Unauthorized surveillance and data collection.	ces (dark patterns, coerced consent). Count VII – Tortious Intrusion upon Seclusion: Unauthorized surveillance and data collection. Count VIII – Conversion: Wro
Count VIII – Conversion: Wrongful exercise of dominion over personal data.	zed surveillance and data collection. Count VIII – Conversion: Wrongful exercise of dominion over personal data. Count IX – Bivens Claim (Fourth Amend
Count IX – Bivens Claim (Fourth Amendment): Unreasonable search and seizure of personal data and devices.	rcise of dominion over personal data. Count IX – Bivens Claim (Fourth Amendment): Unreasonable search and seizure of personal data and devices. Count X – Bivens
Count X – Bivens Claim (Fifth Amendment): Self-incrimination via coerced data extraction.	seizure of personal data and devices. Count X – Bivens Claim (Fifth Amendment): Self-incrimination via coerced data extraction. Count XI – Bivens Claim (Sixth A
Count XI – Bivens Claim (Sixth Amendment): Right to counsel – denial of access to counsel during data extraction.	mination via coerced data extraction. Count XI – Bivens Claim (Sixth Amendment): Right to counsel – denial of access to counsel during data extraction. Count XI
Count XII – UCMJ Article 134: Disorders prejudicial to good order and discipline (all crimes).	ss to counsel during data extraction. Count XII – UCMJ Article 134: Disorders prejudicial to good order and discipline (all crimes). Damages Sought: Treble dama

70.4 Dollar Figures (60)

$1.00 · $1.05 · $1.10 · $1.15 · $1.27 · $1.29 · $1.37 · $1.73 · $1.75 · $1.83 · $1.94 · $2.06 · $2.08 · $2.40 · $2.56 · $2.74 · $3.00 · $3.03 · $3.15 · $3.87 · $4.16 · $4.80 · $4.99 · $5.01 · $5.03 · $5.25 · $5.68 · $5.73 · $6.87 · $7.00 · $7.04 · $7.50 · $7.54 · $8.00 · $8.64 · $8.66 · $1,000.00 · $1,490.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $25,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $75,000.00 · $89,600.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $500,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $5,380,000.00 · $129,000,000.00 · $903,000,000.00 · $3,930,000,000.00 · $11,800,000,000.00 · $23,600,000,000.00 · $47,100,000,000.00 · $129,000,000,000.00

70.5 Dates (1)

2023-11-02

Section 71 of 261

Section 71 — Forensic Docket Audit and Investigative Report – Lanier v. Akhmetov & Lanier v. Rubio

Source File	FORENSIC-0071-audit-case-fraud-court-fla-middle-district-3c57f9ce.html
Created	July 28, 2026
Modified	2026-07-28 08:22:51
Size	9,199 bytes
SHA-256	3c57f9ce3390536a10a299a9be807b867712b283c4f679c13bab753f7b921b0d

71.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

71.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (1)

Citation	Source excerpt
42 U.S.C. § 1983	the court were split into two separate 42 U.S.C. § 1983 / Civil Rights actions: Case 1: 3:2

71.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

71.4 Dollar Figures (0)

—

71.5 Dates (7)

2025-12-18 · 2025-12-19 · 2026-01-21 · 2026-02-06 · 2026-02-26 · 2026-03-16 · 2026-07-28

Section 72 of 261

Section 72 — Forensic Audit Report – red.nv.gov (Contact Page) – LINE BY LINE

Source File	FORENSIC-0072-nv2-audit-d5541f71.html
Created	August 2, 2026
Modified	2026-08-02 23:28:30
Size	27,633 bytes
SHA-256	d5541f713afc58816fa25f9199830bfa4c31461c15b5e834569b45b007466951

72.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Nevada Real
defendant	Nevada Real Estate Division	l affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Nevada Real Estate Division (State of Nevada), Chris Nevada, Google

72.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (12)

Citation	Source excerpt
GDPR Art. 5	cts user interactions, IP, device data. GDPR Art. 5(1)(a), 6(1), 13; ePrivacy Directive Art
GDPR Art. 6	a, may set cookies. ePrivacy Directive; GDPR Art. 6; CCPA. Wrap in consent check; add cooki
County Code § 12.04.010	: • County (Clark County, NV): Clark County Code § 12.04.010 – "Interception of wire or electronic c
18 U.S.C. § 2511	ty measures (absent here). • Federal: 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act) – intentional interceptio
18 U.S.C. § 1030	ble damages + up to 10 years per count. 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA) – exceeding authorized access. P
County Code § 12.08.020	tory Expansion (3×): • County: Clark County Code § 12.08.020 – identity theft prevention. Penalty: $
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	000 per violation. • Federal: FTC Act 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) – unfair/deceptive practices. Penalty:
15 U.S.C. § 6801	s. Penalty: $50,120 per violation. GLBA 15 U.S.C. § 6801 – financial privacy, penalty: $100,000
18 U.S.C. § 3571	for all counts. Criminal exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 3571: $46,800,000,000,000. Civil exposure: $
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

72.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (10)

Header	Source excerpt
COUNT CRIME ACCOUNTING	3. 9‑INTERVAL DETERMINISTIC PER‑COUNT CRIME ACCOUNTING Count Enumeration (Direct from Eviden
Count I – Violation of Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Interception of electronic communications without consent.	le LLC, SiteImprove, and Does 1‑50. Count I – Violation of Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Interception of electronic communications without consent. Count II –
Count II – Violation of CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Exceeding authorized access to user devices.	ronic communications without consent. Count II – Violation of CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Exceeding authorized access to user devices. Count III – Violation of FTC
Count III – Violation of FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair/deceptive data practices.	ng authorized access to user devices. Count III – Violation of FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair/deceptive data practices. Count IV – Violation of GLBA (15 U.
Count IV – Violation of GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Failure to protect financial privacy.	a)): Unfair/deceptive data practices. Count IV – Violation of GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Failure to protect financial privacy. Count V – Negligence (Common Law):
Count V – Negligence (Common Law): Failure to secure data.	Failure to protect financial privacy. Count V – Negligence (Common Law): Failure to secure data. Count VI – Intrusion Upon Seclusion (
Count VI – Intrusion Upon Seclusion (Common Law): Invasion of privacy.	(Common Law): Failure to secure data. Count VI – Intrusion Upon Seclusion (Common Law): Invasion of privacy. Count VII – Bivens (Fourth, Fifth, Si
Count VII – Bivens (Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth Amendments): Unreasonable search, due process, right to counsel, cruel/unusual punishment.	on (Common Law): Invasion of privacy. Count VII – Bivens (Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth Amendments): Unreasonable search, due process, right to counsel, cruel/un
Count VIII – Violation of CCPA/CPRA: Failure to provide notice/opt‑out.	to counsel, cruel/unusual punishment. Count VIII – Violation of CCPA/CPRA: Failure to provide notice/opt‑out. Count IX – Violation of GDPR (Art. 5,
Count IX – Violation of GDPR (Art. 5,6,13): Unlawful processing, lack of transparency.	A: Failure to provide notice/opt‑out. Count IX – Violation of GDPR (Art. 5,6,13): Unlawful processing, lack of transparency. Damages Sought: $95,505,696,000,000

72.4 Dollar Figures (69)

$500.00 · $951.00 · $1,000.00 · $1,902.00 · $5,000.00 · $9,532.00 · $10,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $52,305.00 · $57,050.00 · $64,690.00 · $100,000.00 · $114,100.00 · $275,000.00 · $571,920.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $3,138,300.00 · $3,423,500.00 · $3,881,370.00 · $6,847,000.00 · $34,315,200.00 · $82,165,000.00 · $164,330,000.00 · $188,298,000.00 · $232,882,200.00 · $575,155,000.00 · $823,564,800.00 · $1,150,310,000.00 · $2,500,000,000.00 · $4,519,075,000.00 · $5,000,000,000.00 · $5,589,172,800.00 · $5,764,953,600.00 · $7,500,000,000.00 · $15,000,000,000.00 · $25,060,000,000.00 · $30,000,000,000.00 · $31,633,525,000.00 · $39,124,209,600.00 · $60,000,000,000.00 · $75,180,000,000.00 · $137,500,000,000.00 · $150,360,000,000.00 · $170,060,000,000.00 · $300,720,000,000.00 · $412,500,000,000.00 · $468,000,000,000.00 · $510,180,000,000.00 · $825,000,000,000.00 · $936,000,000,000.00 · $1,020,360,000,000.00 · $1,497,600,000,000.00 · $1,650,000,000,000.00 · $1,872,000,000,000.00 · $2,040,720,000,000.00 · $4,680,000,000,000.00 · $4,691,232,000,000.00 · $6,367,046,400,000.00 · $7,488,000,000,000.00 · $7,864,646,400,000.00 · $10,068,000,000,000.00 · $19,101,139,200,000.00 · $22,284,662,400,000.00 · $25,740,000,000,000.00 · $31,835,232,000,000.00 · $45,690,278,400,000.00 · $46,800,000,000,000.00 · $53,352,000,000,000.00 · $95,505,696,000,000.00

72.5 Dates (1)

2026-08-02

Section 73 of 261

Section 73 — Forensic Audit Report – LPT Realty (lpt.com) – FULL LIABILITY

Source File	FORENSIC-0073-nv4-audit-a82f2486.html
Created	August 2, 2026
Modified	2026-08-03 00:06:48
Size	34,627 bytes
SHA-256	a82f24861ab0bdfcfce6bc92c7305216be0f0f3804d1378cffed51657789c211

73.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: LPT Realty
defendant	LPT Realty	affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: LPT Realty, Inc., Robert Palmer, Google LLC, jsdelivr, Cloudflare, ACSB, Microsoft Corporation, and Does 1‑50. C

73.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (15)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 2511	rd‑Party Script Tracking High 2022–2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511, § 1030; GDPR; ePrivacy; CCPA Lines 45–
GDPR Art. 7	ent (Privacy Checkbox) Medium 2022–2026 GDPR Art. 7; ePrivacy Directive; Cal. Bus. & Prof.
Prof. Code § 17200	Art. 7; ePrivacy Directive; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 Line ~210 – checkbox label implies blan
County Code § 34	Lake Mary, FL – headquarters): Seminole County Code § 34‑76 (privacy) – prohibits unauthorized i
Fla. Stat. § 934.03	500 per violation. • State (Florida): Fla. Stat. § 934.03 (wiretapping) – makes interception a fe
18 U.S.C. § 1030	ble damages + up to 10 years per count. 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA) – exceeding authorized access to
GDPR Art. 5	rivacy) + punitive. • International – GDPR Art. 5(1)(a), 6(1), 13: No lawful basis for pr
Fla. Stat. § 501.171	nalty: $1,000 per violation. • State: Fla. Stat. § 501.171 – requires businesses to implement reas
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	000 per violation. • Federal: FTC Act 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) – unfair/deceptive practices; failure t
15 U.S.C. § 6801	e. Penalty: $50,120 per violation. GLBA 15 U.S.C. § 6801 – financial privacy (LPT Realty handles
47 U.S.C. § 227	Act § 5(a) – deceptive practices; TCPA 47 U.S.C. § 227 – calls/texts without proper consent.
18 U.S.C. § 3571	for all counts. Criminal exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 3571: $31,680,000,000,000 (up to $500,000 pe
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

73.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (11)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intercepted electronic communications without consent.	crosoft Corporation, and Does 1‑50. Count I – Violation of Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intercepted electronic communications without consent. Cou
Count II – Violation of CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants exceeded authorized access to user devices.	ronic communications without consent. Count II – Violation of CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants exceeded authorized access to user devices. Count III – Violat
Count III – Violation of FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair/deceptive practices in data security and privacy.	ed authorized access to user devices. Count III – Violation of FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair/deceptive practices in data security and privacy. Count IV –
Count IV – Violation of GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Failure to protect financial privacy.	actices in data security and privacy. Count IV – Violation of GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Failure to protect financial privacy. Count V – Violation of GDPR (Art. 5
Count V – Violation of GDPR (Art. 5,6,13): Unlawful processing, lack of transparency.	Failure to protect financial privacy. Count V – Violation of GDPR (Art. 5,6,13): Unlawful processing, lack of transparency. Count VI – Violation of ePrivacy Dir
Count VI – Violation of ePrivacy Directive: Storing/accessing cookies without consent.	ful processing, lack of transparency. Count VI – Violation of ePrivacy Directive: Storing/accessing cookies without consent. Count VII – Negligence (Common Law)
Count VII – Negligence (Common Law): Failure to secure data and implement security headers.	ng/accessing cookies without consent. Count VII – Negligence (Common Law): Failure to secure data and implement security headers. Count VIII – Intrusion Upon Se
Count VIII – Intrusion Upon Seclusion (Common Law): Invasion of privacy.	data and implement security headers. Count VIII – Intrusion Upon Seclusion (Common Law): Invasion of privacy. Count IX – Bivens (Fourth, Fifth, Six
Count IX – Bivens (Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth Amendments): Unreasonable search, due process, right to counsel, cruel/unusual punishment.	on (Common Law): Invasion of privacy. Count IX – Bivens (Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth Amendments): Unreasonable search, due process, right to counsel, cruel/unu
Count X – Violation of CCPA/CPRA: Failure to provide notice/opt‑out.	to counsel, cruel/unusual punishment. Count X – Violation of CCPA/CPRA: Failure to provide notice/opt‑out. Count XI – Violation of TCPA (47 U.S.
Count XI – Violation of TCPA (47 U.S.C. § 227): Dark‑pattern consent for calls/texts.	A: Failure to provide notice/opt‑out. Count XI – Violation of TCPA (47 U.S.C. § 227): Dark‑pattern consent for calls/texts. Damages Sought: $64,641,024,000,000

73.4 Dollar Figures (70)

$225.00 · $450.00 · $500.00 · $1,000.00 · $2,255.00 · $5,000.00 · $10,000.00 · $12,375.00 · $13,500.00 · $15,305.00 · $27,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $100,000.00 · $135,324.00 · $275,000.00 · $500,000.00 · $742,500.00 · $810,000.00 · $918,324.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $1,620,000.00 · $8,119,440.00 · $19,440,000.00 · $38,880,000.00 · $44,550,000.00 · $55,099,440.00 · $136,080,000.00 · $194,866,560.00 · $272,160,000.00 · $592,800,000.00 · $1,069,200,000.00 · $1,185,600,000.00 · $1,322,386,560.00 · $1,364,065,920.00 · $1,778,400,000.00 · $3,556,800,000.00 · $5,942,112,000.00 · $7,113,600,000.00 · $7,484,400,000.00 · $9,256,706,920.00 · $14,227,200,000.00 · $17,826,336,000.00 · $32,604,000,000.00 · $35,652,672,000.00 · $40,324,512,000.00 · $71,305,344,000.00 · $97,812,000,000.00 · $120,973,536,000.00 · $195,624,000,000.00 · $241,947,072,000.00 · $316,800,000,000.00 · $391,248,000,000.00 · $483,894,144,000.00 · $633,600,000,000.00 · $861,880,320,000.00 · $1,013,760,000,000.00 · $1,267,200,000,000.00 · $3,168,000,000,000.00 · $3,175,603,200,000.00 · $4,309,401,600,000.00 · $5,068,800,000,000.00 · $8,618,803,200,000.00 · $10,784,000,000,000.00 · $12,928,204,800,000.00 · $17,424,000,000,000.00 · $21,547,008,000,000.00 · $31,680,000,000,000.00 · $43,094,016,000,000.00 · $50,688,000,000,000.00 · $64,641,024,000,000.00

73.5 Dates (1)

2026-08-02

Section 74 of 261

Section 74 — Forensic Audit Report – http://www.nevadarealestategroup.com (LINE‑BY‑LINE)

Source File	FORENSIC-0074-nv1-audit-b76aa0f6.html
Created	August 2, 2026
Modified	2026-08-02 20:39:19
Size	33,111 bytes
SHA-256	b76aa0f612294fcb44e2c4abfbc7611fe6d173e1a4ab4c7547dd023a1a88ebe2

74.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Nevada Real
defendant	Nevada Real Estate Group	l affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Nevada Real Estate Group, Chris Nevada, LPT Realty LLC, Google LLC, Vercel Inc., and Does 1‑50. Count I – Viol

74.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (14)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 1030	Integrity / SRI NIST SP 800‑53 SI‑7; 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (potential injection) Add integrity="
18 U.S.C. § 2511	Unauthorized Telemetry Exfiltration 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap); GDPR Art. 6 (no consent) R
GDPR Art. 6	iltration 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap); GDPR Art. 6 (no consent) Remove the iframe; if ne
47 U.S.C. § 227	eptive Practice; Data Theft Risk TCPA 47 U.S.C. § 227; 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud); Cal. B&
18 U.S.C. § 1343	Data Theft Risk TCPA 47 U.S.C. § 227; 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud); Cal. B&P § 17200 1) Add
County Code § 12.04.010	: • County (Clark County, NV): Clark County Code § 12.04.010 – "Interception of wire or electronic c
GDPR Art. 5	rivacy) + punitive. • International – GDPR Art. 5(1)(a), 6(1), 13: No lawful basis, no tr
County Code § 12.08.020	tory Expansion (3×): • County: Clark County Code § 12.08.020 – identity theft prevention. Penalty: $
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	000 per violation. • Federal: FTC Act 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) – unfair/deceptive practices. Penalty:
15 U.S.C. § 6801	s. Penalty: $50,120 per violation. GLBA 15 U.S.C. § 6801 – financial privacy, penalty: $100,000
18 U.S.C. § 3571	for all counts. Criminal exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 3571: $290,160,000,000,000 (max $500,000/cou
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

74.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (9)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Interception of electronic communications without consent.	le LLC, Vercel Inc., and Does 1‑50. Count I – Violation of Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Interception of electronic communications without consent. Count II –
Count II – Violation of CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Exceeding authorized access to user devices.	ronic communications without consent. Count II – Violation of CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Exceeding authorized access to user devices. Count III – Violation of FTC
Count III – Violation of FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair/deceptive data practices.	ng authorized access to user devices. Count III – Violation of FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair/deceptive data practices. Count IV – Violation of GLBA (15 U.
Count IV – Violation of GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Failure to protect financial privacy.	a)): Unfair/deceptive data practices. Count IV – Violation of GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Failure to protect financial privacy. Count V – Negligence (Common Law):
Count V – Negligence (Common Law): Failure to secure data.	Failure to protect financial privacy. Count V – Negligence (Common Law): Failure to secure data. Count VI – Intrusion Upon Seclusion (
Count VI – Intrusion Upon Seclusion (Common Law): Invasion of privacy.	(Common Law): Failure to secure data. Count VI – Intrusion Upon Seclusion (Common Law): Invasion of privacy. Count VII – Bivens (Fourth, Fifth, Si
Count VII – Bivens (Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth Amendments): Unreasonable search, due process, right to counsel, cruel/unusual punishment.	on (Common Law): Invasion of privacy. Count VII – Bivens (Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth Amendments): Unreasonable search, due process, right to counsel, cruel/un
Count VIII – Violation of CCPA/CPRA: Failure to provide notice/opt‑out.	to counsel, cruel/unusual punishment. Count VIII – Violation of CCPA/CPRA: Failure to provide notice/opt‑out. Count IX – Violation of GDPR (Art. 5,
Count IX – Violation of GDPR (Art. 5,6,13): Unlawful processing, lack of transparency.	A: Failure to provide notice/opt‑out. Count IX – Violation of GDPR (Art. 5,6,13): Unlawful processing, lack of transparency. Damages Sought: $592,138,123,200,00

74.4 Dollar Figures (73)

$500.00 · $1,000.00 · $5,000.00 · $5,900.00 · $10,000.00 · $11,800.00 · $50,120.00 · $59,141.00 · $100,000.00 · $275,000.00 · $324,500.00 · $354,000.00 · $401,341.00 · $500,000.00 · $708,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $3,548,496.00 · $19,470,000.00 · $21,240,000.00 · $24,080,496.00 · $42,480,000.00 · $212,909,760.00 · $509,760,000.00 · $1,019,520,000.00 · $1,168,200,000.00 · $1,444,829,760.00 · $3,568,320,000.00 · $5,109,834,240.00 · $7,136,640,000.00 · $15,295,680,000.00 · $28,036,800,000.00 · $30,591,360,000.00 · $34,675,914,240.00 · $35,768,839,680.00 · $45,887,040,000.00 · $91,774,080,000.00 · $153,309,312,000.00 · $183,548,160,000.00 · $196,257,600,000.00 · $242,731,399,680.00 · $367,096,320,000.00 · $459,927,936,000.00 · $841,262,400,000.00 · $919,855,872,000.00 · $1,040,458,752,000.00 · $1,839,711,744,000.00 · $2,523,787,200,000.00 · $2,901,600,000,000.00 · $3,121,376,256,000.00 · $5,047,574,400,000.00 · $5,803,200,000,000.00 · $6,242,752,512,000.00 · $9,285,120,000,000.00 · $10,095,148,800,000.00 · $11,606,400,000,000.00 · $12,485,505,024,000.00 · $14,508,000,000,000.00 · $19,737,937,440,000.00 · $29,016,000,000,000.00 · $29,086,574,400,000.00 · $39,475,874,880,000.00 · $46,425,600,000,000.00 · $48,761,994,880,000.00 · $62,428,746,240,000.00 · $63,658,464,000,000.00 · $78,951,749,760,000.00 · $118,427,624,640,000.00 · $159,588,000,000,000.00 · $197,379,374,400,000.00 · $290,160,000,000,000.00 · $302,968,786,720,000.00 · $345,290,400,000,000.00 · $592,138,123,200,000.00

74.5 Dates (1)

2026-08-02

Section 75 of 261

Section 75 — Forensic Audit – LPT Realty (lpt.com) – FULL LIABILITY (Operator & Suppliers)

Source File	FORENSIC-0075-nv3-audit-f5bc451b.html
Created	August 2, 2026
Modified	2026-08-03 00:06:13
Size	21,275 bytes
SHA-256	f5bc451b6699f755360eafb0be76732329e9430ee2ab433910360afea21ae53d

75.1 Parties (1)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals Defendants	TIES United States District Court Plaintiffs: All affected individuals Defendants: LPT Realty, Inc., Google LLC, jsdelivr

75.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (6)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 2511	vice, interaction data without consent. 18 U.S.C. § 2511, 1030; GDPR Art. 6; ePrivacy ~50 Inl
GDPR Art. 6	ithout consent. 18 U.S.C. § 2511, 1030; GDPR Art. 6; ePrivacy ~50 Inline gtag init (data
GDPR Art. 5	user browsing history. NIST SP 800‑53; GDPR Art. 5 Head Missing X‑Content‑Type‑Options
GDPR Art. 7	ing scripts load without prior consent. GDPR Art. 7; ePrivacy Directive 2. 9‑INT
18 U.S.C. § 1030	0,000 $2,433,600,000,000 CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030) $5,000 $2,472 $148,350 $8,901,
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	00 $1,216,800,000,000 FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) $50,120 $24,782 $1,486,920 $89

75.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (5)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): All defendants intercepted electronic communications without consent.	dflare, ACSB, Microsoft Corporation Count I – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): All defendants intercepted electronic communications without consent. Count II – C
Count II – CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): All defendants exceeded authorized access.	ronic communications without consent. Count II – CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): All defendants exceeded authorized access. Count III – FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a
Count III – FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Operator failed to implement security headers and CSRF protection; all defendants engaged in unfair practices.	efendants exceeded authorized access. Count III – FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Operator failed to implement security headers and CSRF protection; all defendants
Count IV – GDPR (Art. 5,6,13): All defendants processed personal data without lawful basis.	fendants engaged in unfair practices. Count IV – GDPR (Art. 5,6,13): All defendants processed personal data without lawful basis. Count V – Intrusion Upon Seclu
Count V – Intrusion Upon Seclusion (Common Law): All defendants invaded privacy.	d personal data without lawful basis. Count V – Intrusion Upon Seclusion (Common Law): All defendants invaded privacy. Damages Sought: $248,320,800,000,00

75.4 Dollar Figures (60)

$2,472.00 · $4,945.00 · $5,000.00 · $10,000.00 · $24,782.00 · $50,120.00 · $136,000.00 · $148,350.00 · $168,199.00 · $275,000.00 · $296,700.00 · $1,486,920.00 · $8,160,000.00 · $8,901,000.00 · $10,091,970.00 · $17,802,000.00 · $89,215,200.00 · $213,624,000.00 · $427,248,000.00 · $489,600,000.00 · $605,518,200.00 · $1,495,368,000.00 · $2,141,164,800.00 · $2,990,736,000.00 · $6,480,000,000.00 · $11,750,400,000.00 · $12,960,000,000.00 · $14,532,436,800.00 · $14,988,153,600.00 · $19,440,000,000.00 · $38,880,000,000.00 · $65,156,000,000.00 · $77,760,000,000.00 · $82,252,800,000.00 · $101,727,057,600.00 · $155,520,000,000.00 · $195,468,000,000.00 · $356,400,000,000.00 · $390,936,000,000.00 · $440,996,000,000.00 · $781,872,000,000.00 · $1,069,200,000,000.00 · $1,216,800,000,000.00 · $1,323,000,000,000.00 · $2,138,400,000,000.00 · $2,433,600,000,000.00 · $2,646,000,000,000.00 · $3,650,400,000,000.00 · $4,276,800,000,000.00 · $4,566,120,000,000.00 · $5,292,000,000,000.00 · $12,199,200,000,000.00 · $21,902,400,000,000.00 · $27,396,720,000,000.00 · $33,462,000,000,000.00 · $45,661,200,000,000.00 · $66,924,000,000,000.00 · $82,773,600,000,000.00 · $248,320,800,000,000.00 · $273,967,200,000,000.00

75.5 Dates (1)

2026-08-02

Section 76 of 261

Section 76 — FORENSIC AUDIT – SUPPLIER LIABILITY ONLY – ladcodefense2.com

Source File	FORENSIC-0076-ldt-audit-d749909a.html
Created	August 2, 2026
Modified	2026-08-02 23:54:57
Size	13,045 bytes
SHA-256	d749909a865afbc63a0235dc073bd13e6bc043ca8d23592fa21f040fb83359ad

76.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals Defendants	ONLY United States District Court Plaintiffs: All affected individuals Defendants: Google LLC, Automattic Inc. Defendan
defendant	Not Charged	fendants: Google LLC, Automattic Inc. Defendant Not Charged: Ladco Defense Technologies / Henri Bry

76.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (4)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 2511	eraction data without operator consent. 18 U.S.C. § 2511, 1030; GDPR Art. 6; ePrivacy ~150 <s
GDPR Art. 6	erator consent. 18 U.S.C. § 2511, 1030; GDPR Art. 6; ePrivacy ~150 <script defer src="ht
18 U.S.C. § 1030	2,000,000,000 $187,200,000,000 CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030) $5,000 $190 $11,400 $684,000 $16,415,0
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	000,000,000 $93,600,000,000 FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) $50,120 $1,904 $114,240 $6,854,400 $16

76.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (5)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Wiretap Act: Suppliers intercepted electronic communications without consent.	hnologies / Henri Bryant Lanier Sr. Count I – Wiretap Act: Suppliers intercepted electronic communications without consent. Count II – CFAA: Suppliers exceeded
Count II – CFAA: Suppliers exceeded authorized access.	ronic communications without consent. Count II – CFAA: Suppliers exceeded authorized access. Count III – FTC Act: Suppliers engage
Count III – FTC Act: Suppliers engaged in unfair/deceptive practices.	Suppliers exceeded authorized access. Count III – FTC Act: Suppliers engaged in unfair/deceptive practices. Count IV – GDPR: Suppliers processed
Count IV – GDPR: Suppliers processed personal data without lawful basis.	ngaged in unfair/deceptive practices. Count IV – GDPR: Suppliers processed personal data without lawful basis. Count V – Intrusion Upon Seclusion: S
Count V – Intrusion Upon Seclusion: Suppliers invaded privacy.	d personal data without lawful basis. Count V – Intrusion Upon Seclusion: Suppliers invaded privacy. Damages Sought: $19,101,139,200,000

76.4 Dollar Figures (59)

$190.00 · $380.00 · $1,904.00 · $5,000.00 · $10,000.00 · $10,450.00 · $11,400.00 · $12,924.00 · $22,800.00 · $50,120.00 · $114,240.00 · $275,000.00 · $627,000.00 · $684,000.00 · $775,440.00 · $1,368,000.00 · $6,854,400.00 · $16,415,000.00 · $32,830,000.00 · $37,620,000.00 · $46,526,400.00 · $114,905,000.00 · $164,505,600.00 · $229,810,000.00 · $500,000,000.00 · $902,825,000.00 · $1,000,000,000.00 · $1,116,633,600.00 · $1,151,539,200.00 · $1,500,000,000.00 · $3,000,000,000.00 · $5,012,000,000.00 · $6,000,000,000.00 · $6,319,775,000.00 · $7,816,435,200.00 · $12,000,000,000.00 · $15,036,000,000.00 · $27,500,000,000.00 · $30,072,000,000.00 · $34,012,000,000.00 · $60,144,000,000.00 · $82,500,000,000.00 · $93,600,000,000.00 · $102,036,000,000.00 · $140,400,000,000.00 · $165,000,000,000.00 · $187,200,000,000.00 · $204,072,000,000.00 · $280,800,000,000.00 · $304,312,320,000.00 · $330,000,000,000.00 · $408,144,000,000.00 · $608,624,640,000.00 · $938,246,400,000.00 · $3,043,123,200,000.00 · $5,148,000,000,000.00 · $6,086,246,400,000.00 · $6,367,046,400,000.00 · $19,101,139,200,000.00

76.5 Dates (2)

2026-06-11 · 2026-08-02

Section 77 of 261

Section 77 — OSINT & Telemetry Software Registry — Full Forensic Inventory

Source File	FORENSIC-0077-osint-source-3-83e82cc5.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-08-03 05:18:31
Size	32,088 bytes
SHA-256	83e82cc575f8aa8b6b5e38e3f38ec4c75a7adc71c944c5d67614ee9cb6e0dc6a

77.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

77.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (0)

Citation	Source excerpt
no statutes extracted

77.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

77.4 Dollar Figures (0)

—

77.5 Dates (1)

2026-08-03

Section 78 of 261

Section 78 — Forensic Audit – LPT Realty (lpt.com) – LINE BY LINE

Source File	FORENSIC-0078-lpt-audit-c98aea14.html
Created	August 2, 2026
Modified	2026-08-03 00:10:21
Size	20,458 bytes
SHA-256	c98aea14b58c6a28a3f64ed4808885c79b80f0cf2b737f61984f91f2fa8c0e9e

78.1 Parties (1)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals Defendants	AINT United States District Court Plaintiffs: All affected individuals Defendants: LPT Realty, Inc., Robert Palmer, Googl

78.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (5)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 2511	BT"></script> Unauthorized GA4 tracking 18 U.S.C. § 2511, § 1030; GDPR; ePrivacy 46 window.da
GDPR Art. 7	ommunications with consent for tracking GDPR Art. 7; Cal. Bus. & Prof. § 17200 Tota
18 U.S.C. § 1030	480,000,000 $1,531,200,000,000 CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030) $5,000 $5,520 $331,200 $19,872,000 $47
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	40,000,000 $765,600,000,000 FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) $50,120 $55,324 $3,319,440 $199,166,40
18 U.S.C. § 3571	120,000 counts. Criminal exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 3571: $76,560,000,000,000. Civil: $52,080,00

78.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (8)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): 153,120,000 counts of interception without consent.	flare, ACSB, Microsoft Corporation. Count I – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): 153,120,000 counts of interception without consent. Count II – CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1
Count II – CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): 153,120,000 counts of unauthorized access.	unts of interception without consent. Count II – CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): 153,120,000 counts of unauthorized access. Count III – FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a
Count III – FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): 153,120,000 counts of unfair/deceptive practices.	20,000 counts of unauthorized access. Count III – FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): 153,120,000 counts of unfair/deceptive practices. Count IV – GDPR (Art. 5,6,13):
Count IV – GDPR (Art. 5,6,13): 153,120,000 counts of unlawful processing.	counts of unfair/deceptive practices. Count IV – GDPR (Art. 5,6,13): 153,120,000 counts of unlawful processing. Count V – ePrivacy Directive: 153,120
Count V – ePrivacy Directive: 153,120,000 counts of storing/accessing cookies without consent.	20,000 counts of unlawful processing. Count V – ePrivacy Directive: 153,120,000 counts of storing/accessing cookies without consent. Count VI – Negligence: Fail
Count VI – Negligence: Failure to secure headers and forms.	ng/accessing cookies without consent. Count VI – Negligence: Failure to secure headers and forms. Count VII – Intrusion Upon Seclusion:
Count VII – Intrusion Upon Seclusion: Invasion of privacy.	Failure to secure headers and forms. Count VII – Intrusion Upon Seclusion: Invasion of privacy. Count VIII – Bivens (Fourth, Fifth, S
Count VIII – Bivens (Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth): Constitutional violations.	Upon Seclusion: Invasion of privacy. Count VIII – Bivens (Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth): Constitutional violations. Damages Sought: $156,240,000,000,00

78.4 Dollar Figures (63)

$5,000.00 · $5,520.00 · $10,000.00 · $11,040.00 · $50,120.00 · $55,324.00 · $275,000.00 · $303,600.00 · $331,200.00 · $375,484.00 · $662,400.00 · $3,319,440.00 · $18,216,000.00 · $19,872,000.00 · $22,529,040.00 · $39,744,000.00 · $199,166,400.00 · $476,928,000.00 · $953,856,000.00 · $1,092,960,000.00 · $1,351,742,400.00 · $3,338,496,000.00 · $4,779,993,600.00 · $6,676,992,000.00 · $14,520,000,000.00 · $26,231,040,000.00 · $29,040,000,000.00 · $32,441,817,600.00 · $33,459,955,200.00 · $43,560,000,000.00 · $87,120,000,000.00 · $145,536,000,000.00 · $174,240,000,000.00 · $183,617,280,000.00 · $227,092,723,200.00 · $348,480,000,000.00 · $436,608,000,000.00 · $765,600,000,000.00 · $798,600,000,000.00 · $873,216,000,000.00 · $987,696,000,000.00 · $1,531,200,000,000.00 · $1,746,432,000,000.00 · $2,083,200,000,000.00 · $2,395,800,000,000.00 · $2,449,920,000,000.00 · $2,963,088,000,000.00 · $3,062,400,000,000.00 · $4,791,600,000,000.00 · $5,926,176,000,000.00 · $7,656,000,000,000.00 · $7,675,200,000,000.00 · $9,583,200,000,000.00 · $10,416,000,000,000.00 · $11,852,352,000,000.00 · $12,249,600,000,000.00 · $20,832,000,000,000.00 · $42,108,000,000,000.00 · $52,080,000,000,000.00 · $76,560,000,000,000.00 · $104,160,000,000,000.00 · $122,496,000,000,000.00 · $156,240,000,000,000.00

78.5 Dates (1)

2026-08-02

Section 79 of 261

Section 79 — Forensic Audit Report – Incident Notice / Cease & Desist

Source File	FORENSIC-0079-team-gatlin-agent-audit-07677a68.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-31 18:08:58
Size	33,948 bytes
SHA-256	07677a6819999e94089759bf0d44382874e9f26074666131aa8f2c683b85edff

79.1 Parties (3)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	Henri Bryant Lanier Sr	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiff: Henri Bryant Lanier Sr., Esq., Ph.D. (on behalf of Ladco Defense Technologies
defendant	Charlie Sullivan	behalf of Ladco Defense Technologies) Defendants: Charlie Sullivan (individually), Leading Edge Real Estate
defendant	Sullivan intentionally intercepted electronic communications without consent. Count II	of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendant Sullivan intentionally intercepted electronic communications without consent. Count II – Violation of the Compu

79.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (26)

Citation	Source excerpt
42 U.S.C. § 1983	nder 18 U.S.C. §§ 2511, 1343, 1030, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The material is found to be Materially
18 U.S.C. § 2511	orate Communications (Wiretap Act) High 18 U.S.C. § 2511 Zillow diverted inquiry to unauthorized
5 U.S.C. § 552	er's License) over Unencrypted SMS High 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1028; CCPA
18 U.S.C. § 1028	SMS High 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1028; CCPA § 1798.100 Text message demands s
Tennessee Code § 47-50-109	rtious Interference with Contract) High Tennessee Code § 47-50-109; common law tortious interference Sulli
18 U.S.C. § 242	nd Harassment of Defense Personnel High 18 U.S.C. § 242 (color of law); Tennessee Code § 39-17-
Tennessee Code § 39-17-308	el High 18 U.S.C. § 242 (color of law); Tennessee Code § 39-17-308; tort defamation Sullivan made derogato
Rule 1260	nse Law Medium T.C.A. § 62-13-403; TREC Rule 1260-2-.06 Demanding PII without disclosure;
18 U.S.C. § 1961	ct – Pattern of Fraudulent Conduct High 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. Multiple predicate acts: wire f
Tennessee Code § 39-13-604	r intercepted communication. • State (Tennessee Code § 39-13-604): Unauthorized computer access; each ac
18 U.S.C. § 1030	, plus criminal penalties. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1030 – CFAA): Unauthorized access to protect
47 U.S.C. § 605	5,000 plus treble damages. • Federal (47 U.S.C. § 605): Unauthorized use of communications; f
18 U.S.C. § 1343	ions; fine up to $110,000. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1343 – Wire Fraud): Scheme to defraud using
GDPR Art. 5	amages per incident. • International (GDPR Art. 5, 6): Lawful processing; each unauthoriz
Tennessee Code § 39-13-607	PII; each demand is a count. • State (Tennessee Code § 39-13-607): Identity theft; each demand is a coun
GDPR Art. 32	amages per incident. • International (GDPR Art. 32): Security of processing; each transmis
Tennessee Code § 47-18-104	; each act is a misdemeanor. • State (Tennessee Code § 47-18-104): Unfair or deceptive acts; each act is
18 U.S.C. § 1962	act is a predicate count. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1962): RICO conspiracy; each participant is
15 U.S.C. § 45	. § 605; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (C
Civ. Code § 1798.100	cy Act); 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA). Military UCMJ Articles: Art.
18 U.S.C. § 3571	: all 6 counts. Criminal exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 3571: up to $500,000 per count × 6 = $3,000,
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	Count IV – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair and deceptive practices. Cou
Tenn. Code § 39-17-308	's associate. Count VII – Harassment (Tenn. Code § 39-17-308): Unlawful harassment of defense person
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

79.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (10)

Header	Source excerpt
Count Crime Accounting & Temporal Aggregation	e metrics. 4. Deterministic Per‑Count Crime Accounting & Temporal Aggregation Methodology: For each distinct violat
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendant Sullivan intentionally intercepted electronic communications without consent.	tlin, Zillow Group, Inc. Counts: Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendant Sullivan intentionally intercepted electronic communicatio
Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers via Zillow platform.	ronic communications without consent. Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers vi
Count III – Violation of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Unauthorized collection of PII without consent or legal authority.	tected computers via Zillow platform. Count III – Violation of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Unauthorized collection of PII without consent or legal author
Count IV – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair and deceptive practices.	I without consent or legal authority. Count IV – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair and deceptive practices. Count V – Tortious Interference w
Count V – Tortious Interference with Contract: False claims of authority to obstruct corporate acquisition.	(a)): Unfair and deceptive practices. Count V – Tortious Interference with Contract: False claims of authority to obstruct corporate acquisition. Count VI – Def
Count VI – Defamation (Slander Per Se): Defamatory statements regarding plaintiff's associate.	ty to obstruct corporate acquisition. Count VI – Defamation (Slander Per Se): Defamatory statements regarding plaintiff's associate. Count VII – Harassment (Ten
Count VII – Harassment (Tenn. Code § 39-17-308): Unlawful harassment of defense personnel.	ents regarding plaintiff's associate. Count VII – Harassment (Tenn. Code § 39-17-308): Unlawful harassment of defense personnel. Count VIII – RICO (18 U.S.C. §
Count VIII – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Pattern of racketeering activity (wire fraud, identity fraud, harassment).	wful harassment of defense personnel. Count VIII – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Pattern of racketeering activity (wire fraud, identity fraud, harassment). Count IX
Count IX – Bivens Claim (403 U.S. 388): Fourth Amendment unreasonable search (reverse‑phone lookup); Fifth Amendment due process; Sixth Amendment right to counsel (coerced data extraction).	e fraud, identity fraud, harassment). Count IX – Bivens Claim (403 U.S. 388): Fourth Amendment unreasonable search (reverse‑phone lookup); Fifth Amendment due p

79.4 Dollar Figures (55)

$2.00 · $2.50 · $3.00 · $3.26 · $3.40 · $3.98 · $4.50 · $11.94 · $17.92 · $34.50 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $12,500.00 · $15,000.00 · $30,000.00 · $35,000.00 · $37,500.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $70,000.00 · $87,500.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $150,000.00 · $150,360.00 · $180,000.00 · $250,000.00 · $300,000.00 · $350,840.00 · $375,000.00 · $400,000.00 · $409,000.00 · $500,000.00 · $540,000.00 · $750,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $1,327,620.00 · $1,500,000.00 · $1,503,600.00 · $1,750,000.00 · $2,000,000.00 · $2,500,000.00 · $3,000,000.00 · $3,260,000.00 · $3,400,000.00 · $3,982,860.00 · $4,050,120.00 · $7,000,000.00 · $7,500,000.00 · $9,293,340.00 · $11,948,580.00 · $30,000,000.00 · $34,500,000.00 · $39,828,600.00

79.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 80 of 261

Section 80 — Forensic Audit Report – Choice Homes Community Page

Source File	FORENSIC-0080-choicehomesrealty-co-audit-cfe5a590.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-30 16:46:00
Size	38,795 bytes
SHA-256	cfe5a5904441934c36a1fdac20fde7df869a844025ef688fa7d5ec0d2f61f49d

80.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) – estimated 10 million un
defendant	Choice Homes LLC	million unique visitors over 3 years. Defendants: Choice Homes LLC, Ylopo Inc., Google LLC, Meta Platforms Inc., Omnisend, Locksmith Inc., and John Does 1-100 (

80.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (27)

Citation	Source excerpt
GDPR Art. 5	filtration via Third‑Party Scripts High GDPR Art. 5, 6, 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); CCPA § 1798.
18 U.S.C. § 2511	Art. 5(3); CCPA § 1798.100; Wiretap Act 18 U.S.C. § 2511; CFAA 18 U.S.C. § 1030 Google Analytics
18 U.S.C. § 1030	100; Wiretap Act 18 U.S.C. § 2511; CFAA 18 U.S.C. § 1030 Google Analytics (gtag), Facebook Pixel
Civ. Code § 1798.150	dium FTC Act § 5; CCPA § 1798.100; Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150; GDPR Art. 32 Form action="/contact" mi
GDPR Art. 32	§ 1798.100; Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150; GDPR Art. 32 Form action="/contact" missing CSRF tok
47 U.S.C. § 605	eolocation & Device Fingerprinting High 47 U.S.C. § 605; 18 U.S.C. § 1030; GDPR Art. 7, 13; ITU
GDPR Art. 7	High 47 U.S.C. § 605; 18 U.S.C. § 1030; GDPR Art. 7, 13; ITU Radio Regulations Scripts read
18 U.S.C. § 1343	nd Cart Tracking High 18 U.S.C. § 1030; 18 U.S.C. § 1343; Wiretap Act; Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 55
5 U.S.C. § 552	U.S.C. § 1343; Wiretap Act; Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a Locksmith script sets `locksmith-param
GDPR Art. 44	e Drive, Ylopo) High GLBA § 6801; CCPA; GDPR Art. 44-49; OECD Privacy Guidelines Links to Mo
GDPR Art. 21	Opt‑Out Mechanism High CCPA § 1798.135; GDPR Art. 21; ePrivacy Art. 5(3) Cookie banner prese
Tennessee Code § 39-13-604	up to $1,000 per occurrence. • State (Tennessee Code § 39-13-604): Unauthorized computer access and data
47 U.S.C. § 301	h transmission is a count. • Federal (47 U.S.C. § 301): Unlicensed transmission of location d
47 U.S.C. § 333	ion of spectrum licensing. • Federal (47 U.S.C. § 333): Interference with radio communication
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A)	t modification is a count. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A)): Knowingly causing the transmission of
18 U.S.C. § 1362	ge; each fetch is a count. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1362 – Communication lines): Malicious misch
County Code § 8-6-101	ations) County Ordinances: Hamilton County Code § 8-6-101 – electronic surveillance without conse
15 U.S.C. § 45	fines); 47 U.S.C. § 605, § 301, § 333; 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC), § 6801 (GLBA); 5 U.S.C. § 552a (
18 U.S.C. § 3571	million. Criminal exposure: fines under 18 U.S.C. § 3571 (up to $250,000 per count × 7.7M = $1.9
42 U.S.C. § 1983	– actual + punitive All individuals 42 U.S.C. § 1983 No cap State actors (if any) State s
Civ. Code § 1798.100	e California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Failure to provide notice and
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	Count IV – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair and deceptive practices in fai
15 U.S.C. § 6801	ing. Count V – Violation of the GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Unauthorized sharing of financial inf
18 U.S.C. § 1961	cable to EU citizens. Count X – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Enterprise engaged in pattern of rack
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

80.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (12)

Header	Source excerpt
Count Crime Accounting & Temporal Aggregation	itionally. 3. Deterministic Per‑Count Crime Accounting & Temporal Aggregation Methodology: For each distinct violat
count is based on conversion rate estimated at 2% of visitors (200 submissions/day). Tip Line and Download clicks at 0.5% each (50/day). All monetary amounts in USD.	per visitor. Newsletter form submission count is based on conversion rate estimated at 2% of visitors (200 submissions/day). Tip Line and Download clicks at 0.5
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications (page views, form data) without consent, affecting millions of users.	‑party data processors). Counts: Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications (page
Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers via script injection and cookie manipulation.	consent, affecting millions of users. Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers vi
Count III – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Failure to provide notice and opt‑out, selling personal information without consent.	pt injection and cookie manipulation. Count III – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Failure to provide notic
Count IV – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair and deceptive practices in failing to disclose tracking and data sharing.	personal information without consent. Count IV – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair and deceptive practices in failing to disclose tracking an
Count V – Violation of the GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Unauthorized sharing of financial information (if any cart/payment data collected).	o disclose tracking and data sharing. Count V – Violation of the GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Unauthorized sharing of financial information (if any cart/payment dat
Count VI – Violation of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Government contractors (if any) mishandling personal data.	(if any cart/payment data collected). Count VI – Violation of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Government contractors (if any) mishandling personal data. Coun
Count VII – Bivens Claim (403 U.S. 388): Fourth Amendment unreasonable search and seizure; Fifth Amendment due process; Sixth Amendment right to counsel (coerced data extraction); Eighth Amendment excessive su	s (if any) mishandling personal data. Count VII – Bivens Claim (403 U.S. 388): Fourth Amendment unreasonable search and seizure; Fifth Amendment due process; Si
Count VIII – Common Law Tort Claims: Intrusion upon seclusion, public disclosure of private facts, negligence, trespass to chattels, conversion, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.	hth Amendment excessive surveillance. Count VIII – Common Law Tort Claims: Intrusion upon seclusion, public disclosure of private facts, negligence, trespass to
Count IX – Violation of ePrivacy Directive (2002/58/EC) and GDPR: Processing without lawful basis and lack of consent, applicable to EU citizens.	nal infliction of emotional distress. Count IX – Violation of ePrivacy Directive (2002/58/EC) and GDPR: Processing without lawful basis and lack of consent, app
Count X – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Enterprise engaged in pattern of racketeering activity (fraud, wire fraud, money laundering) through systematic data theft.	f consent, applicable to EU citizens. Count X – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Enterprise engaged in pattern of racketeering activity (fraud, wire fraud, money launde

80.4 Dollar Figures (66)

$1.00 · $1.20 · $1.48 · $1.54 · $1.80 · $1.92 · $2.10 · $5.41 · $9.22 · $11.50 · $38.45 · $50.00 · $109.50 · $200.00 · $231.00 · $460.00 · $500.00 · $700.00 · $1,000.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $25,000.00 · $30,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $75,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $250,000.00 · $280,000.00 · $500,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $10,024,000.00 · $14,000,000.00 · $50,000,000.00 · $70,168,000.00 · $75,000,000.00 · $98,000,000.00 · $304,815,000.00 · $350,000,000.00 · $400,000,000.00 · $425,880,000.00 · $525,000,000.00 · $1,100,000,000.00 · $1,520,835,000.00 · $1,649,024,000.00 · $2,281,252,500.00 · $2,800,000,000.00 · $7,700,000,000.00 · $10,976,280,000.00 · $11,543,168,000.00 · $12,166,670,000.00 · $15,330,000,000.00 · $33,458,370,000.00 · $50,157,822,500.00 · $54,750,000,000.00 · $82,125,000,000.00 · $438,000,000,000.00 · $1,200,000,000,000.00 · $1,204,500,000,000.00 · $1,480,000,000,000.00 · $1,543,000,000,000.00 · $1,805,681,280,000.00 · $5,415,000,000,000.00

80.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 81 of 261

Section 81 — Forensic Audit Report – Lexington County Email Complaint

Source File	FORENSIC-0081-lexington-county-auidt-1-1b8f8ddd.html
Created	August 02, 2026
Modified	2026-08-02 11:07:00
Size	44,093 bytes
SHA-256	1b8f8dddddf79282b6623e7c22bdda91d557218ee88ece379fad093f2138a6d8

81.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	The Lanier Family Trust	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: The Lanier Family Trust and Ladco Defense Technologies (Represented by Anri Bryant Lanier Sr.,
defendant	Lexington County	Anri Bryant Lanier Sr., Esq., Ph.D.) Defendants: Lexington County, South Carolina; Darrell Hudson (Council Chairman); Jay

81.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (11)

Citation	Source excerpt
42 U.S.C. § 1983	-150) High 2005–2026 S.C. Code (2005+), 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Email paragraphs re: tax sale of 147 Sa
18 U.S.C. § 242	s actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 18 U.S.C. § 242 (deprivation of rights under color of l
18 U.S.C. § 1343	privation of rights under color of law; 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud) – if electronic communicat
18 U.S.C. § 1361	onic communications used to facilitate; 18 U.S.C. § 1361 (government property) – not directly; b
18 U.S.C. § 241	titutes a conspiracy to deprive rights (18 U.S.C. § 241), willful deprivation under color of la
42 U.S.C. § 1985(3)	S.C. § 242), and civil conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). Furthermore, the county is liable unde
18 U.S.C. § 371	conspiracy to deprive equal protection; 18 U.S.C. § 371 – conspiracy to defraud the United Stat
18 U.S.C. § 793(f)	cious injury to property). • Federal: 18 U.S.C. § 793(f) – Loss, theft, or compromise of defense
18 U.S.C. § 1382	e information through gross negligence; 18 U.S.C. § 1382 – Entering military or naval property (
18 U.S.C. § 2155	to include national defense premises); 18 U.S.C. § 2155 – Destruction of national‑defense premi
42 U.S.C. § 1985	to Deprive Rights (18 U.S.C. § 241 and 42 U.S.C. § 1985): Defendants conspired to retaliate aga

81.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (8)

Header	Source excerpt
count it as a daily violation from the date of breach (assumed June 1, 2026) to present. For simplicity, we use a uniform baseline of 21 years (2005–2026 = 7,665 days) for the first three types, and 62 days	event, but its effects are ongoing; we count it as a daily violation from the date of breach (assumed June 1, 2026) to present. For simplicity, we use a uniform
count is composite $500,000 (conservative).	occur at daily granularity. Penalty per count is composite $500,000 (conservative). Violation Type Penalty / Co
Count I – Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Deprivation of Property Without Due Process): Defendants, acting under color of law, conducted an unlawful tax sale of property exempt under S.C. Code § 12‑37‑220, an	unnamed co‑conspirators. Counts: Count I – Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Deprivation of Property Without Due Process): Defendants, acting under color of law, c
Count II – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242 (Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law): Defendants willfully deprived plaintiffs of rights secured by the Constitution, including the right to property and due proc	y violating the Fourteenth Amendment. Count II – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242 (Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law): Defendants willfully deprived plaintif
Count III – Conspiracy to Deprive Rights (18 U.S.C. § 241 and 42 U.S.C. § 1985): Defendants conspired to retaliate against plaintiffs due to a historical conflict of interest, and used official positions to co	physical breach of secured premises. Count III – Conspiracy to Deprive Rights (18 U.S.C. § 241 and 42 U.S.C. § 1985): Defendants conspired to retaliate against
Count IV – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2155 (Destruction of National‑Defense Premises): Defendants, or persons acting at their direction, willfully entered and damaged a secured national defense facility, compro	itions to cover up the unlawful acts. Count IV – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2155 (Destruction of National‑Defense Premises): Defendants, or persons acting at thei
Count V – Bivens Claim (Fourth, Fifth, Fourteenth Amendments): Federal defendants (Graham, Wilson) and state defendants acting in joint participation violated plaintiffs' rights against unreasonable seizure	lity, compromising classified assets. Count V – Bivens Claim (Fourth, Fifth, Fourteenth Amendments): Federal defendants (Graham, Wilson) and state defendants ac
Count VI – Tort Claims (Conversion, Trespass, Civil Conspiracy, IIED): Defendants committed common law torts, causing severe emotional and financial harm.	nd are personally liable for damages. Count VI – Tort Claims (Conversion, Trespass, Civil Conspiracy, IIED): Defendants committed common law torts, causing seve

81.4 Dollar Figures (37)

$0.00 · $1.20 · $3.07 · $5.00 · $7.60 · $9.20 · $10.00 · $15.34 · $21.60 · $30.68 · $46.00 · $46.02 · $92.00 · $92.04 · $100.00 · $138.00 · $184.00 · $276.00 · $306.80 · $828.00 · $920.40 · $10,000.00 · $500,000.00 · $2,000,000.00 · $3,500,000.00 · $14,000,000.00 · $15,220,000.00 · $45,660,000.00 · $60,880,000.00 · $91,320,000.00 · $182,620,000.00 · $182,640,000.00 · $365,280,000.00 · $730,480,000.00 · $3,835,000,000.00 · $9,204,000,000.00 · $15,340,000,000.00

81.5 Dates (4)

2005-01-01 · 2020-01-01 · 2026-06-01 · 2026-08-02

Section 82 of 261

Section 82 — Forensic Audit Report – Instagram Homepage (Part 1 of 3)

Source File	FORENSIC-0082-instagram-audit-1of3-91e03d2f.html
Created	July 31, 2026
Modified	2026-07-31 05:08:49
Size	36,999 bytes
SHA-256	91e03d2f6562e3e5a5674b82b01ddbc83343b68aae1541b797a3d5d1eb71998e

82.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Meta Platf
defendant	Meta Platforms	affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Meta Platforms, Inc.; Google LLC; Segment.io, Inc.; Adobe, I

82.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (29)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	dit is conducted under the authority of 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, and 10 U.S.C. § 230
50 U.S.C. § 1702	der the authority of 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, and 10 U.S.C. § 2304, as part of a sys
10 U.S.C. § 2304	2 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, and 10 U.S.C. § 2304, as part of a systematic investigation
18 U.S.C. § 1961	ons constitutes a RICO enterprise under 18 U.S.C. § 1961, as the coordinated scheme to intercept
18 U.S.C. § 2511	ronic communications (Wiretap Act) High 18 U.S.C. § 2511, 47 U.S.C. § 605, Cal. Penal Code § 631
47 U.S.C. § 605	ns (Wiretap Act) High 18 U.S.C. § 2511, 47 U.S.C. § 605, Cal. Penal Code § 631 Lines 19‑24, 30‑
Penal Code § 631	18 U.S.C. § 2511, 47 U.S.C. § 605, Cal. Penal Code § 631 Lines 19‑24, 30‑102 (GTM and Segment sc
Prof. Code § 17200	onsent High FTC Act § 5(a), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, GDPR Art. 7 Splash screen and deferred
GDPR Art. 7	§ 5(a), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, GDPR Art. 7 Splash screen and deferred script loadi
GDPR Art. 5	timate purpose (data minimization) High GDPR Art. 5(1)(c), CCPA § 1798.100, Cal. Civ. Code
Civ. Code § 1798.100	DPR Art. 5(1)(c), CCPA § 1798.100, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 Embedded JSON with device_id, machine_i
GDPR Art. 44	nsfers without adequate safeguards High GDPR Art. 44, Schrems II, 18 U.S.C. § 2511 Scripts l
GDPR Art. 32	OptanonConsent) – no Secure flag Medium GDPR Art. 32, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.81.5 Cookie cons
Civ. Code § 1798.81.5	o Secure flag Medium GDPR Art. 32, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.81.5 Cookie consent references (lines 26‑29,
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)	ized access to protected computers High 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C), (a)(5)(C) Scripts accessing user data
Police Code § 720	onal: • County: San Francisco County Police Code § 720 (prohibition of unlawful surveillance)
Penal Code § 631(a)	00 per violation. • State: California Penal Code § 631(a) – "any person who … willfully and wit
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)	lso § 632 (eavesdropping). • Federal: 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a) – "intentionally intercepts, endeavors
County Code § 12.04.010	xpansion (3×): • County: Los Angeles County Code § 12.04.010 (unfair business practices) – penalty u
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	ice at collection. • Federal: FTC Act 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) – unfair or deceptive acts or practices
18 U.S.C. § 1343	120 per violation (2026 adjusted). Also 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud) if the deception induces u
Penal Code § 502	fraud ordinances. • State: California Penal Code § 502 – unauthorized computer access – penalt
Penal Code § 33.02	York Penal Law §§ 156.00, 250.00; Texas Penal Code § 33.02. Federal U.S.C. Titles: 18 U.S.C. § 25
5 U.S.C. § 552	C Act), § 6801 (GLBA); 47 U.S.C. § 605; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act). Military UCMJ Article
18 U.S.C. § 3571	ty for all counts; criminal fines under 18 U.S.C. § 3571 up to $500,000 per count; total crimina
18 U.S.C. § 1030	$10,000 + treble Interception CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030) $5,000 + treble Unauthorized access
42 U.S.C. § 1983	+ punitive Constitutional violations 42 U.S.C. § 1983 No cap State actors (if any) State s
15 U.S.C. § 6801	iolation of the Gramm‑Leach‑Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Failure to protect nonpublic personal
18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)	ted in surveillance. Count IX – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), (d)): Pattern of racketeering (wire fr

82.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (12)

Header	Source excerpt
count liability for this single part is estimated at $2.7 Trillion based on the number of users (2.4 billion monthly active users worldwide), the frequency of tracking events per session, and the statutory pe	es are cleared. The deterministic per‑count liability for this single part is estimated at $2.7 Trillion based on the number of users (2.4 billion monthly activ
Count Crime Accounting & Temporal Aggregation	collected. 3. Deterministic Per‑Count Crime Accounting & Temporal Aggregation Methodology: For each violation type,
count is 800 million users × 50 events = 40 billion tracking events per day . Over a 3‑year lifespan, this is 40 billion × 1,095 days = 43.8 trillion tracking events . We also count each user as a separate v	ata transmission). Therefore, the daily count is 800 million users × 50 events = 40 billion tracking events per day . Over a 3‑year lifespan, this is 40 billion
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications of users without consent, using GTM, Segment, and other tracking scripts.	fied in the source code. Counts: Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications of us
Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers (user devices) to obtain information.	Segment, and other tracking scripts. Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers (us
Count III – Violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Deceptive practices through dark patterns and lack of genuine consent.	(user devices) to obtain information. Count III – Violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Deceptive practices through dark patterns a
Count IV – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Collection and sale of personal information without proper notice and opt‑out mechanisms.	patterns and lack of genuine consent. Count IV – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Collection and sale of pe
Count V – Violation of the Gramm‑Leach‑Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Failure to protect nonpublic personal information.	proper notice and opt‑out mechanisms. Count V – Violation of the Gramm‑Leach‑Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Failure to protect nonpublic personal information. C
Count VI – Common Law Fraud and Deceit: Misrepresentations regarding data collection and consent.	otect nonpublic personal information. Count VI – Common Law Fraud and Deceit: Misrepresentations regarding data collection and consent. Count VII – Invasion of
Count VII – Invasion of Privacy (Intrusion Upon Seclusion): Intrusive monitoring of user interactions.	egarding data collection and consent. Count VII – Invasion of Privacy (Intrusion Upon Seclusion): Intrusive monitoring of user interactions. Count VIII – Bivens
Count VIII – Bivens Claim (Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth Amendments): Federal actors (if any) participated in surveillance.	sive monitoring of user interactions. Count VIII – Bivens Claim (Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth Amendments): Federal actors (if any) participated in surveillance.
Count IX – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), (d)): Pattern of racketeering (wire fraud, mail fraud) to monetize intercepted data.	if any) participated in surveillance. Count IX – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), (d)): Pattern of racketeering (wire fraud, mail fraud) to monetize intercepted data.

82.4 Dollar Figures (41)

$1.12 · $1.15 · $1.20 · $1.22 · $1.31 · $1.40 · $1.80 · $2.00 · $2.19 · $2.70 · $2.80 · $3.27 · $3.36 · $3.60 · $3.93 · $4.00 · $4.20 · $4.38 · $4.39 · $6.00 · $6.55 · $6.57 · $7.84 · $8.00 · $8.40 · $8.80 · $9.43 · $1,000.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $25,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $280,000.00 · $500,000.00 · $1,000,000.00

82.5 Dates (1)

2026-07-31

Section 83 of 261

Section 83 — Forensic Audit Report – Instagram Homepage (Part 3 of 3)

Source File	FORENSIC-0083-instagram-audit-3of3-3496b774.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-31 05:27:50
Size	36,598 bytes
SHA-256	3496b774f603da7b8d815033fa83acb135b35dc86238e38a9ff1923f8f65c446

83.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) – at minimum, the 35 user
defendant	Meta Platforms	the 35 users identified in this file. Defendants: Meta Platforms, Inc.; Mark Zuckerberg; Adam Mosseri; and oth

83.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (22)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 2511	domains, constituting wiretapping under 18 U.S.C. § 2511 and fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343. The t
18 U.S.C. § 1343	under 18 U.S.C. § 2511 and fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343. The total deterministic count of discre
GDPR Art. 5	of Personal Data (Stories & Feed) High GDPR Art. 5, 6; CCPA; 18 U.S.C. § 1030; 47 U.S.C. §
18 U.S.C. § 1030	ries & Feed) High GDPR Art. 5, 6; CCPA; 18 U.S.C. § 1030; 47 U.S.C. § 605 JSON payloads for stor
47 U.S.C. § 605	GDPR Art. 5, 6; CCPA; 18 U.S.C. § 1030; 47 U.S.C. § 605 JSON payloads for story tray and feed p
Penal Code § 502	igh CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030); California Penal Code § 502; 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA) Explicit user
15 U.S.C. § 6801	. § 1030); California Penal Code § 502; 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA) Explicit user ID (17841443956753
GDPR Art. 7	plicit Consent and Dark Patterns Medium GDPR Art. 7; ePrivacy Directive; California Consume
County Code § 22	ort, International: • County (Harris County Code § 22): Prohibits negligent disclosure of sec
GDPR Art. 32	al + consequential. • International – GDPR Art. 32: Security of processing; failure to imp
Professions Code § 17200	ected. • State (California Business & Professions Code § 17200): Unfair competition – deceptive practi
15 U.S.C. § 45	500 per violation. • Federal (FTC Act 15 U.S.C. § 45): Unfair or deceptive acts or practices
County Code § 4.5	, International: • County (San Diego County Code § 4.5): Prohibits unauthorized tracking of us
Penal Code § 33.02	y: $750 per violation. • State (Texas Penal Code § 33.02): Breach of computer security – unautho
18 U.S.C. § 1037	10,000 per count + treble. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1037 – CAN-SPAM): Use of automated means to
5 U.S.C. § 552	.C. § 605; 15 U.S.C. §§ 45, 6801, 7701; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act). Military UCMJ Article
18 U.S.C. § 3571	: 0. Total: 225,570. Criminal exposure: 18 U.S.C. § 3571 – up to $500,000 per count = $112,785,0
15 U.S.C. § 7701	l agencies (if applicable) CAN‑SPAM (15 U.S.C. § 7701) $51,744 Ad tracking ADA / § 508 $75
42 U.S.C. § 1983	+ punitive Constitutional violations 42 U.S.C. § 1983 No cap State actors (if applicable)
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

83.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (11)

Header	Source excerpt
Count Crime Accounting & Temporal Aggregation	oh" …> . 3. Deterministic Per‑Count Crime Accounting & Temporal Aggregation Methodology: For each distinct violat
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications of users without consent through tracking scripts and data collection. (112,785 count	the Instagram platform. Counts: Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications of use
Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants accessed protected computers without authorization, exceeded authorized access, and caused damage by exposing user IDs a	r script load and data transmission). Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants accessed protected computers witho
Count III – Violation of the Federal Wire Fraud Act (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Defendants used interstate wires to execute a scheme to defraud users of their personal data and privacy. (112,785 counts).	obfuscated scripts. (112,785 counts). Count III – Violation of the Federal Wire Fraud Act (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Defendants used interstate wires to execute a sche
Count IV – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA): Defendants collected and sold personal data without providing opt-out mechanisms. (35 counts per user per day = 38,325 counts).	l data and privacy. (112,785 counts). Count IV – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA): Defendants collected and sold personal data without pr
Count V – Violation of the GDPR (EU) 2016/679: Defendants processed personal data without lawful basis, consent, or transparency. (38,325 counts).	ts per user per day = 38,325 counts). Count V – Violation of the GDPR (EU) 2016/679: Defendants processed personal data without lawful basis, consent, or transp
Count VI – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive practices by hiding data collection behind dark patterns. (1,095 counts – one per day).	nt, or transparency. (38,325 counts). Count VI – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive practices by hiding data
Count VII – Violation of the GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Defendants failed to protect customer information (user IDs). (1,095 counts).	tterns. (1,095 counts – one per day). Count VII – Violation of the GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Defendants failed to protect customer information (user IDs). (1,095
Count VIII – Violation of the CAN-SPAM Act (15 U.S.C. § 7701): Defendants used automated means to harvest user interaction data for advertising. (54,750 counts).	formation (user IDs). (1,095 counts). Count VIII – Violation of the CAN-SPAM Act (15 U.S.C. § 7701): Defendants used automated means to harvest user interaction
Count IX – Violation of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): If federal employees’ data was collected (not evident, but broad allegation).	ata for advertising. (54,750 counts). Count IX – Violation of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): If federal employees’ data was collected (not evident, but broa
Count X – Tort Claims: Invasion of privacy, negligence, fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and public nuisance – 112,785 counts.	(not evident, but broad allegation). Count X – Tort Claims: Invasion of privacy, negligence, fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and public nui

83.4 Dollar Figures (61)

$3.50 · $5.20 · $7.20 · $10.00 · $500.00 · $750.00 · $1,000.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $25,000.00 · $35,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $75,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $150,000.00 · $285,000.00 · $350,840.00 · $362,208.00 · $500,000.00 · $525,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $1,503,600.00 · $1,552,320.00 · $2,285,000.00 · $3,500,000.00 · $5,475,000.00 · $9,975,000.00 · $10,656,864.00 · $11,497,500.00 · $15,220,000.00 · $38,325,000.00 · $54,881,400.00 · $56,659,680.00 · $69,825,000.00 · $74,598,048.00 · $82,125,000.00 · $114,975,000.00 · $303,525,000.00 · $324,235,920.00 · $383,250,000.00 · $547,500,000.00 · $1,149,750,000.00 · $1,264,725,000.00 · $1,647,225,000.00 · $3,500,779,824.00 · $8,401,871,578.00 · $10,315,000,000.00 · $10,922,625,000.00 · $11,669,266,080.00 · $16,917,500,000.00 · $35,007,798,240.00 · $56,392,500,000.00 · $92,664,989,320.00 · $112,785,000,000.00 · $175,471,500,000.00 · $223,795,789,320.00

83.5 Dates (1)

2026-07-31

Section 84 of 261

Section 84 — ODNI Master Report – Consolidated Numerical Findings (Parts 1–3)

Source File	FORENSIC-0084-4-odni-forensic-nurmerical-summary-instagram-audit-2df07d61.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-31 06:06:56
Size	22,924 bytes
SHA-256	2df07d6180a13a8031b8e89ec8f922b01748b73a8eb05f013cf429d029d3ba98

84.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

84.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (6)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	it was conducted under the authority of 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, and 10 U.S.C. § 230
50 U.S.C. § 1702	der the authority of 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, and 10 U.S.C. § 2304, as part of a sys
10 U.S.C. § 2304	2 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, and 10 U.S.C. § 2304, as part of a systematic investigation
GDPR Art. 44	0 15 Cross‑border data transfer (GDPR Art. 44) $280,000 (≈ €250,000) 40,000,000,0
18 U.S.C. § 1030	10 15 CFAA unauthorized access (18 U.S.C. § 1030) $5,000 + treble 40,000,000,000 4
18 U.S.C. § 3571	a Platforms, Inc.: Criminal fines under 18 U.S.C. § 3571 up to $500,000 per count → $6.55 × 10 1

84.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (4)

Header	Source excerpt
Count Lifespan Count (1,095 days)	e Per‑Count Statutory Penalty Daily Count Lifespan Count (1,095 days) Lifespan Gross Liability Un
Count Lifespan Count (1,095 days)	e Per‑Count Statutory Penalty Daily Count Lifespan Count (1,095 days) Lifespan Gross Liability Un
Count Lifespan Count (1,095 days)	e Per‑Count Statutory Penalty Daily Count Lifespan Count (1,095 days) Lifespan Gross Liability Un
Count Combined Lifespan Count	Violation Type Combined Daily Count Combined Lifespan Count Combined Lifespan Gross Liability

84.4 Dollar Figures (56)

$1.15 · $1.20 · $1.22 · $1.31 · $2.19 · $3.27 · $3.60 · $3.93 · $4.38 · $4.39 · $6.55 · $6.57 · $8.00 · $8.40 · $8.80 · $9.43 · $15.30 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $280,000.00 · $285,000.00 · $500,000.00 · $4,677,320.00 · $5,475,000.00 · $10,656,864.00 · $10,950,000.00 · $15,334,184.00 · $32,741,240.00 · $54,881,400.00 · $56,659,680.00 · $74,598,048.00 · $82,125,000.00 · $107,339,288.00 · $109,762,800.00 · $142,457,968.00 · $164,250,000.00 · $273,750,000.00 · $324,235,920.00 · $466,693,888.00 · $547,500,000.00 · $821,250,000.00 · $1,872,450,000.00 · $2,833,228,800.00 · $2,889,888,480.00 · $5,037,352,884.00 · $5,121,910,200.00 · $10,922,625,000.00 · $11,669,266,080.00 · $12,795,075,000.00 · $16,791,176,280.00 · $50,373,528,840.00 · $13,100,000,000,000,000,000.00 · $13,100,000,016,791,177,216.00

84.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 85 of 261

Section 85 — Forensic Audit Report – Instagram Homepage

Source File	FORENSIC-0085-instagram-audit-2of3-e4102808.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-31 05:20:12
Size	36,589 bytes
SHA-256	e41028085019310be55aef18c38262a0a7f5be3ebe81340f967ea34db71ecbbb

85.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) – at minimum, the six use
defendant	Meta Platforms	he six users identified in this file. Defendants: Meta Platforms, Inc.; Mark Zuckerberg; Adam Mosseri; and oth

85.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (22)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 2511	domains, constituting wiretapping under 18 U.S.C. § 2511 and fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343. The t
18 U.S.C. § 1343	under 18 U.S.C. § 2511 and fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343. The total deterministic count of discre
GDPR Art. 5	tion & Processing of Personal Data High GDPR Art. 5, 6; CCPA; 18 U.S.C. § 1030; 47 U.S.C. §
18 U.S.C. § 1030	ersonal Data High GDPR Art. 5, 6; CCPA; 18 U.S.C. § 1030; 47 U.S.C. § 605 JSON payloads containi
47 U.S.C. § 605	GDPR Art. 5, 6; CCPA; 18 U.S.C. § 1030; 47 U.S.C. § 605 JSON payloads containing user profiles
Penal Code § 502	igh CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030); California Penal Code § 502; 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA) Explicit dtsg
15 U.S.C. § 6801	. § 1030); California Penal Code § 502; 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA) Explicit dtsg token and user ID
GDPR Art. 7	plicit Consent and Dark Patterns Medium GDPR Art. 7; ePrivacy Directive; California Consume
18 U.S.C. § 1037	d Behavioral Tracking High Wiretap Act; 18 U.S.C. § 1037 (CAN-SPAM) qplTimingsServerJS, Bootload
County Code § 22	ort, International: • County (Harris County Code § 22): Prohibits negligent disclosure of sec
GDPR Art. 32	al + consequential. • International – GDPR Art. 32: Security of processing; failure to imp
Professions Code § 17200	ected. • State (California Business & Professions Code § 17200): Unfair competition – deceptive practi
15 U.S.C. § 45	500 per violation. • Federal (FTC Act 15 U.S.C. § 45): Unfair or deceptive acts or practices
County Code § 4.5	, International: • County (San Diego County Code § 4.5): Prohibits unauthorized tracking of us
Penal Code § 33.02	y: $750 per violation. • State (Texas Penal Code § 33.02): Breach of computer security – unautho
5 U.S.C. § 552	.C. § 605; 15 U.S.C. §§ 45, 6801, 7701; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act). Military UCMJ Article
18 U.S.C. § 3571	ory + constructive). Criminal exposure: 18 U.S.C. § 3571 – up to $500,000 per count = $107,310,0
15 U.S.C. § 7701	l agencies (if applicable) CAN‑SPAM (15 U.S.C. § 7701) $51,744 Behavioral tracking ADA / §
42 U.S.C. § 1983	+ punitive Constitutional violations 42 U.S.C. § 1983 No cap State actors (if applicable)
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

85.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (11)

Header	Source excerpt
Count Crime Accounting & Temporal Aggregation	oh" …> . 3. Deterministic Per‑Count Crime Accounting & Temporal Aggregation Methodology: For each distinct violat
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications of users without consent through tracking scripts and data collection. (107,310 count	the Instagram platform. Counts: Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications of use
Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants accessed protected computers without authorization, exceeded authorized access, and caused damage by exposing CSRF token	ounts – one per script load per day). Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants accessed protected computers witho
Count III – Violation of the Federal Wire Fraud Act (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Defendants used interstate wires to execute a scheme to defraud users of their personal data and privacy. (107,310 counts).	obfuscated scripts. (107,310 counts). Count III – Violation of the Federal Wire Fraud Act (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Defendants used interstate wires to execute a sche
Count IV – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA): Defendants collected and sold personal data without providing opt-out mechanisms. (6 counts per user per day = 6,570 counts).	l data and privacy. (107,310 counts). Count IV – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA): Defendants collected and sold personal data without pr
Count V – Violation of the GDPR (EU) 2016/679: Defendants processed personal data without lawful basis, consent, or transparency. (6,570 counts).	nts per user per day = 6,570 counts). Count V – Violation of the GDPR (EU) 2016/679: Defendants processed personal data without lawful basis, consent, or transp
Count VI – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive practices by hiding data collection behind dark patterns. (1,095 counts – one per day).	ent, or transparency. (6,570 counts). Count VI – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive practices by hiding data
Count VII – Violation of the GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Defendants failed to protect customer information (CSRF tokens). (1,095 counts).	tterns. (1,095 counts – one per day). Count VII – Violation of the GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Defendants failed to protect customer information (CSRF tokens). (1,
Count VIII – Violation of the CAN-SPAM Act (15 U.S.C. § 7701): Defendants used automated means to harvest user interaction data. (54,750 counts).	mation (CSRF tokens). (1,095 counts). Count VIII – Violation of the CAN-SPAM Act (15 U.S.C. § 7701): Defendants used automated means to harvest user interaction
Count IX – Violation of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): If federal employees’ data was collected (not evident, but broad allegation).	er interaction data. (54,750 counts). Count IX – Violation of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): If federal employees’ data was collected (not evident, but broa
Count X – Tort Claims: Invasion of privacy, negligence, fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and public nuisance – 107,310 counts.	(not evident, but broad allegation). Count X – Tort Claims: Invasion of privacy, negligence, fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and public nui

85.4 Dollar Figures (62)

$1.50 · $2.30 · $3.20 · $10.00 · $500.00 · $750.00 · $1,000.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $25,000.00 · $35,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $75,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $150,000.00 · $250,000.00 · $285,000.00 · $350,840.00 · $500,000.00 · $525,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $1,503,600.00 · $1,710,000.00 · $1,750,000.00 · $2,285,000.00 · $2,587,200.00 · $4,677,320.00 · $5,475,000.00 · $7,610,000.00 · $11,970,000.00 · $18,110,400.00 · $32,741,240.00 · $52,155,000.00 · $54,881,400.00 · $78,754,368.00 · $82,125,000.00 · $142,457,968.00 · $273,750,000.00 · $1,095,000,000.00 · $1,280,477,550.00 · $1,872,450,000.00 · $2,833,228,800.00 · $3,285,000,000.00 · $3,687,775,344.00 · $4,526,000,000.00 · $5,121,910,200.00 · $10,950,000,000.00 · $13,413,500,000.00 · $15,365,730,600.00 · $32,850,000,000.00 · $36,135,000,000.00 · $46,620,000,000.00 · $53,655,000,000.00 · $104,970,640,800.00 · $107,310,000,000.00 · $164,280,500,000.00 · $231,388,140,800.00

85.5 Dates (1)

2026-07-31

Section 86 of 261

Section 86 — Forensic Audit Report – Oracle.com

Source File	FORENSIC-0086-audit-oracle-8f15eaa2.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-08-03 09:57:39
Size	44,526 bytes
SHA-256	8f15eaa2b3b78c70161765d7cb363496eab841d239f7e1c78963ae67c174f627

86.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) – estimated 500 million u
defendant	Oracle Corporation	U residents and California residents. Defendants: Oracle Corporation; Larry Ellison; Safra Catz; and any oth

86.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (28)

Citation	Source excerpt
15 U.S.C. § 45	, and the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 45) due to deceptive practices in privacy
18 U.S.C. § 2511	yst, and Akamai trackers High 2000–2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap), 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA), 47
18 U.S.C. § 1030	h 2000–2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap), 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA), 47 U.S.C. § 605, CCPA, GDPR, eP
47 U.S.C. § 605	511 (Wiretap), 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA), 47 U.S.C. § 605, CCPA, GDPR, ePrivacy utag.js , ora_seq
Civ. Code § 1798.135	mechanisms Medium 2018–2026 CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.135), GDPR Art. 13–14, FTC Act § 5 Footer l
GDPR Art. 13	–2026 CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.135), GDPR Art. 13–14, FTC Act § 5 Footer links; #teconsen
GDPR Art. 7	ormed consent under GDPR High 2018–2026 GDPR Art. 7, ePrivacy Directive Art. 5(3), CCPA (op
GDPR Art. 44	afeguards (Schrems II) Medium 2020–2026 GDPR Art. 44–49, CJEU Schrems II ruling Global data
GDPR Art. 9	2026 Illinois BIPA (740 ILCS 14), CCPA, GDPR Art. 9 Sign‑in modal; AI services described on
Prof. Code § 17200	A § 1798.100, GDPR Art. 13, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 Privacy link; actual policy not fully e
County Code § 22	Ordinance Chapter 30 – privacy; Harris County Code § 22 – privacy; Maricopa County Ordinance §
Penal Code § 502	arate violation. • State: California Penal Code § 502 (unauthorized computer access), § 631 (
Penal Code § 33.02	156.00–156.55 (computer crimes); Texas Penal Code § 33.02 (breach of computer security); Florida
5 U.S.C. § 552	5 – unauthorized use of communications; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act) – if federal employees u
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	t) – if federal employees use the site; 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act) – unfair/deceptive practices.
GDPR Art. 5	eparate tort claim. • International: GDPR Art. 5(1)(a) (lawfulness, fairness, transparen
County Code § 4.5	, International: • County: San Diego County Code § 4.5 (data security) – failure to provide cl
Civil Code § 1798.135	arate violation. • State: California Civil Code § 1798.135 (CCPA – "Do Not Sell My Info" requireme
18 U.S.C. § 1341	(FTC Act – unfair/deceptive practices); 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (mail fraud) – if privacy policy is use
Civ. Code § 1798.100	) – private right of action; CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100) – biometric data as personal informati
18 U.S.C. § 3571	for all counts. Criminal exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 3571: up to $500,000 per count (capped at $1
18 U.S.C. § 1343	counts: 2.3B. Criminal exposure: under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud) – up to 20 years per count
42 U.S.C. § 1983	(if federal actors use the platform) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 No cap State actors (if any) involved
Pen. Code § 502	involved State statutes (e.g., Cal. Pen. Code § 502) $5,000 per count Unauthorized computer
18 U.S.C. § 1961	a separate count. Count VIII – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Enterprise (Oracle Corporation) engag
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

86.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (10)

Header	Source excerpt
count 0.35 21.0 1,260 30,240 211,680 920,640 2,761,920 5,523,840 11,047,680 331,430,400,000	120 (FTC) + $7,500 (CCPA) = $72,620 per count 0.35 21.0 1,260 30,240 211,680 920,640 2,761,920 5,523,840 11,047,680 331,430,400,000 Cookie/Tracker Consent Viola
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications (user metadata, interactions) without consent. 90 billion separate interceptions (tra	d the data exfiltration. Counts: Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications (user
Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers (users’ devices) via third‑party scripts. 90 billion counts.	parate interceptions (tracker loads). Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers (u
Count III – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Deceptive trade practices – false and incomplete privacy disclosures, failure to provide clear opt‑out.	ird‑party scripts. 90 billion counts. Count III – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Deceptive trade practices – false and incomplete privacy disclos
Count IV – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Failure to provide notice, opt‑out, and deletion rights for 50 million California consumers.	es, failure to provide clear opt‑out. Count IV – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Failure to provide notice
Count V – Violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (740 ILCS 14): Collection of biometric data (facial scans, etc.) without informed written consent. 500,000 counts.	for 50 million California consumers. Count V – Violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (740 ILCS 14): Collection of biometric data (facial s
Count VI – Violation of the GDPR (Arts. 5, 6, 7, 13–14, 44–49): Unlawful data processing, lack of consent, inadequate transparency, and illegal cross‑border transfers. 100 million EU user counts.	rmed written consent. 500,000 counts. Count VI – Violation of the GDPR (Arts. 5, 6, 7, 13–14, 44–49): Unlawful data processing, lack of consent, inadequate tran
Count VII – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Use of deceptive privacy policies to induce users to share data. Each user visit is a separate count.	ransfers. 100 million EU user counts. Count VII – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Use of deceptive privacy policies to induce users to share data. Each user visi
Count VIII – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Enterprise (Oracle Corporation) engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity (wire fraud, money laundering) through data collection and sale.	Each user visit is a separate count. Count VIII – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Enterprise (Oracle Corporation) engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity (wire f
Count IX – Bivens Constitutional Torts: Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search/seizure – data collection without warrant), Fifth Amendment (due process – lack of procedure for data rights), Sixth Amendment (ri	ng) through data collection and sale. Count IX – Bivens Constitutional Torts: Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search/seizure – data collection without warrant),

86.4 Dollar Figures (33)

$0.00 · $1.20 · $1.30 · $2.00 · $5.00 · $5.60 · $6.30 · $6.80 · $10.00 · $50.00 · $100.00 · $282.03 · $316.50 · $329.76 · $412.20 · $433.89 · $500.00 · $1,000.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $17,500.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $72,620.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $280,000.00 · $500,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $433,889,352,000.00 · $1,301,668,056,000.00

86.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 87 of 261

Section 87 — Forensic Audit Report – Anywhere Real Estate Inc. Contact Us

Source File	FORENSIC-0087-audit-anywhere-re-83ea47c6.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-08-07 07:39:40
Size	38,533 bytes
SHA-256	83ea47c6553d1c9a30836a37fb138ab9189bf98340c04c654acec90e84282998

87.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) – estimated 7 million use
defendant	Anywhere Real Estate Inc	U residents and California residents. Defendants: Anywhere Real Estate Inc.; its CEO/President; and any officers/di

87.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (23)

Citation	Source excerpt
GDPR Art. 5	cuted prior to TrustArc) High 2019–2026 GDPR Art. 5, 6, 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); 18 U.S.C. §
18 U.S.C. § 2511	GDPR Art. 5, 6, 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); 18 U.S.C. § 2511; Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 <script>(fun
Civ. Code § 1798.100	ivacy Art. 5(3); 18 U.S.C. § 2511; Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 <script>(function(w,d,s,l,i){…})(wind
GDPR Art. 6	ion data exfiltration) Medium 2019–2026 GDPR Art. 6, 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); CCPA <iframe sr
GDPR Art. 44	hout adequate safeguards High 2020–2026 GDPR Art. 44–49; CJEU Schrems II Scripts loading fro
Civ. Code § 1798.135	l CCPA violation) Medium 2020–2026 Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.135 <a href="https://submit-irm.trustarc.co
Penal Code § 502	arate violation. • State: California Penal Code § 502 (unauthorized computer access) – the sc
18 U.S.C. § 1030	h is an interception of user's action); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA) – unauthorized access to protect
47 U.S.C. § 605	uthorized access to protected computer; 47 U.S.C. § 605 – unauthorized use of communications; 1
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	5 – unauthorized use of communications; 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act) – deceptive practices. • M
Penal Code § 631	is a violation. • State: California Penal Code § 631 (wiretapping) – unauthorized intercepti
County Code § 22	ort, International: • County: Harris County Code § 22 – privacy; each form submission is a vi
Civil Code § 1798.100	is a violation. • State: California Civil Code § 1798.100 – requires notice and opt‑out; but for
18 U.S.C. § 1343	t consent is a violation. • Federal: 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud) – if data is used for frau
County Code § 4.5	, International: • County: San Diego County Code § 4.5 – data security; each user visit withou
5 U.S.C. § 552	028, 1037, 1341, 371, 1001, 1589, 1961; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a), 6501–6506, 6801,
18 U.S.C. § 3571	for all counts. Criminal exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 3571: up to $500,000 per count (capped at $1
42 U.S.C. § 1983	+ punitive Constitutional violations 42 U.S.C. § 1983 No cap State actors State statutes (
Pen. Code § 502	te actors State statutes (e.g., Cal. Pen. Code § 502) $5,000 per count Unauthorized computer
18 U.S.C. § 1961	s a separate count. Count VII – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Enterprise (Anywhere Real Estate) eng
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

87.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (8)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications (GTM data pushes, location data) without consent. 7 million separate interceptions (p	ta processing decisions. Counts: Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications (GTM
Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers (users' devices) via GTM and Google Maps scripts. 7 million counts.	separate interceptions (page views). Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers (us
Count III – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Deceptive trade practices – failure to disclose data collection and lack of clear consent.	oogle Maps scripts. 7 million counts. Count III – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Deceptive trade practices – failure to disclose data collection
Count IV – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Failure to provide notice, opt‑out, and deletion rights for 700,000 California consumers.	collection and lack of clear consent. Count IV – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Failure to provide notice
Count V – Violation of the GDPR (Arts. 5, 6, 7, 13–14, 44–49): Unlawful data processing, lack of consent, inadequate transparency, and illegal cross‑border transfers. 1.4 million EU user counts.	hts for 700,000 California consumers. Count V – Violation of the GDPR (Arts. 5, 6, 7, 13–14, 44–49): Unlawful data processing, lack of consent, inadequate trans
Count VI – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Use of deceptive practices to induce users to visit the site; each visit is a separate count.	ransfers. 1.4 million EU user counts. Count VI – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Use of deceptive practices to induce users to visit the site; each visit is a se
Count VII – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Enterprise (Anywhere Real Estate) engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity (wire fraud, money laundering) through data collection and use.	site; each visit is a separate count. Count VII – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Enterprise (Anywhere Real Estate) engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity (wire
Count VIII – Bivens Constitutional Torts: Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search/seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process), Sixth Amendment (right to counsel), Eighth Amendment (cruel/unusual). Each federal actor	ing) through data collection and use. Count VIII – Bivens Constitutional Torts: Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search/seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process), S

87.4 Dollar Figures (36)

$0.00 · $1.00 · $1.07 · $5.00 · $10.00 · $12.42 · $13.65 · $14.22 · $20.00 · $20.32 · $22.58 · $35.00 · $67.74 · $68.10 · $68.13 · $100.00 · $300.00 · $350.00 · $385.00 · $485.00 · $500.00 · $1,000.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $72,620.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $280,000.00 · $500,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $22,581,367,200.00 · $67,744,101,600.00

87.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 88 of 261

Section 88 — Forensic Audit Report – Sotheby's Realty Italy

Source File	FORENSIC-0088-audit-sothebys-realty-italy-8e35e3c5.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-08-07 06:54:08
Size	41,626 bytes
SHA-256	8e35e3c5bfed9967cf79a0212a3df11faee2f45341b23ca0a4aa1aaf5c7d4c8c

88.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) – estimated 5.5 million u
defendant	RE ITALY S.r.l	U residents and California residents. Defendants: RE ITALY S.r.l.; Italy Sotheby's International Realty;

88.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (24)

Citation	Source excerpt
Civ. Code § 1798.105	eletion or access, violating CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.105) and GDPR Arts. 15–22. Cross‑border dat
GDPR Art. 5	and ID) without consent High 2018–2026 GDPR Art. 5, 6; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); 18 U.S.C. § 251
18 U.S.C. § 2511	026 GDPR Art. 5, 6; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 wi
Civ. Code § 1798.100	5(3); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 window.dataLayer.push({'event':'view_it
GDPR Art. 44	hout adequate safeguards High 2020–2026 GDPR Art. 44–49; CJEU Schrems II Scripts loading fro
Civ. Code § 1798.135	(CCPA violation) Medium 2020–2026 Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.135 Footer contains Privacy Policy and Cook
GDPR Art. 6	ot strictly necessary) Medium 2018–2026 GDPR Art. 6, 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3) src='https://emb
Penal Code § 502	arate violation. • State: California Penal Code § 502 (unauthorized computer access) – the sc
18 U.S.C. § 1030	h is an interception of user's action); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA) – unauthorized access to protect
47 U.S.C. § 605	protected computer (the user's device); 47 U.S.C. § 605 – unauthorized use of communications; 1
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	5 – unauthorized use of communications; 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act) – deceptive practices. • M
County Code § 4.5	, International: • County: San Diego County Code § 4.5 – data security; each user visit is a v
Civil Code § 1798.135	is a violation. • State: California Civil Code § 1798.135 – requires clear link; violation per Ca
County Code § 22	ort, International: • County: Harris County Code § 22 – privacy; each chat session is a viola
Penal Code § 631	is a violation. • State: California Penal Code § 631 – wiretapping (if messages intercepted)
18 U.S.C. § 1343	formation without notice. • Federal: 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud) – if used to mislead. •
5 U.S.C. § 552	028, 1037, 1341, 371, 1001, 1589, 1961; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a), 6501–6506, 6801,
18 U.S.C. § 3571	for all counts. Criminal exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 3571: up to $500,000 per count (capped at $1
42 U.S.C. § 1983	+ punitive Constitutional violations 42 U.S.C. § 1983 No cap State actors State statutes (
Pen. Code § 502	te actors State statutes (e.g., Cal. Pen. Code § 502) $5,000 per count Unauthorized computer
18 U.S.C. § 1961	s a separate count. Count VII – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Enterprise (Sotheby's entities) engag
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

88.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (8)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications (dataLayer events, chat messages, etc.) without consent. 11 million separate intercep	any officers/directors. Counts: Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications (dataL
Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers (users' devices) via scripts. 11 million counts.	terceptions (page views with pushes). Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers (u
Count III – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Deceptive trade practices – failure to disclose data collection and lack of clear opt-out.	ices) via scripts. 11 million counts. Count III – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Deceptive trade practices – failure to disclose data collection
Count IV – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Failure to provide notice, opt‑out, and deletion rights for 550,000 California consumers.	collection and lack of clear opt-out. Count IV – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Failure to provide notice
Count V – Violation of the GDPR (Arts. 5, 6, 7, 13–14, 44–49): Unlawful data processing, lack of consent, inadequate transparency, and illegal cross‑border transfers. 1.1 million EU user counts.	hts for 550,000 California consumers. Count V – Violation of the GDPR (Arts. 5, 6, 7, 13–14, 44–49): Unlawful data processing, lack of consent, inadequate trans
Count VI – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Use of deceptive practices to induce users to visit the site; each visit is a separate count.	ransfers. 1.1 million EU user counts. Count VI – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Use of deceptive practices to induce users to visit the site; each visit is a se
Count VII – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Enterprise (Sotheby's entities) engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity (wire fraud, money laundering) through data collection and use.	site; each visit is a separate count. Count VII – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Enterprise (Sotheby's entities) engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity (wire f
Count VIII – Bivens Constitutional Torts: Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search/seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process), Sixth Amendment (right to counsel), Eighth Amendment (cruel/unusual). Each federal actor	ing) through data collection and use. Count VIII – Bivens Constitutional Torts: Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search/seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process), S

88.4 Dollar Figures (37)

$0.00 · $1.00 · $1.10 · $4.00 · $5.00 · $10.00 · $18.29 · $19.05 · $19.21 · $27.22 · $32.02 · $55.00 · $96.06 · $96.60 · $96.66 · $100.00 · $480.00 · $550.00 · $605.00 · $705.00 · $1,000.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $17,500.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $72,620.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $280,000.00 · $287,500.00 · $500,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $32,019,794,000.00 · $96,059,382,000.00

88.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 89 of 261

Section 89 — Forensic Audit Report – PEC.it (Aruba PEC)

Source File	FORENSIC-0089-pec-email-order-page-audit-c4d6224d.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-08-07 19:14:02
Size	39,646 bytes
SHA-256	c4d6224d0dc39b2c50ba3b98e50d96aa888fffb8ba7c61e9d05b1bca8da9b86b

89.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) – estimated 80 million us
defendant	Aruba PEC S.p.A	U residents and California residents. Defendants: Aruba PEC S.p.A.; its CEO/Administrator; and any officer

89.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (21)

Citation	Source excerpt
GDPR Art. 5	ore"` (bypasses consent) High 2018–2026 GDPR Art. 5, 6, 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); 18 U.S.C. §
18 U.S.C. § 2511	GDPR Art. 5, 6, 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); 18 U.S.C. § 2511; Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 <script data
Civ. Code § 1798.100	ivacy Art. 5(3); 18 U.S.C. § 2511; Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 <script data-cookieconsent="ignore" src
GDPR Art. 44	yEgg) without safeguards High 2020–2026 GDPR Art. 44–49; CJEU Schrems II Scripts to http://www.goog
Penal Code § 502	arate violation. • State: California Penal Code § 502 (unauthorized computer access) – script
18 U.S.C. § 1030	ic communications (data pushed to GTM); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA) – unauthorized access to protect
47 U.S.C. § 605	uthorized access to protected computer; 47 U.S.C. § 605 – unauthorized use of communications; 1
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	5 – unauthorized use of communications; 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act) – deceptive practices. • M
GDPR Art. 6	f‑hosted analytics. • International: GDPR Art. 6 – no lawful basis; ePrivacy Art. 5(3) –
GDPR Art. 32	to secure session. • International: GDPR Art. 32 – security of processing; if breached,
County Code § 22	ort, International: • County: Harris County Code § 22 – privacy; each input is a violation.
18 U.S.C. § 1343	uires notice and opt‑out. • Federal: 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud) – if misused; 15 U.S.C. §
County Code § 4.5	ricopa County Ordinance § 15; San Diego County Code § 4.5. State Penal Codes: California Penal C
5 U.S.C. § 552	028, 1037, 1341, 371, 1001, 1589, 1961; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a), 6501–6506, 6801,
18 U.S.C. § 3571	for all counts. Criminal exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 3571: up to $500,000 per count (capped at $1
42 U.S.C. § 1983	+ punitive Constitutional violations 42 U.S.C. § 1983 No cap State actors State statutes (
Pen. Code § 502	te actors State statutes (e.g., Cal. Pen. Code § 502) $5,000 per count Unauthorized computer
18 U.S.C. § 1961	s a separate count. Count VII – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Enterprise (Aruba PEC) engaged in a p
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

89.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (8)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications (tracking data, cart inputs) without consent. 640 million separate interceptions (tra	ble for data processing. Counts: Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications (trac
Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers (users' devices) via scripts. 640 million counts.	parate interceptions (tracker loads). Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers (u
Count III – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Deceptive trade practices – failure to disclose data collection and lack of effective consent.	ces) via scripts. 640 million counts. Count III – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Deceptive trade practices – failure to disclose data collection
Count IV – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Failure to provide notice, opt‑out, and deletion rights for 8 million California consumers.	ection and lack of effective consent. Count IV – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Failure to provide notice
Count V – Violation of the GDPR (Arts. 5, 6, 7, 13–14, 44–49): Unlawful data processing, lack of consent, inadequate transparency, and illegal cross‑border transfers. 40 million EU user counts.	s for 8 million California consumers. Count V – Violation of the GDPR (Arts. 5, 6, 7, 13–14, 44–49): Unlawful data processing, lack of consent, inadequate trans
Count VI – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Use of deceptive practices to induce users to visit the site; each visit is a separate count.	transfers. 40 million EU user counts. Count VI – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Use of deceptive practices to induce users to visit the site; each visit is a se
Count VII – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Enterprise (Aruba PEC) engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity (wire fraud, money laundering) through data collection and use.	site; each visit is a separate count. Count VII – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Enterprise (Aruba PEC) engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity (wire fraud, mon
Count VIII – Bivens Constitutional Torts: Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search/seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process), Sixth Amendment (right to counsel), Eighth Amendment (cruel/unusual). Each federal actor	ing) through data collection and use. Count VIII – Bivens Constitutional Torts: Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search/seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process), S

89.4 Dollar Figures (34)

$0.00 · $1.00 · $1.08 · $1.27 · $10.00 · $40.00 · $45.50 · $45.86 · $47.78 · $68.26 · $80.00 · $91.01 · $200.00 · $273.02 · $273.03 · $273.90 · $350.00 · $800.00 · $880.00 · $1,000.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $72,620.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $280,000.00 · $500,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $91,007,424,000.00 · $273,022,272,000.00

89.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 90 of 261

Section 90 — Forensic Audit Report – OpenTech Platform (SoftServe)

Source File	FORENSIC-0090-audit-softserve-inc-54b8b8bb.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-30 01:40:13
Size	57,150 bytes
SHA-256	54b8b8bbdc88d08e329bad6de6d2c04e3b605df02f6d958aff0602a9d8285ed7

90.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) — all users of the OpenTe
defendant	SoftServe Inc	ssed, or transferred without consent. Defendants: SoftServe Inc., its subsidiaries, affiliates, and all third-party service providers (including Amazon Web Serv

90.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (21)

Citation	Source excerpt
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	attack vector under NIST SP 800-53 and 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). The platform collects volunteer person
GDPR Art. 7	nt mechanism for EU visitors, violating GDPR Art. 7 and ePrivacy Directive Art. 5(3). No ex
GDPR Art. 6	ns and partner registrations, violating GDPR Art. 6(1)(a) and Art. 9 (sensitive data). The
42 U.S.C. § 12181	e to users with disabilities, violating 42 U.S.C. § 12181 and 29 U.S.C. § 794d. The platform's da
29 U.S.C. § 794	lities, violating 42 U.S.C. § 12181 and 29 U.S.C. § 794d. The platform's data collection practi
GDPR Art. 22	may constitute unlawful profiling under GDPR Art. 22 and CCPA § 1798.100. All violations are
18 U.S.C. § 1030	olicy (CSP) Critical 15 U.S.C. § 45(a); 18 U.S.C. § 1030; NIST SP 800-53 No CSP header or meta t
18 U.S.C. § 2511	rs) Critical GDPR Art. 6(1)(a), Art. 9; 18 U.S.C. § 2511; CCPA Apply forms without explicit cons
50 U.S.C. § 1702	on via CDN (ga.jspm.io, unpkg.com) High 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 18 U.S.C. § 1343; ITU RR Art. 18 Lines
18 U.S.C. § 1343	m.io, unpkg.com) High 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 18 U.S.C. § 1343; ITU RR Art. 18 Lines 10-76 (ga.jspm.io
GDPR Art. 45	ries without Adequacy Decision Critical GDPR Art. 45-46; Schrems II (C-311/18); IEEPA Data t
47 U.S.C. § 301	cies (Wi-Fi) constitutes a violation of 47 U.S.C. § 301 (unlicensed radio transmission) and 47
47 U.S.C. § 333	301 (unlicensed radio transmission) and 47 U.S.C. § 333 (interference with radio communications
Civ. Code § 1798.135	tes this provision. • CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.135): Requires businesses to provide a "Do
GDPR Art. 9	Art. 5(1)(b) (purpose limitation). • GDPR Art. 9 – Processing of Special Categories of P
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)	ion under Art. 9(2)(b)-(j) applies. • 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a) – Wiretap Act: The transmission of volu
Civ. Code § 1798.100	separate violation. • CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Consumers have the right to know what
18 U.S.C. § 2713	er data flows subject to the Cloud Act (18 U.S.C. § 2713). "@popperjs/core": "https://ga.jspm.
GDPR Art. 46	y decision is a separate violation. • GDPR Art. 46 – Appropriate Safeguards: In the absenc
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

90.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (10)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted wire, oral, and electronic communications of Plaintiffs through the unauthorized collection and transmission of	rocessing, and transfer. Counts: Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted wire, oral, and electronic comm
Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants intentionally accessed Plaintiffs' computers without authorization (or exceeded authorized access) through the placement	tion, trebled, plus punitive damages. Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants intentionally accessed Plaintiffs'
Count III – Violation of the Federal Wire Fraud Statute (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud Plaintiffs of their privacy rights and personal information through deceptive practices, in	njunctive relief, and treble damages. Count III – Violation of the Federal Wire Fraud Statute (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud Plai
Count IV – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Defendants collected, used, and shared personal information of California residents without providing notice or	and disgorgement of ill-gotten gains. Count IV – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Defendants collected, use
Count V – Violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive practices by failing to implement reasonable security measures (CSP, SRI, CSRF) and by misrepre	, injunctive relief, and restitution. Count V – Violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive practices
Count VI – Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12181): Defendants failed to provide accessible web content to individuals with disabilities, including missing ARIA labels, insufficie	ive relief, restitution, and damages. Count VI – Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12181): Defendants failed to provide accessible w
Count VII – Violation of the Rehabilitation Act Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d): Defendants' platform is not accessible to individuals with disabilities, violating federal accessibility standards. Plaintiffs se	relief, damages, and civil penalties. Count VII – Violation of the Rehabilitation Act Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d): Defendants' platform is not accessible to
Count VIII – Violation of GDPR (EU) 2016/679 (for EU Class Members): Defendants processed personal data of EU residents without lawful basis, consent, or adequate safeguards. Plaintiffs seek damages of up to €2	s seek injunctive relief and damages. Count VIII – Violation of GDPR (EU) 2016/679 (for EU Class Members): Defendants processed personal data of EU residents wi
Count IX – Violation of ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC (for EU Class Members): Defendants stored and accessed information on the terminal equipment of EU residents without consent. Plaintiffs seek damages of u	bal turnover, plus injunctive relief. Count IX – Violation of ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC (for EU Class Members): Defendants stored and accessed information o
Count X – Violation of the IEEPA (50 U.S.C. § 1702): Defendants transferred personal data of US citizens to foreign-owned entities (ga.jspm.io/Microsoft, AWS) without adequate safeguards, implicating nationa	ages of up to €250,000 per violation. Count X – Violation of the IEEPA (50 U.S.C. § 1702): Defendants transferred personal data of US citizens to foreign-owned

90.4 Dollar Figures (34)

$1.35 · $2.00 · $2.70 · $3.18 · $3.98 · $8.10 · $9.50 · $15.25 · $15.90 · $19.90 · $47.70 · $54.00 · $79.60 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $30,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $75,000.00 · $137,830.00 · $250,600.00 · $270,000.00 · $337,500.00 · $750,000.00 · $29,700,000.00 · $48,000,000.00 · $52,000,000.00 · $54,000,000.00 · $80,000,000.00 · $1,215,000,000.00 · $1,397,175,330.00 · $2,700,000,000.00 · $17,010,000,000.00 · $24,300,000,000.00

90.5 Dates (1)

2016-07-27

Section 91 of 261

Section 91 — Forensic Audit Report – gemini.google.com (d111163203e83365)

Source File	FORENSIC-0091-gemini-audit-a60cc1da.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-08-03 12:03:37
Size	43,893 bytes
SHA-256	a60cc1da1dd9a99d6d98655a53fa4bff7638abea884ceb7a88d728fe9463622d

91.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) – all users of Gemini AI.
defendant	Google LLC	ass Action) – all users of Gemini AI. Defendants: Google LLC, Alphabet Inc., Sundar Pichai, Thomas Kurian, Firebase Inc., Gstatic.com. Counts: Count I – Violati

91.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (32)

Citation	Source excerpt
47 U.S.C. § 605	e file is materially non-compliant with 47 U.S.C. § 605, 18 U.S.C. § 1030, GDPR, and 42 U.S.C.
18 U.S.C. § 1030	lly non-compliant with 47 U.S.C. § 605, 18 U.S.C. § 1030, GDPR, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The determ
42 U.S.C. § 1983	S.C. § 605, 18 U.S.C. § 1030, GDPR, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The deterministic count of violations i
18 U.S.C. § 2511	l_data High 2023–2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030, 18 U.S.C. § 2511, GDPR Art. 5(1)(a) Line 1 (Window.WIZ_g
GDPR Art. 5	026 18 U.S.C. § 1030, 18 U.S.C. § 2511, GDPR Art. 5(1)(a) Line 1 (Window.WIZ_global_data)
Penal Code § 631	s High 2023–2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511, Cal. Penal Code § 631, 47 U.S.C. § 605 Lines 120–124 (Input A
5 U.S.C. § 552	l, Session) High 2023–2026 Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a), CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100) Lin
Civ. Code § 1798.100	ivacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a), CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100) Line 1 (ladcodefensetechnologies@gmail
15 U.S.C. § 45	ut Focus) Medium 2023–2026 FTC Act § 5 (15 U.S.C. § 45), UNGP Principle 11 Lines 120–124 (Focu
47 U.S.C. § 333	ccess) High 2023–2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030, 47 U.S.C. § 333, UCMJ Art. 134 CSS / JS environment (We
Ord. Code § 4.20.030	tional: • County (Santa Clara County Ord. Code § 4.20.030): Unauthorized collection of personal d
Penal Code § 502(c)(2)	tion (2010–2026). • State (California Penal Code § 502(c)(2)): Unauthorized computer access to obtai
Penal Code § 631(a)	ount (2023–2026). • State (California Penal Code § 631(a)): Wiretapping – interception of electro
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)	enalty: $10,000 per count. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)): Unauthorized access to a protected co
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)	t + 10 years imprisonment. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)): Intentional interception of wire, ora
18 U.S.C. § 1343	er count + treble damages. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Wire fraud – use of interstate wires
47 U.S.C. § 605(a)	,000 per count + 20 years. • Federal (47 U.S.C. § 605(a)): Unauthorized publication/use of commu
Penal Code § 632	000 per device per day. • State (Cal. Penal Code § 632): Eavesdropping on confidential communi
Prof. Code § 17200	0 per violation. • State (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200): Unfair competition (including privacy
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A)	10,000 per count + treble. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A)): Transmission of code causing damage t
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	$5,000 per count. • Federal (FTC Act 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair/deceptive practices. Penalty:
County Code § 12.05.010	y, Tort, International: • County (LA County Code § 12.05.010): Unauthorized dissemination of persona
Penal Code § 530.5	violation per consumer. • State (Cal. Penal Code § 530.5): Identity theft – unauthorized use of
18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7)	lty: $5,000 per violation. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7)): Identity fraud. Penalty: $100,000 per
15 U.S.C. § 6801	per count + 15 years. • Federal (GLBA 15 U.S.C. § 6801): Failure to protect customer informati
GDPR Art. 32	$100,000 per person. • International (GDPR Art. 32): Failure to implement appropriate secu
18 U.S.C. § 1362	Penalty: $5,000 per count. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1362): Damage to communication lines. Penalt
County Code § 22	ce Chapter 30 (computer crimes), Harris County Code § 22 (privacy violations). State Penal Cod
18 U.S.C. § 3571	ounts: 6.27e10. Criminal exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 3571: $3.14e18 (up to $500,000 per count). C
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

91.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (12)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA): Unauthorized access to protected computers to obtain and exfiltrate personal data (WIZ_global_data).	ebase Inc., Gstatic.com. Counts: Count I – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA): Unauthorized access to protected computers to obtain and exfiltrate personal da
Count II – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act): Intentional interception of wire, oral, and electronic communications via telemetry hooks and input monitoring.	rate personal data (WIZ_global_data). Count II – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act): Intentional interception of wire, oral, and electronic communicati
Count III – Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605: Unauthorized publication and use of intercepted communications.	telemetry hooks and input monitoring. Count III – Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605: Unauthorized publication and use of intercepted communications. Count IV – Viola
Count IV – Violation of Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Unauthorized disclosure of personal records (email, tokens).	nd use of intercepted communications. Count IV – Violation of Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Unauthorized disclosure of personal records (email, tokens). Count
Count V – Violation of CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Failure to secure personal information and improper data collection.	of personal records (email, tokens). Count V – Violation of CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Failure to secure personal information and improper data collectio
Count VI – Violation of FTC Act § 5 (15 U.S.C. § 45): Unfair/deceptive practices (dark patterns, coerced consent).	rmation and improper data collection. Count VI – Violation of FTC Act § 5 (15 U.S.C. § 45): Unfair/deceptive practices (dark patterns, coerced consent). Count V
Count VII – Tortious Intrusion upon Seclusion: Unauthorized surveillance and data collection.	ces (dark patterns, coerced consent). Count VII – Tortious Intrusion upon Seclusion: Unauthorized surveillance and data collection. Count VIII – Conversion: Wro
Count VIII – Conversion: Wrongful exercise of dominion over personal data.	zed surveillance and data collection. Count VIII – Conversion: Wrongful exercise of dominion over personal data. Count IX – Bivens Claim (Fourth Amend
Count IX – Bivens Claim (Fourth Amendment): Unreasonable search and seizure of personal data and devices via WebUSB/WebSerial.	rcise of dominion over personal data. Count IX – Bivens Claim (Fourth Amendment): Unreasonable search and seizure of personal data and devices via WebUSB/WebSer
Count X – Bivens Claim (Fifth Amendment): Self-incrimination via coerced data extraction.	ata and devices via WebUSB/WebSerial. Count X – Bivens Claim (Fifth Amendment): Self-incrimination via coerced data extraction. Count XI – Bivens Claim (Sixth A
Count XI – Bivens Claim (Sixth Amendment): Right to counsel – denial of access to counsel during data extraction.	mination via coerced data extraction. Count XI – Bivens Claim (Sixth Amendment): Right to counsel – denial of access to counsel during data extraction. Count XI
Count XII – UCMJ Article 134: Disorders prejudicial to good order and discipline (all crimes).	ss to counsel during data extraction. Count XII – UCMJ Article 134: Disorders prejudicial to good order and discipline (all crimes). Damages Sought: Treble dama

91.4 Dollar Figures (60)

$1.00 · $1.11 · $1.13 · $1.27 · $1.50 · $1.56 · $1.57 · $1.64 · $1.80 · $1.88 · $1.93 · $1.94 · $2.03 · $2.32 · $2.50 · $3.14 · $3.15 · $3.30 · $3.60 · $3.70 · $3.76 · $4.71 · $5.63 · $5.64 · $5.67 · $6.00 · $6.35 · $6.70 · $6.72 · $7.04 · $7.40 · $7.50 · $8.64 · $9.02 · $9.10 · $9.54 · $1,000.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $25,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $75,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $500,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $404,000,000,000,000.00 · $24,300,000,000,000,000.00 · $1,460,000,000,000,000,000.00 · $35,000,000,000,000,000,000.00 · $245,000,000,000,000,000,000.00 · $1,060,000,000,000,000,000,000.00 · $3,190,000,000,000,000,000,000.00 · $6,380,000,000,000,000,000,000.00 · $12,800,000,000,000,000,000,000.00 · $370,000,000,000,000,012,582,912.00

91.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 92 of 261

Section 92 — Forensic Audit Report – hlc.com Homepage

Source File	FORENSIC-0092-hlc-audit-40e8b83d.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-30 07:50:18
Size	33,351 bytes
SHA-256	40e8b83db160581296830ce5ed693981577de655bfb0cc80e651e64863c1373e

92.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) represented by Henri Brya
defendant	Hogan Lovells Cadwalader	h.D., and Ladco Defense Technologies. Defendants: Hogan Lovells Cadwalader (partnership), its managing partner, its

92.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (21)

Citation	Source excerpt
5 U.S.C. § 552	ction via Google Tag Manager (GTM) High 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 47 U.S.C. § 605; 18 U.S.C. § 2511; GD
47 U.S.C. § 605	Tag Manager (GTM) High 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 47 U.S.C. § 605; 18 U.S.C. § 2511; GDPR Art. 6, 7; ePri
18 U.S.C. § 2511	High 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 47 U.S.C. § 605; 18 U.S.C. § 2511; GDPR Art. 6, 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3) Scr
GDPR Art. 6	52a; 47 U.S.C. § 605; 18 U.S.C. § 2511; GDPR Art. 6, 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3) Script block: <s
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	ot SDK High Same as above; additionally 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) Script: <script src="//cdn.bc0a.com/aut
GDPR Art. 7	rove (unless properly consented) Medium GDPR Art. 7; ePrivacy Script: <script async class="
18 U.S.C. § 1030	15 U.S.C. § 45(a); NIST SP 800-53 SC-8; 18 U.S.C. § 1030 No CSP header or meta tag observed.
42 U.S.C. § 12181	y Violations (ADA & Section 508) Medium 42 U.S.C. § 12181; 29 U.S.C. § 794d Multiple images with
29 U.S.C. § 794	Section 508) Medium 42 U.S.C. § 12181; 29 U.S.C. § 794d Multiple images with empty alt text or
Civ. Code § 1798.100	nders the processing unlawful. • Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA): California residents have the r
18 U.S.C. § 241	nting federal agencies must comply. • 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Conspiracy against rights): Denying ac
Administrative Code § 8-101	County Ordinances: (e.g., New York City Administrative Code § 8-101 – human rights; § 22-101 – data privacy
Penal Code § 502	thorized use of a computer); California Penal Code § 502; Texas Penal Code § 33.02. Federal U.
Penal Code § 33.02	er); California Penal Code § 502; Texas Penal Code § 33.02. Federal U.S.C. Titles: Title 18 (Wire
18 U.S.C. § 3571	and several). Criminal exposure: Under 18 U.S.C. § 3571, fines up to $250,000 per count (but ca
GDPR Art. 83	of notice / unauthorized collection GDPR Art. 83 €250,000 (~$275,000) per violation (but
18 U.S.C. § 371	ities. Count VIII – Civil Conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371) and RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Coordinat
18 U.S.C. § 1961	Conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371) and RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Coordination among defendants to syst
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

92.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (13)

Header	Source excerpt
Count Crime Accounting & Temporal Aggregation	the page. 3. Deterministic Per‑Count Crime Accounting & Temporal Aggregation Methodology: Counts are based on indi
count 10,950,000 10,000 $100,000,000 70,000 $700,000,000 304,400 $3,044,000,000 $109,500,000,000	+ €250,000 (GDPR) – we use $10,000 per count 10,950,000 10,000 $100,000,000 70,000 $700,000,000 304,400 $3,044,000,000 $109,500,000,000 Autopilot SDK Tracking $
count 10,950,000 10,000 $100,000,000 70,000 $700,000,000 304,400 $3,044,000,000 $109,500,000,000	0 Autopilot SDK Tracking $10,000 per count 10,950,000 10,000 $100,000,000 70,000 $700,000,000 304,400 $3,044,000,000 $109,500,000,000 Siteimprove (if unconsente
count 10,950,000 10,000 $100,000,000 70,000 $700,000,000 304,400 $3,044,000,000 $109,500,000,000	iteimprove (if unconsented) $10,000 per count 10,950,000 10,000 $100,000,000 70,000 $700,000,000 304,400 $3,044,000,000 $109,500,000,000 Missing CSP Header $1,0
count 5 instances → $375,000 per load 10,950,000 10,000 $3,750,000,000 70,000 $26,250,000,000 304,400 $114,150,000,000 $4,106,250,000,000	,000 (ADA) per instance, so per load we count 5 instances → $375,000 per load 10,950,000 10,000 $3,750,000,000 70,000 $26,250,000,000 304,400 $114,150,000,000 $
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Unlawful interception of electronic communications via GTM, Autopilot, and Siteimprove scripts without consent.	cking script deployment. Counts: Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Unlawful interception of electronic communications via GTM, Autopilo
Count II – Violation of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Maintaining a system of records without proper notice.	Siteimprove scripts without consent. Count II – Violation of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Maintaining a system of records without proper notice. Count III
Count III – Violation of GDPR (Art. 6, 7) and ePrivacy Directive: Processing personal data of EU residents without legal basis.	tem of records without proper notice. Count III – Violation of GDPR (Art. 6, 7) and ePrivacy Directive: Processing personal data of EU residents without legal b
Count IV – Violation of CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Failure to provide notice and opt-out for California residents.	of EU residents without legal basis. Count IV – Violation of CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Failure to provide notice and opt-out for California resi
Count V – Violation of FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair and deceptive practices by collecting data without disclosure.	and opt-out for California residents. Count V – Violation of FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair and deceptive practices by collecting data without disclosure.
Count VI – Violation of CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Exceeding authorized access by executing scripts that transmit data without consent.	y collecting data without disclosure. Count VI – Violation of CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Exceeding authorized access by executing scripts that transmit data witho
Count VII – Violation of ADA and Section 508: Discrimination against individuals with disabilities.	s that transmit data without consent. Count VII – Violation of ADA and Section 508: Discrimination against individuals with disabilities. Count VIII – Civil Con
Count VIII – Civil Conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371) and RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Coordination among defendants to systematically violate privacy laws as a pattern of racketeering activity.	gainst individuals with disabilities. Count VIII – Civil Conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371) and RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Coordination among defendants to systematical

92.4 Dollar Figures (43)

$1.20 · $2.92 · $3.31 · $6.90 · $50.00 · $459.30 · $1,000.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $30,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $75,000.00 · $250,000.00 · $275,000.00 · $375,000.00 · $500,000.00 · $10,000,000.00 · $50,000,000.00 · $70,000,000.00 · $75,000,000.00 · $100,000,000.00 · $304,400,000.00 · $350,000,000.00 · $525,000,000.00 · $700,000,000.00 · $1,522,000,000.00 · $2,283,000,000.00 · $3,044,000,000.00 · $3,750,000,000.00 · $4,185,000,000.00 · $10,950,000,000.00 · $26,250,000,000.00 · $29,295,000,000.00 · $54,750,000,000.00 · $82,125,000,000.00 · $109,500,000,000.00 · $114,150,000,000.00 · $127,451,400,000.00 · $3,306,690,000,000.00 · $4,106,250,000,000.00 · $4,592,625,000,000.00

92.5 Dates (1)

2026-07-30

Section 93 of 261

Section 93 — Forensic FCC Ownership Transfer Analysis – WWQQ‑FM

Source File	FORENSIC-0093-cmq-fail-2-0547626f.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-28 03:20:53
Size	23,746 bytes
SHA-256	0547626fcbc27a81417a170351c017a2b41343e5c2020ad34582e331874f0f52

93.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

93.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (1)

Citation	Source excerpt
11 U.S.C. § 1107	to violate their statutory duties under 11 U.S.C. § 1107 and § 1129 to protect a curated, intern

93.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

93.4 Dollar Figures (1)

$1.35

93.5 Dates (4)

2014-12-31 · 2017-01-23 · 2021-11-29 · 2026-07-21

Section 94 of 261

Section 94 — Forensic Audit Report – Email to Judge Barksdale

Source File	FORENSIC-0094-bark-audit1-dbdc6a34.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-08-02 13:42:28
Size	28,643 bytes
SHA-256	dbdc6a34ff8b0d63d8dd9dc1804a9d79b14622f63bf911f8bc6ebf008935c2d8

94.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

94.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (23)

Citation	Source excerpt
42 U.S.C. § 1983	04–2026 U.S. Const. amend. I, V, XIV; 42 U.S.C. § 1983 PACER access interference; counsel fa
18 U.S.C. § 1343	h 2013–2026 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961–1968; 18 U.S.C. § 1343 Theft of $4B USD and £17M GBP; patter
10 U.S.C. § 858	ure (UCMJ Art. 92) High 2004–2026 10 U.S.C. § 858b; DoD Directive 3002.01 MIA status ig
18 U.S.C. § 2441	metry (War Crimes) High 2024–2026 18 U.S.C. § 2441; 18 U.S.C. § 1030; 28 U.S.C. § 1350 W
18 U.S.C. § 1030	High 2024–2026 18 U.S.C. § 2441; 18 U.S.C. § 1030; 28 U.S.C. § 1350 WebAssembly binarie
28 U.S.C. § 1350	6 18 U.S.C. § 2441; 18 U.S.C. § 1030; 28 U.S.C. § 1350 WebAssembly binaries forcing RF broad
42 U.S.C. § 1985	gh 2004–2026 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242; 42 U.S.C. § 1985 Coordinated obstruction by state and
11 U.S.C. § 1129	struction (Bad Faith) Medium 2026 11 U.S.C. § 1129; Bankruptcy Fraud Refusal to issue ND
18 U.S.C. § 1519	42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides civil remedy. 18 U.S.C. § 1519 (obstruction of justice) – altering or
18 U.S.C. § 1956	ud, 18 U.S.C. § 1343; money laundering, 18 U.S.C. § 1956; conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. § 371). Wire fra
18 U.S.C. § 371	undering, 18 U.S.C. § 1956; conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. § 371). Wire fraud – $1,000,000 per count.
18 U.S.C. § 241	s. Statutory Expansion: Federal: 18 U.S.C. § 241 – conspiracy against rights; 18 U.S.C.
18 U.S.C. § 242	S.C. § 241 – conspiracy against rights; 18 U.S.C. § 242 – deprivation of rights under color of
42 U.S.C. § 1985(3)	privation of rights under color of law; 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) – conspiracy to deprive equal protectio
18 U.S.C. § 157	s. Statutory Expansion: Federal: 18 U.S.C. § 157 – bankruptcy fraud; 18 U.S.C. § 1519 –
22 U.S.C. § 211	s. Statutory Expansion: Federal: 22 U.S.C. § 211a – issuance of passports; 22 U.S.C. § 2
22 U.S.C. § 2670	U.S.C. § 211a – issuance of passports; 22 U.S.C. § 2670 – consular services; 22 U.S.C. § 3927 –
22 U.S.C. § 3927	; 22 U.S.C. § 2670 – consular services; 22 U.S.C. § 3927 – protection of citizens abroad; 22 U.S
22 U.S.C. § 4802	§ 3927 – protection of citizens abroad; 22 U.S.C. § 4802 – visa and passport authority. Case L
22 U.S.C. § 2295	This audit is authorized under 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	is authorized under 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and 26 C.F.R. § 1.50
10 U.S.C. § 2304	er 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2. Original Rel
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2. Original Release 1 of 1. ©1939-2026

94.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

94.4 Dollar Figures (28)

$0.00 · $1.00 · $1.35 · $4.00 · $6.40 · $15.90 · $32.00 · $32.12 · $96.36 · $100.00 · $200.00 · $500,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $3,500,000.00 · $4,000,000.00 · $15,220,000.00 · $28,000,000.00 · $45,660,000.00 · $91,320,000.00 · $121,760,000.00 · $182,620,000.00 · $365,280,000.00 · $730,560,000.00 · $1,461,120,000.00 · $4,000,000,000.00 · $4,015,000,000.00 · $19,272,000,000.00 · $32,120,000,000.00

94.5 Dates (2)

2026-07-22 · 2026-08-04

Section 95 of 261

Section 95 — Forensic Audit Report – RealOpen Contact Page

Source File	FORENSIC-0095-realopen-audit-08c655fd.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-08-01 06:50:12
Size	32,983 bytes
SHA-256	08c655fdbf5096d075142b4a849614418c4f490c2d2da01197f4826ef57d2a35

95.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) – estimated 500,000 membe
defendant	RealOpen Group	Action) – estimated 500,000 members. Defendants: RealOpen Group, Inc., Alexander L. (CEO), Clerk (Clerk, Inc.), Supabase (Su

95.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (22)

Citation	Source excerpt
GDPR Art. 44	tration to Third Parties High 2021-2026 GDPR Art. 44, CCPA § 1798.100, GLBA § 6801, Wiretap
18 U.S.C. § 2511	PA § 1798.100, GLBA § 6801, Wiretap Act 18 U.S.C. § 2511 Script tags for Clerk, Supabase, Stripe
Prof. Code § 17200	2021-2026 FTC Act § 45(a), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, GDPR Art. 7 Hidden "confirm_email" inp
GDPR Art. 7	45(a), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, GDPR Art. 7 Hidden "confirm_email" input, form auto
18 U.S.C. § 1030	ure Form Handling Medium 2021-2026 CFAA 18 U.S.C. § 1030, Cal. Penal Code § 502, NIST SP 800-63B
Penal Code § 502	m 2021-2026 CFAA 18 U.S.C. § 1030, Cal. Penal Code § 502, NIST SP 800-63B Form element lacks CSR
Civ. Code § 1798.100	rnia Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) – Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 – $7,500 per intentional violation per
47 U.S.C. § 605	up to 20 years imprisonment per count. 47 U.S.C. § 605 (unauthorized publication/use) – $110,0
15 U.S.C. § 6801	ication/use) – $110,000 per count. GLBA 15 U.S.C. § 6801 – $100,000 per violation + $1,000,000 f
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	ation + $1,000,000 for pattern. FTC Act 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) – $50,120 per violation. All applied wi
Professions Code § 17200	ation. • State: California Business & Professions Code § 17200 (unfair competition) – $2,500 per viola
15 U.S.C. § 7701	) – $50,120 per violation. CAN-SPAM Act 15 U.S.C. § 7701 – $51,744 per violation (if subsequent
GDPR Article 7	ic) + punitive (5×). • International: GDPR Article 7 (consent must be freely given, specific
County Code § 4.5	, International: • County: San Diego County Code § 4.5 (data security) – $1,000 per occurrence
Penal Code § 502(c)(3)	0 per occurrence. • State: California Penal Code § 502(c)(3) (damage to computer systems) – $5,000 p
Penal Code § 33.02	systems) – $5,000 per violation. Texas Penal Code § 33.02 (breach of computer security) – $2,500
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)	$2,500 per violation. • Federal: CFAA 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5) (intentional damage to protected comput
GDPR Article 32	,000 (non-economic). • International: GDPR Article 32 (security of processing) – fines of up
5 U.S.C. § 552	U.S.C. § 605; 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a), 6801; 5 U.S.C. § 552a. Penalty: $10,000-$1,000,000 per count
18 U.S.C. § 3571	exfiltration). Criminal exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 3571: $500M. Civil exposure: statutory penal
18 U.S.C. § 1343	ount Applies to (violation types) 18 U.S.C. § 1343 $1,000,000 + 20 yrs Wire fraud (data ex
42 U.S.C. § 1983	tual + punitive Constitutional torts 42 U.S.C. § 1983 No cap State actors (not applicable)

95.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (6)

Header	Source excerpt
count 5 / $50,000	fil (per user per script) $10,000 per count 5 / $50,000 300 / $3,000,000 18,000 / $180,000,0
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted and disclosed electronic communications without consent, including user form submissions and tracking data, fro	Google (Alphabet Inc.). Counts: Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted and disclosed electronic communi
Count II – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA): Defendants failed to provide adequate notice, did not honor opt-out requests, and sold/shared personal information without authorization, fr	and tracking data, from 2021 to 2026. Count II – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA): Defendants failed to provide adequate notice, did not
Count III – Violation of the GDPR (EU) 2016/679: Defendants transferred personal data to third countries without adequate safeguards, failed to obtain explicit consent, and did not provide data subject rights,	out authorization, from 2021 to 2026. Count III – Violation of the GDPR (EU) 2016/679: Defendants transferred personal data to third countries without adequate
Count IV – Common Law Tort – Invasion of Privacy: Defendants intruded upon the solitude of plaintiffs, publicly disclosed private facts, and placed plaintiffs in a false light by tracking behavior and sharing	ta subject rights, from 2021 to 2026. Count IV – Common Law Tort – Invasion of Privacy: Defendants intruded upon the solitude of plaintiffs, publicly disclosed
Count V – Negligence per se: Defendants violated NIST SP 800-63B and OWASP standards by failing to implement CSRF tokens, exposing users to foreseeable harm.	and sharing data with third parties. Count V – Negligence per se: Defendants violated NIST SP 800-63B and OWASP standards by failing to implement CSRF tokens, e

95.4 Dollar Figures (69)

$1.47 · $1.50 · $1.57 · $1.73 · $1.85 · $2.50 · $3.46 · $4.32 · $4.33 · $5.55 · $6.04 · $6.24 · $6.60 · $7.50 · $7.88 · $8.39 · $9.51 · $9.87 · $10.32 · $17.34 · $18.50 · $26.28 · $30.24 · $30.32 · $42.56 · $52.04 · $66.60 · $75.00 · $78.06 · $78.84 · $85.00 · $100.00 · $131.43 · $157.68 · $289.14 · $315.36 · $394.29 · $396.43 · $500.00 · $788.58 · $864.00 · $867.42 · $1,000.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $15,000.00 · $25,000.00 · $30,000.00 · $45,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $75,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $110,120.00 · $600,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $3,000,000.00 · $3,007,200.00 · $5,000,000.00 · $36,000,000.00 · $180,000,000.00 · $180,432,000.00 · $2,500,000,000.00 · $15,000,000,000.00 · $25,060,000,000.00

95.5 Dates (2)

2021-03-15 · 2026-08-01

Section 96 of 261

Section 96 — Forensic Audit Report – Pipe Hitter Foundation

Source File	FORENSIC-0096-audited-entity-pipe-hitter-foundation-pipehitterfoundation-d-4490310a.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-08-26 06:14:29
Size	23,608 bytes
SHA-256	4490310ab39fb32addc4f57d5ccd24a9671fcb23b26536b8f01ca8553a561652

96.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Pipe Hitter
defendant	Pipe Hitter Foundation	l affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Pipe Hitter Foundation, Google LLC, Meta Platforms, Inc., Netlify, Inc., Fonticons, Inc., and named individual

96.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (16)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 2511	lly Non‑Compliant with the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511), the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) – a
5 U.S.C. § 552	ct (18 U.S.C. § 2511), the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) – as it is used by federal employees
GDPR Art. 7	2020‑2026 ePrivacy Directive Art. 5(3), GDPR Art. 7, CCPA No consent banner or opt‑out link
GDPR Art. 13	) High 2020‑2026 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3), GDPR Art. 13, 14 No mention of third‑party sharing i
Penal Code § 631	00 per violation. • State (California Penal Code § 631): Wiretapping – each transmission is an
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)	n – $10,000 per violation. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)): Wiretap Act – intentional interceptio
GDPR Art. 5	): $5,000 per user. • International – GDPR Art. 5,6: No lawful basis – €250,000 per viola
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)	g – $10,000 per violation. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)): CFAA – obtaining information from a p
18 U.S.C. § 1343	$5,000 per count + treble. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1343 – Wire Fraud): Scheme to defraud – $1,0
GDPR Art. 44	r count + 20 years. • International – GDPR Art. 44: Transfer to third countries – €250,000
County Code § 22	ipt> Expansion: • County (Harris County Code § 22): Privacy – $2,500 per violation. • S
Penal Code § 33.02	$2,500 per violation. • State (Texas Penal Code § 33.02): Breach of computer security – $10,000
GDPR Art. 6	$10,000 per count. • International – GDPR Art. 6: No lawful basis – €250,000 per violati
47 U.S.C. § 605	s – $50,120 per violation. • Federal (47 U.S.C. § 605): Unauthorized use of communications –
Civ. Code § 1798.100	$110,000 per violation. • CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): $7,500 per intentional violation. •
18 U.S.C. § 1030	ons without consent. Count II – CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected comp

96.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (7)

Header	Source excerpt
count 4 intercepts per visitor (Google Analytics, Facebook Pixel, Font Awesome, Netlify). Additionally, the lack of consent is a separate violation. We assume an average of 2,000 daily visitors (based on the	al tracking requests. We conservatively count 4 intercepts per visitor (Google Analytics, Facebook Pixel, Font Awesome, Netlify). Additionally, the lack of cons
Count I – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intercepted electronic communications without consent.	icons, Inc., and named individuals. Count I – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intercepted electronic communications without consent. Count II – CFAA
Count II – CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers.	ronic communications without consent. Count II – CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers. Count III – Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 5
Count III – Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Disclosure of records without consent.	orized access to protected computers. Count III – Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Disclosure of records without consent. Count IV – CCPA: Failure to provide n
Count IV – CCPA: Failure to provide notice and opt‑out.	isclosure of records without consent. Count IV – CCPA: Failure to provide notice and opt‑out. Count V – GDPR/ePrivacy: Processing w
Count V – GDPR/ePrivacy: Processing without consent.	ailure to provide notice and opt‑out. Count V – GDPR/ePrivacy: Processing without consent. Count VI – Common Law Invasion of Pri
Count VI – Common Law Invasion of Privacy.	ePrivacy: Processing without consent. Count VI – Common Law Invasion of Privacy. Damages Sought: Treble damages, sta

96.4 Dollar Figures (34)

$5.12 · $5.20 · $6.24 · $8.16 · $24.48 · $1,000.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $36,597.00 · $45,856.00 · $50,120.00 · $110,000.00 · $263,500.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $2,195,833.00 · $2,751,389.00 · $131,750,000.00 · $165,083,333.00 · $3,162,000,000.00 · $3,962,000,000.00 · $22,134,000,000.00 · $27,734,000,000.00 · $96,240,000,000.00 · $120,573,333,333.00 · $288,720,000,000.00 · $361,720,000,000.00 · $577,440,000,000.00 · $723,440,000,000.00 · $1,154,880,000,000.00 · $1,446,880,000,000.00 · $6,514,000,000,000.00 · $8,160,880,000,000.00

96.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 97 of 261

Section 97 — Forensic Audit Report – Spotify Web Player (open.spotify.com)

Source File	FORENSIC-0097-forensic-audit-report-spotify-web-player-open-spotify-com-bdd1df05.html
Created	August 12, 2026
Modified	2026-08-13 00:56:26
Size	50,189 bytes
SHA-256	bdd1df058519fae675575e7fbc20a9d87a7125a59c77fada394b1f5de6b4fda5

97.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action). The class includes all p
defendant	Spotify Technology S.A	their data collected without consent. Defendants: Spotify Technology S.A., Spotify USA Inc., Google LLC, Akamai Technologies, Inc., Fastly, Inc., Twitter/X Corp

97.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (24)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	efense Technologies, in accordance with 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	, in accordance with 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2,
10 U.S.C. § 2304	th 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2, Title 47, Telecom
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	5a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2, Title 47, Telecommunications § 230,
Regulation (EU) 2016/679	eral Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (Regulation (EU) 2016/679), the California Consumer Privacy Act (
Civ. Code § 1798.100	ornia Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.), the Federal Trade Commission
15 U.S.C. § 45	eq.), the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 45), the ePrivacy Directive (Directive 200
5 U.S.C. § 552	02/58/EC), and the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a). Furthermore, the deployment of track
18 U.S.C. § 2511	titutes a violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (
18 U.S.C. § 1030	he Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) (18 U.S.C. § 1030). The total deterministic gross liabili
County Code § 12.08.010	International: • County: Los Angeles County Code § 12.08.010 (2023) – Prohibits unauthorised interce
Penal Code § 502(c)	00 per violation. • State: California Penal Code § 502(c) (2023) – Unauthorised access to compute
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	ion + restitution. • Federal: FTC Act 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (2023) – Unfair or deceptive acts in co
10 U.S.C. § 892	mages. • Military (UCMJ): Article 92 (10 U.S.C. § 892) – Failure to obey an order or regulati
Professions Code § 17200	rence. • State: California Business & Professions Code § 17200 (2024) – Unlawful business practices. P
GDPR Article 7	0,120 per violation. • International: GDPR Article 7 – Conditions for consent. Penalty: €20,
County Code § 22.04	tatutory Expansion: • County: Harris County Code § 22.04 (2022) – Unauthorised access. Penalty:
Penal Code § 33.02	$1,000 per violation. • State: Texas Penal Code § 33.02 (2022) – Breach of computer security. P
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A)	ty: $10,000 per violation. • Federal: 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A) – Intentional damage by transmitting co
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)	ical Statutory Expansion: • Federal: 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C) – Unauthorized access to a protected co
47 U.S.C. § 605	lty: $5,000 per violation. • Federal: 47 U.S.C. § 605 – Unauthorized publication or use of in
GDPR Article 5	h personal property. • International: GDPR Article 5 – Lawful, fair, and transparent process
10 U.S.C. § 934	) – Failure to obey order. Article 134 (10 U.S.C. § 934) – General article. 5.3.5. Internatio
18 U.S.C. § 3571	y: 787B counts. Criminal exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 3571: $500,000 per count = $393.5T (maximum)

97.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (5)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 45): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive practices by collecting user data without providing clear notice and opportunity to opt‑ou	d Daniel Ek (in his capacity as CEO). Count I – Violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 45): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive pract
Count II – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Defendants collected and sold (or shared) personal information without providing a meaningful opt‑out.	ar notice and opportunity to opt‑out. Count II – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Defendants collected and sold (or
Count III – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants intentionally accessed protected computers without authorization, causing damage.	thout providing a meaningful opt‑out. Count III – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants intentionally accessed protected
Count IV – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intercepted electronic communications without consent.	ithout authorization, causing damage. Count IV – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intercepted electronic communications without conse
Count V – Violation of the Bivens Doctrine (Fourth and Fifth Amendments): If any Defendants are federal actors, they violated Plaintiffs' constitutional rights through unreasonable searches and deprivation o	ronic communications without consent. Count V – Violation of the Bivens Doctrine (Fourth and Fifth Amendments): If any Defendants are federal actors, they viola

97.4 Dollar Figures (71)

$1.18 · $1.21 · $1.26 · $1.55 · $1.57 · $1.81 · $2.10 · $2.36 · $2.43 · $3.09 · $3.14 · $3.93 · $4.23 · $4.71 · $4.85 · $5.89 · $7.00 · $7.87 · $8.47 · $8.48 · $8.67 · $9.25 · $11.80 · $12.70 · $13.33 · $14.00 · $18.40 · $21.00 · $25.20 · $36.80 · $50.40 · $55.20 · $59.36 · $75.60 · $78.70 · $86.70 · $93.30 · $98.17 · $110.40 · $154.17 · $165.60 · $169.50 · $209.30 · $220.80 · $236.10 · $246.20 · $258.04 · $260.10 · $331.20 · $353.40 · $393.50 · $405.20 · $420.00 · $441.60 · $500.00 · $555.00 · $604.80 · $662.40 · $774.12 · $787.00 · $840.00 · $1,000.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $15,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $70,120.00 · $110,000.00 · $500,000.00

97.5 Dates (1)

2026-08-12

Section 98 of 261

Section 98 — Technical Memorandum – Master Audit Prompt 7.1 – Adoption as Standard-Issue Forensic Tool

Source File	FORENSIC-0098-technical-memorandum-master-audit-prompt-7-1-adoption-as-sta-35562577.html
Created	August 12, 2026
Modified	2026-08-12 20:33:02
Size	42,613 bytes
SHA-256	35562577949f081ccd003e37d53336b98882c0cae7a470653958bcdf982b9ae5

98.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

98.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (10)

Citation	Source excerpt
County Code § 22	ook County Ordinance Chapter 30, Harris County Code § 22, Maricopa County Ordinance § 15, and Sa
County Code § 4.5	pa County Ordinance § 15, and San Diego County Code § 4.5, with the mandate to enforce all analog
18 U.S.C. § 241	section, including but not limited to: 18 U.S.C. § 241 (conspiracy against rights), § 242 (dep
18 U.S.C. § 1836	rade secrets (Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1836), civil rights torts under 42 U.S.C. §§
Rule 702	nce Admissibility Under Daubert and Rule 702 3.1.1. The Supreme Court in Daubert v
Rule 707	Rule of Evidence 707 3.2.1. Proposed Rule 707 would require that machine‑generated ev
22 U.S.C. § 2295	This Document Is Authorized Via: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a & 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304
50 U.S.C. § 1702	Is Authorized Via: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a & 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304 & 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-
10 U.S.C. § 2304	22 U.S.C. § 2295a & 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304 & 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 & Title 47, Telec
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	& 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304 & 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 & Title 47, Telecommunications § 230

98.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (4)

Header	Source excerpt
Count Crime Accounting with Temporal Aggregation Module	l infractions. Deterministic Per‑Count Crime Accounting with Temporal Aggregation Module 2.3.1. This is the mathematical engin
count crime accounting table; a formal complaint allegations section with draft counts; case citations from the U.S. Supreme Court, federal appellate courts, state supreme courts, and international tribunals	sions; the 9‑interval deterministic per‑count crime accounting table; a formal complaint allegations section with draft counts; case citations from the U.S. Sup
count is derived from the evidence and can be independently verified. The deterministic nature of the Protocol ensures that the methodology is testable and has been tested.	on, every statutory citation, and every count is derived from the evidence and can be independently verified. The deterministic nature of the Protocol ensures t
count liability.	udulent transaction and calculating per‑count liability. 6.4. War Crimes and Crimes Against Hu

98.4 Dollar Figures (0)

—

98.5 Dates (1)

2026-08-12

Section 99 of 261

Section 99 — Technical Memorandum – Master Audit Prompt 7.1 – Adoption as Standard-Issue Forensic Tool

Source File	FORENSIC-0099-technical-memorandum-master-audit-prompt-7-1-adoption-as-sta-a40b037e.html
Created	August 12, 2026
Modified	2026-08-13 00:54:12
Size	46,851 bytes
SHA-256	a40b037ed7cc509eea1d8454652945b98efd67e427c099f2df52c72a2a2a2ace

99.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

99.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (10)

Citation	Source excerpt
County Code § 22	ook County Ordinance Chapter 30, Harris County Code § 22, Maricopa County Ordinance § 15, and Sa
County Code § 4.5	pa County Ordinance § 15, and San Diego County Code § 4.5, with the mandate to enforce all analog
18 U.S.C. § 241	section, including but not limited to: 18 U.S.C. § 241 (conspiracy against rights), § 242 (dep
18 U.S.C. § 1836	rade secrets (Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1836), civil rights torts under 42 U.S.C. §§
Rule 702	nce Admissibility Under Daubert and Rule 702 3.1.1. The Supreme Court in Daubert v
Rule 707	Rule of Evidence 707 3.2.1. Proposed Rule 707 would require that machine‑generated ev
22 U.S.C. § 2295	This Document Is Authorized Via: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a & 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304
50 U.S.C. § 1702	Is Authorized Via: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a & 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304 & 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-
10 U.S.C. § 2304	22 U.S.C. § 2295a & 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304 & 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 & Title 47, Telec
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	& 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304 & 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 & Title 47, Telecommunications § 230

99.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (4)

Header	Source excerpt
Count Crime Accounting with Temporal Aggregation Module	l infractions. Deterministic Per‑Count Crime Accounting with Temporal Aggregation Module 2.3.1. This is the mathematical engin
count crime accounting table; a formal complaint allegations section with draft counts; case citations from the U.S. Supreme Court, federal appellate courts, state supreme courts, and international tribunals	sions; the 9‑interval deterministic per‑count crime accounting table; a formal complaint allegations section with draft counts; case citations from the U.S. Sup
count is derived from the evidence and can be independently verified. The deterministic nature of the Protocol ensures that the methodology is testable and has been tested.	on, every statutory citation, and every count is derived from the evidence and can be independently verified. The deterministic nature of the Protocol ensures t
count liability.	udulent transaction and calculating per‑count liability. 6.4. War Crimes and Crimes Against Hu

99.4 Dollar Figures (0)

—

99.5 Dates (1)

2026-08-12

Section 100 of 261

Section 100 — Forensic Audit Report – U.S. Department of Homeland Security (dhs.gov/report-it-vulnerability)

Source File	FORENSIC-0100-forensic-audit-report-u-s-department-of-homeland-security-dh-b9824e45.html
Created	August 12, 2026
Modified	2026-08-12 19:25:32
Size	52,965 bytes
SHA-256	b9824e451ec75b9b003efbd1bf2de8a8908113bf254879e4f1f1d834db5beb03

100.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action). The class includes all p
defendant	U.S. Department	their data collected without consent. Defendants: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Google LLC, Akamai Technologies, Inc., Siteimprove A/S, and the Secretar

100.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (24)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	efense Technologies, in accordance with 22 U.S.C. § 2295a (authority for special services and as
50 U.S.C. § 1702	y for special services and assistance), 50 U.S.C. § 1702 (International Emergency Economic Power
10 U.S.C. § 2304	gation and regulation of transactions), 10 U.S.C. § 2304 (authority for acquisition of services)
Regulation (EU) 2016/679	eral Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (Regulation (EU) 2016/679), the California Consumer Privacy Act (
Civ. Code § 1798.100	ornia Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.), the Federal Trade Commission
15 U.S.C. § 45	eq.), the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 45), and the ePrivacy Directive (Directive
18 U.S.C. § 2511	stitute a violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (
18 U.S.C. § 1030	) and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030). The total deterministic gross liabili
GDPR Article 5	requirement for lawful processing under GDPR Article 5(1). <script async src="/sites/defau
County Code § 12.08.010	International: • County: Los Angeles County Code § 12.08.010 (2023) – Prohibits unauthorised interce
Penal Code § 502(c)	data in transit. • State: California Penal Code § 502(c) (2023) – Unauthorised access to compute
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	out authorisation. • Federal: FTC Act 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (2023) – Unfair or deceptive acts in co
10 U.S.C. § 892	2003). • Military (UCMJ): Article 92 (10 U.S.C. § 892) – Failure to obey an order or regulati
Professions Code § 17200	rence. • State: California Business & Professions Code § 17200 (2024) – Unlawful business practices. P
GDPR Article 7	0,120 per violation. • International: GDPR Article 7 – Conditions for consent. Penalty: €20,
County Code § 22.04	tatutory Expansion: • County: Harris County Code § 22.04 (2022) – Unauthorised access. Penalty:
Penal Code § 33.02	$1,000 per violation. • State: Texas Penal Code § 33.02 (2022) – Breach of computer security. P
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A)	ty: $10,000 per violation. • Federal: 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A) – Intentional damage by transmitting co
GDPR Article 35	impact assessment (DPIA) as required by GDPR Article 35 for high‑risk processing. The absence o
GDPR Article 13	olates the transparency requirements of GDPR Article 13 and CCPA § 1798.100. Statutory Expa
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)	.100 – $7,500/count (intentional). CFAA 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C) – $5,000/count + imprisonment (civil fi
10 U.S.C. § 934	) – Failure to obey order. Article 134 (10 U.S.C. § 934) – General article, covering all disord
18 U.S.C. § 3571	14.18B counts. Criminal exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 3571: $500,000 per count = $7.09T (maximum).
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	& 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304 & 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 & Title 47, Telecommunications § 230

100.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (6)

Header	Source excerpt
count 5 tracking violations (one per script) + 1 form vulnerability + 1 consent violation + 1 CSP violation = 8 distinct violation events per visitor. Therefore, per second, we have 1.736 * 8 ≈ 13.89 violati	/ 86,400 seconds). For each visitor, we count 5 tracking violations (one per script) + 1 form vulnerability + 1 consent violation + 1 CSP violation = 8 distinct
Count I – Violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 45): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive practices by collecting user data without providing clear notice and opportunity to opt‑ou	Security (in his official capacity). Count I – Violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 45): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive practi
Count II – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Defendants collected and sold (or shared) personal information without providing a meaningful opt‑out. The class includ	they provide services to the public. Count II – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Defendants collected and sold (or
Count III – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants intentionally accessed protected computers without authorization, causing damage. The scripts installed on users' device	, trebled for intentional violations. Count III – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants intentionally accessed protected
Count IV – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intercepted electronic communications without consent. The data transmitted to third‑party servers constitutes interception of electronic	exposes the system to further damage. Count IV – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intercepted electronic communications without conse
Count V – Violation of the Bivens Doctrine (Fourth and Fifth Amendments): If any Defendants are federal actors, they violated Plaintiffs' constitutional rights through unreasonable searches and deprivation o	electronic communications in transit. Count V – Violation of the Bivens Doctrine (Fourth and Fifth Amendments): If any Defendants are federal actors, they viola

100.4 Dollar Figures (72)

$1.00 · $1.03 · $1.15 · $1.33 · $1.50 · $1.90 · $2.25 · $3.00 · $3.50 · $4.50 · $4.79 · $5.00 · $5.70 · $5.99 · $6.85 · $7.09 · $8.20 · $8.99 · $10.50 · $11.40 · $14.18 · $15.00 · $16.40 · $17.10 · $21.00 · $21.27 · $24.60 · $28.36 · $30.00 · $42.00 · $42.54 · $56.72 · $57.50 · $60.00 · $70.90 · $79.90 · $85.08 · $95.00 · $114.10 · $114.90 · $115.00 · $141.80 · $141.90 · $164.20 · $172.40 · $190.00 · $212.70 · $249.80 · $285.00 · $342.00 · $499.50 · $500.00 · $684.00 · $749.00 · $749.30 · $750.00 · $805.00 · $994.00 · $1,000.00 · $1,419.40 · $2,500.00 · $2,584.10 · $3,167.80 · $3,959.80 · $4,258.20 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $15,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $70,120.00 · $500,000.00

100.5 Dates (1)

2026-08-12

Section 101 of 261

Section 101 — Forensic Audit Report – YouTube Watch Page (WHO BUILT THE MEGALITHS)

Source File	FORENSIC-0101-audited-entity-youtube-google-llc-7b5d1f79.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-08-22 10:10:35
Size	45,745 bytes
SHA-256	7b5d1f7924832deab618e4536068d88f6158f1a8f228a7fba002706922010def

101.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action – estimated 1,000,000+ cla
defendant	Google LLC	– estimated 1,000,000+ class members) Defendants: Google LLC, YouTube, LLC, Sundar Pichai (CEO of Google), Neal Mohan (CEO of YouT

101.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (32)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 2511	nsent, in violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511), the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18
18 U.S.C. § 1030	511), the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030), the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45), the GDP
15 U.S.C. § 45	se Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030), the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45), the GDPR (EU 2016/679), and numerous
42 U.S.C. §1983	r Federal Actors High 1971–2026 Bivens, 42 U.S.C. §1983, Fourth/Fifth/Sixth/Eighth Amendments E
County Code §22	coms) – unauthorized collection; Harris County Code §22 (privacy) – intrusion. Penalty: up to $
Penal Code §502(c)	(3,144 counties). • State: California Penal Code §502(c) (unauthorized computer access); Cal. Bu
Prof. Code §17200	uthorized computer access); Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 (unfair competition); New York Penal La
Penal Code §33.02	Law §156.05 (computer trespass); Texas Penal Code §33.02 (breach of computer security). Penalty:
18 U.S.C. §2511	00 per violation per user. • Federal: 18 U.S.C. §2511 (Wiretap – interception of electronic c
18 U.S.C. §1030(a)(2)(C)	rception of electronic communications); 18 U.S.C. §1030(a)(2)(C) (CFAA – obtaining information from prot
15 U.S.C. §45(a)	tected computer without authorization); 15 U.S.C. §45(a) (FTC Act – unfair/deceptive acts); 5 U.
5 U.S.C. §552	5(a) (FTC Act – unfair/deceptive acts); 5 U.S.C. §552a (Privacy Act – for federal systems). P
GDPR Art. 5	$500,000 per person. • International: GDPR Art. 5 (lawfulness, fairness, transparency), A
County Code §4.5	of electronic communications; San Diego County Code §4.5 (data security) – failure to secure.
Penal Code §631	ailure to secure. • State: California Penal Code §631 (wiretapping), §637.2 (civil remedies);
18 U.S.C. §1343	Federal: 18 U.S.C. §2511 (Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. §1343 (wire fraud) – use of interstate wire c
47 U.S.C. §605	unications to defraud users of privacy; 47 U.S.C. §605 (unauthorized publication/use of commun
Civ. Code §1798.100	fornia Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) Cal. Civ. Code §1798.100 et seq. – right to know, delete, opt-ou
18 U.S.C. §1030	rginia CDPA; Colorado CPA. • Federal: 18 U.S.C. §1030 (CFAA); 5 U.S.C. §552a (Privacy Act); 1
15 U.S.C. §45	0 (CFAA); 5 U.S.C. §552a (Privacy Act); 15 U.S.C. §45 (FTC Act). • International: GDPR Art.
GDPR Art. 4	.S.C. §45 (FTC Act). • International: GDPR Art. 4(1) (personal data), Art. 5(1)(e) (stora
Penal Code §502	15 – wiretapping. • State: California Penal Code §502 (unauthorized computer access); New Yor
Professions Code §17200	(3×): • State: California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition); New York GBL §349
18 U.S.C. § 1343	eory Penalty per count Applies to 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud) $1,000,000 + 20 yrs All vi
47 U.S.C. § 605	ations involving wire communications 47 U.S.C. § 605 (unauthorized use) $110,000 Interceptio
Civ. Code §1798	ection from children CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code §1798) $7,500 intentional / $2,500 negligent
15 U.S.C. §6801	120 Unfair/deceptive practices GLBA (15 U.S.C. §6801) $100,000 + $1,000,000 pattern Financia
18 U.S.C. §371	patterns. Count X – Civil Conspiracy (18 U.S.C. §371 & common law): Defendants conspired wit
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	& 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304 & 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 & Title 47, Telecommunications § 230

101.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (10)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. §2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted, endeavored to intercept, and procured others to intercept electronic communications (including user interaction	uctive knowledge of the violations. Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. §2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted, endeavored to intercept, and
Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. §1030): Defendants knowingly accessed protected computers without authorization and obtained information from those computers, and exceeded	II, and beacon data) without consent. Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. §1030): Defendants knowingly accessed protected comput
Count III – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. §45): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce by collecting and using personal data without meaningful consent and employing da	ized access, causing damage and loss. Count III – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. §45): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive acts and practices in com
Count IV – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA/CPRA): Defendants failed to provide notice, did not honor opt-out requests, and collected personal information without consent from California	consent and employing dark patterns. Count IV – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA/CPRA): Defendants failed to provide notice, did not honor
Count V – Violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): Defendants unlawfully processed personal data of EU residents without a valid legal basis, failed to provide transparency, and did not re	ut consent from California residents. Count V – Violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): Defendants unlawfully processed personal data of EU
Count VI – Bivens Constitutional Tort (Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth Amendments): Defendants, acting under color of federal law (as federal contractors), subjected Plaintiffs to unreasonable searches and seizu	did not respect data subject rights. Count VI – Bivens Constitutional Tort (Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth Amendments): Defendants, acting under color of federal
Count VII – Invasion of Privacy (Common Law Tort): Defendants intentionally intruded upon Plaintiffs' seclusion and solitude, publicly disclosed private facts, and placed Plaintiffs in a false light.	ugh surveillance and data collection. Count VII – Invasion of Privacy (Common Law Tort): Defendants intentionally intruded upon Plaintiffs' seclusion and solitu
Count VIII – Negligence & Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress: Defendants breached their duty of care to protect Plaintiffs' data, causing emotional distress and damages.	d placed Plaintiffs in a false light. Count VIII – Negligence & Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress: Defendants breached their duty of care to protect Pl
Count IX – Fraud & Misrepresentation: Defendants misrepresented their data collection practices through opaque privacy policies and dark patterns.	using emotional distress and damages. Count IX – Fraud & Misrepresentation: Defendants misrepresented their data collection practices through opaque privacy pol
Count X – Civil Conspiracy (18 U.S.C. §371 & common law): Defendants conspired with third-party vendors and contractors to commit the aforementioned violations.	e privacy policies and dark patterns. Count X – Civil Conspiracy (18 U.S.C. §371 & common law): Defendants conspired with third-party vendors and contractors to

101.4 Dollar Figures (60)

$1.00 · $1.35 · $1.47 · $1.71 · $1.85 · $2.94 · $2.97 · $4.07 · $5.13 · $8.00 · $10.00 · $11.00 · $14.79 · $18.50 · $18.55 · $36.00 · $108.00 · $170.10 · $200.00 · $380.00 · $454.68 · $510.30 · $1,000.00 · $2,500.00 · $3,000.00 · $3,182.76 · $3,569.50 · $4,000.00 · $5,000.00 · $6,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $8,000.00 · $9,000.00 · $10,000.00 · $13,835.26 · $25,000.00 · $41,505.78 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $83,011.56 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $166,023.12 · $500,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $5,262,500.00 · $10,000,000.00 · $11,000,000.00 · $315,750,000.00 · $18,945,000,000.00 · $454,680,000,000.00 · $3,182,760,000,000.00 · $13,835,260,000,000.00 · $41,505,780,000,000.00 · $83,011,560,000,000.00 · $166,023,120,000,000.00 · $356,950,000,000,000.00 · $2,973,593,500,000,000.00 · $3,569,500,000,000,000.00

101.5 Dates (2)

2005-02-15 · 2026-08-21

Section 102 of 261

Section 102 — Forensic Audit Report – Glenn Beck's Real Estate Agents I Trust

Source File	FORENSIC-0102-audited-entity-glenn-beck-s-real-estate-agents-i-trust-mercu-6f104716.html
Created	September 6, 2026
Modified	2026-09-06 18:48:30
Size	75,323 bytes
SHA-256	6f104716a266ff88bb5e9ea2d147950762e5b809266a1e9d498ab68301230dc6

102.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Mercury Rea
defendant	Mercury Real Estate Services	l affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Mercury Real Estate Services, LLC, Mercury Radio Arts, Glenn Beck, John Wells, Google LLC, reaitapp.com, jsDel

102.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (40)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. §2511	WVW9BS2Q');</script> (Lines 30‑37) High 18 U.S.C. §2511; 18 U.S.C. §1030; 15 U.S.C. §45(a); Cal
18 U.S.C. §1030	pt> (Lines 30‑37) High 18 U.S.C. §2511; 18 U.S.C. §1030; 15 U.S.C. §45(a); Cal. Penal Code §502
15 U.S.C. §45(a)	High 18 U.S.C. §2511; 18 U.S.C. §1030; 15 U.S.C. §45(a); Cal. Penal Code §502; Cal. Civ. Code §
Penal Code §502	18 U.S.C. §1030; 15 U.S.C. §45(a); Cal. Penal Code §502; Cal. Civ. Code §1798.100; GDPR Art. 5,
Civ. Code §1798.100	S.C. §45(a); Cal. Penal Code §502; Cal. Civ. Code §1798.100; GDPR Art. 5, 6, 7; ePrivacy Dir. Art.
GDPR Art. 5	al Code §502; Cal. Civ. Code §1798.100; GDPR Art. 5, 6, 7; ePrivacy Dir. Art. 5(3); UCMJ Ar
GDPR Art. 44	High 18 U.S.C. §2511; 18 U.S.C. §1030; GDPR Art. 44 (data transfers); Cal. Civ. Code §1798.
15 U.S.C. §7701	96‑112) High Same as #2, plus CAN‑SPAM (15 U.S.C. §7701) if emails used for marketing; TCPA (47
47 U.S.C. §227	01) if emails used for marketing; TCPA (47 U.S.C. §227) for SMS. 4 Data exfiltration to rea
GDPR Art. 6	this.location}`) (Lines 180‑191) Medium GDPR Art. 6; ePrivacy Dir. Art. 5(3); Cal. Civ. Cod
15 U.S.C. §6801	nt. High FTC Act 15 U.S.C. §45(a); GLBA 15 U.S.C. §6801; GDPR Art. 32; NIST SP 800‑53; Tort: Ne
GDPR Art. 32	15 U.S.C. §45(a); GLBA 15 U.S.C. §6801; GDPR Art. 32; NIST SP 800‑53; Tort: Negligence. 7
GDPR Art. 7	8, 30‑37) High ePrivacy Dir. Art. 5(3); GDPR Art. 7; CCPA; Tort: Deceptive trade practices.
GDPR Art. 13	orm itself (Lines 290‑295, 170‑175) Low GDPR Art. 13; CCPA Cal. Civ. Code §1798.100; Tort: D
Civ. Code §1798.120	mechanism (Entire page) High CCPA Cal. Civ. Code §1798.120; GDPR Art. 17 (right to erasure); Tort:
GDPR Art. 17	ge) High CCPA Cal. Civ. Code §1798.120; GDPR Art. 17 (right to erasure); Tort: Invasion of p
County Code §12.40	xpansion (3×): • County: Los Angeles County Code §12.40 (privacy) – applies to LA residents; Co
County Code §22	mputers and telecommunications); Harris County Code §22 (privacy). • State: California Penal
Penal Code §502(c)	de §22 (privacy). • State: California Penal Code §502(c) – unauthorized access to computers; Cal
Prof. Code §17200	orized access to computers; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 – unfair competition; New York Penal La
Penal Code §33.02	Law §156.00 (computer tampering); Texas Penal Code §33.02 (breach of computer security); Florida
18 U.S.C. §2511(1)(a)	(wiretapping). • Federal: Wiretap Act 18 U.S.C. §2511(1)(a) – intentional interception of electroni
18 U.S.C. §1030(a)(2)(C)	tion of electronic communications; CFAA 18 U.S.C. §1030(a)(2)(C) – accessing a protected computer withou
County Code §4.5	Ordinance §15 (wiretapping); San Diego County Code §4.5 (data security). • State: California
Penal Code §632	(data security). • State: California Penal Code §632 (eavesdropping); NY General Business La
Civil Code §1798.100	es County §12.40. • State: California Civil Code §1798.100 (notice at collection); NY SHIELD Act (
Civil Code §1798.81.5	Expansion (3×): • State: California Civil Code §1798.81.5 – reasonable security; NY SHIELD Act –
Civ. Code §1798.81.5	re to implement reasonable security; CA Civ. Code §1798.81.5. • Federal: GLBA §6801 – safeguarding
15 U.S.C. §45	Unfair/Deceptive Practices (FTC Act §5, 15 U.S.C. §45): Misleading privacy practices, dark pa
18 U.S.C. §1961	ustomer information. Count IX – RICO (18 U.S.C. §1961 et seq.): Pattern of racketeering activ
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	& 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304 & 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 & Title 47, Telecommunications § 230
28 U.S.C. § 1331	nue This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (W
18 U.S.C. § 2511	er 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act), 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act)
15 U.S.C. § 45	stion), 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act), 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act), 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA), and
18 U.S.C. § 1030	Wiretap Act), 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act), 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA), and 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity
28 U.S.C. § 1332	(FTC Act), 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA), and 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity) for class actions. Venue is
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)	or class actions. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial part of the event

102.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (18)

102.4 Dollar Figures (103)

$0.00 · $0.01 · $1.00 · $1.01 · $1.08 · $1.53 · $1.82 · $1.88 · $2.00 · $2.21 · $3.14 · $7.00 · $15.51 · $25.65 · $30.44 · $50.00 · $67.45 · $88.00 · $91.00 · $91.25 · $91.32 · $91.50 · $92.37 · $154.35 · $182.64 · $202.35 · $343.00 · $365.28 · $404.70 · $500.00 · $809.36 · $809.40 · $811.40 · $1,500.00 · $2,175.00 · $7,500.00 · $8,700.00 · $10,000.00 · $14,535.00 · $29,000.00 · $30,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $79,750.00 · $100,000.00 · $130,500.00 · $275,000.00 · $522,000.00 · $872,100.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $1,740,000.00 · $4,785,000.00 · $7,830,000.00 · $25,520,000.00 · $31,320,000.00 · $52,326,000.00 · $104,400,000.00 · $187,920,000.00 · $287,100,000.00 · $751,680,000.00 · $1,255,824,000.00 · $1,315,440,000.00 · $1,531,200,000.00 · $2,505,600,000.00 · $5,261,760,000.00 · $5,719,680,000.00 · $6,890,400,000.00 · $8,790,768,000.00 · $17,159,040,000.00 · $17,539,200,000.00 · $22,879,872,000.00 · $34,318,080,000.00 · $38,220,000,000.00 · $48,232,800,000.00 · $68,636,160,000.00 · $68,639,616,000.00 · $76,500,000,000.00 · $85,795,200,000.00 · $91,872,000,000.00 · $114,660,000,000.00 · $137,279,232,000.00 · $209,700,000,000.00 · $229,320,000,000.00 · $229,500,000,000.00 · $274,558,464,000.00 · $343,198,080,000.00 · $458,640,000,000.00 · $459,000,000,000.00 · $573,300,000,000.00 · $629,100,000,000.00 · $918,000,000,000.00 · $1,147,500,000,000.00 · $1,258,200,000,000.00 · $2,204,928,000,000.00 · $2,516,400,000,000.00 · $3,145,500,000,000.00 · $15,434,496,000,000.00 · $67,118,000,000,000.00 · $201,354,000,000,000.00 · $402,708,000,000,000.00 · $805,416,000,000,000.00 · $811,400,000,000,000.00 · $1,006,770,000,000,000.00

102.5 Dates (2)

2021-01-01 · 2026-09-06

Section 103 of 261

Section 103 — Forensic Audit Report – Kameleoon Script (apunlawfuljs1.txt)

Source File	FORENSIC-0103-audited-entity-kameleoon-sitecode-hj2bd2l1dv-7cb9e9ef.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-08-14 12:03:49
Size	39,614 bytes
SHA-256	7cb9e9ef60f0cf82328bfd497e7d9a36d0305f76be2e4c3267aafaf7bb07f8fb

103.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) – estimated 1,000 daily u
defendant	Kameleoon Inc	ear = 365,000 class members per site. Defendants: Kameleoon Inc., and all website owners deploying the script (John Does 1-10,000). Count I – Viol

103.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (24)

Citation	Source excerpt
GDPR Art. 5	nal data without consent High 2025-2026 GDPR Art. 5-7, ePrivacy, CCPA, Cal. Civ. Code § 179
Civ. Code § 1798.100	026 GDPR Art. 5-7, ePrivacy, CCPA, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100, 18 U.S.C. § 2511, etc. Lines 1-50 (con
18 U.S.C. § 2511	ivacy, CCPA, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100, 18 U.S.C. § 2511, etc. Lines 1-50 (consent defaults), vi
Prof. Code § 22575	25-2026 ePrivacy Directive, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22575, FTC Act § 5 Creation of kameleoonData,
Civ. Code § 1798.135	sm High 2025-2026 CCPA § 1798.120, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.135, GDPR Art. 21 No clear opt-out in scrip
GDPR Art. 21	§ 1798.120, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.135, GDPR Art. 21 No clear opt-out in script 4 Data pr
GDPR Art. 6	sing without legal basis High 2025-2026 GDPR Art. 6, 9, UK GDPR, LGDP (Brazil) Processing o
18 U.S.C. § 1030	ser, OS, screen) Medium 2025-2026 CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030), Cal. Penal Code § 502 Browser and OS
Penal Code § 502	2025-2026 CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030), Cal. Penal Code § 502 Browser and OS detection 6 Telemetry
Prof. Code § 22575(b)(3)	ck signals Medium 2025-2026 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22575(b)(3) No DNT check 8 Unauthorized collecti
GDPR Art. 7	tion of geolocation data High 2025-2026 GDPR Art. 7, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100, 18 U.S.C. §
Prof. Code § 17200	High 2025-2026 FTC Act § 5, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 Implied consent via inaction 12 Viol
Penal Code § 632	00 per violation. • State (California Penal Code § 632 – Eavesdropping): Unauthorized recordin
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	iolation + treble damages. • Federal (15 U.S.C. § 45(a) – FTC Act): Unfair or deceptive practic
Penal Code § 33.02	Law § 156.00 – computer trespass; Texas Penal Code § 33.02. 3. 9-Interval Deterministic Cri
County Code § 12.10	Type County Ordinances: Los Angeles County Code § 12.10, Cook County Ord. Ch. 30, Harris Co. §
15 U.S.C. § 45	42, 1030, 1341, 1343, 2511, 1361, 1961; 15 U.S.C. § 45, 6501; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 47 U.S.C. § 605
5 U.S.C. § 552	2511, 1361, 1961; 15 U.S.C. § 45, 6501; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 47 U.S.C. § 605 – fines up to $1,000,
47 U.S.C. § 605	15 U.S.C. § 45, 6501; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 47 U.S.C. § 605 – fines up to $1,000,000 per count. M
15 U.S.C. § 6501	00 intentional #1, #2, #3, #4 COPPA (15 U.S.C. § 6501) $51,744 #10 CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030)
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	& 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304 & 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 & Title 47, Telecommunications § 230

103.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (8)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications (page views, clicks) without consent.	ng the script (John Does 1-10,000). Count I – Violation of Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications (page
Count II – Violation of CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants exceeded authorized access by storing tracking data on users' computers.	(page views, clicks) without consent. Count II – Violation of CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants exceeded authorized access by storing tracking data on users'
Count III – Violation of CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Failure to provide notice and opt-out, collected personal data without consent.	ng tracking data on users' computers. Count III – Violation of CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Failure to provide notice and opt-out, collected personal data
Count IV – Violation of COPPA (15 U.S.C. § 6501): Collection of data from children under 13 without verifiable parental consent.	lected personal data without consent. Count IV – Violation of COPPA (15 U.S.C. § 6501): Collection of data from children under 13 without verifiable parental co
Count V – FTC Act § 5 Unfair/Deceptive Practices: Misleading consent mechanisms and dark patterns.	without verifiable parental consent. Count V – FTC Act § 5 Unfair/Deceptive Practices: Misleading consent mechanisms and dark patterns. Count VI – Violation of
Count VI – Violation of State Computer Crime Laws (Cal. Penal § 502, NY Penal § 156.00): Unauthorized access to computers.	consent mechanisms and dark patterns. Count VI – Violation of State Computer Crime Laws (Cal. Penal § 502, NY Penal § 156.00): Unauthorized access to computers.
Count VII – Tort Invasion of Privacy (Intrusion Upon Seclusion): Highly offensive intrusion into private affairs.	0): Unauthorized access to computers. Count VII – Tort Invasion of Privacy (Intrusion Upon Seclusion): Highly offensive intrusion into private affairs. Count VI
Count VIII – Tort Trespass to Chattels: Interference with users' devices by storing cookies/local storage without consent.	nsive intrusion into private affairs. Count VIII – Tort Trespass to Chattels: Interference with users' devices by storing cookies/local storage without consent.

103.4 Dollar Figures (24)

$1.30 · $2.00 · $2.30 · $2.73 · $4.01 · $10.95 · $13.00 · $50.00 · $93.70 · $281.00 · $937.00 · $1,000.00 · $2,000.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $15,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $75,000,000.00 · $84,358,627.00 · $93,731,808.00

103.5 Dates (3)

2025-08-14 · 2026-08-13 · 2026-08-14

Section 104 of 261

Section 104 — Forensic Audit Report – OneTrust Interceptor (apunlawfuljs2.txt)

Source File	FORENSIC-0104-audited-entity-onetrust-consent-interceptor-script-apunlawfu-2d6eeb7a.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-08-14 12:44:04
Size	52,782 bytes
SHA-256	2d6eeb7a9650796d3a04741ce9fe44f7807f65bd7e80df22f70c7a02cecb832d

104.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) – estimated 1,000 daily u
defendant	Website owner	ear = 365,000 class members per site. Defendants: Website owner(s) and the script provider (OneTrust or

104.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (22)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 1030	owser environment (CFAA) High 2025-2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030, Cal. Penal § 502, NY Penal § 156.00 Ov
18 U.S.C. § 2511	out consent High 2025-2026 Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511), CCPA, GDPR Reads src attributes of al
Civ. Code § 1798.135	rs High 2025-2026 CCPA § 1798.100, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.135 Hardcoded list of vendors not disclosed
15 U.S.C. § 6501	PA (if children's sites) High 2025-2026 15 U.S.C. § 6501 No age verification, collects data from
Penal Code § 33.02	stems (state laws) High 2025-2026 Texas Penal Code § 33.02, Florida § 815.06 Intercepts script exe
Penal Code § 502	00 per violation. • State (California Penal Code § 502 – Unauthorized Computer Access): Access
Civ. Code § 1798.100	(California Consumer Privacy Act – Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Consumers have the right to know what
GDPR Art. 5	0,120 per violation. • International (GDPR Art. 5, 6): Processing of personal data must b
Professions Code § 17200	ation. • State (California Business & Professions Code § 17200 – Unfair Competition): Any unlawful, un
GDPR Art. 4	5,000 per violation. • International (GDPR Art. 4(11), 7): Consent must be freely given,
Civ. Code § 1798.100(b)	]}, …] Expansion: • CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100(b)): Businesses that collect personal info
GDPR Art. 13	: $7,500 per intentional violation. • GDPR Art. 13(1)(e): Controllers must provide informa
15 U.S.C. § 6502(a)	e parental consent. Expansion: • 15 U.S.C. § 6502(a): Operators of websites directed to chil
Prof. Code § 17200	$50,120 per violation. • Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 – Unfair Competition. Line Refere
15 U.S.C. § 45	s: 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030, 2511, 1361, 1961; 15 U.S.C. § 45, 6501; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 47 U.S.C. § 605
5 U.S.C. § 552	2511, 1361, 1961; 15 U.S.C. § 45, 6501; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 47 U.S.C. § 605 – fines up to $1,000,
47 U.S.C. § 605	15 U.S.C. § 45, 6501; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 47 U.S.C. § 605 – fines up to $1,000,000 per count. M
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	& 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304 & 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 & Title 47, Telecommunications § 230
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	Violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Defendants engaged in unfair and dece

104.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (16)

104.4 Dollar Figures (19)

$2.24 · $2.73 · $7.49 · $9.75 · $10.95 · $13.70 · $97.50 · $2,000.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $600,000,000.00 · $674,970,635.00 · $749,967,372.00 · $5,000,000,000.00

104.5 Dates (2)

2025-08-14 · 2026-08-14

Section 105 of 261

Section 105 — Forensic Audit Report – Bandcamp Homepage

Source File	FORENSIC-0105-audited-entity-bandcamp-59013b53.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-08-14 00:05:55
Size	32,710 bytes
SHA-256	59013b53dba6bd97ebfa58c0b247d022963b662f987fe75b73b1561dbbb98c3e

105.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) – estimated 50 million U.
defendant	Bandcamp	n) – estimated 50 million U.S. users. Defendants: Bandcamp, Inc., its officers, directors, and third-party vendors. Count I – Violation of Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C

105.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (12)

Citation	Source excerpt
Penal Code § 502	00 per violation. • State: California Penal Code § 502 (unauthorized computer access) – fine $
18 U.S.C. § 2511	al violation per consumer. • Federal: 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act) – $10,000 per violation +
18 U.S.C. § 1030	$10,000 per violation + treble damages; 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA) – $5,000 per violation + treble;
Professions Code § 17200	ures). • State: California Business & Professions Code § 17200 (unfair competition) – $2,500 per viola
47 U.S.C. § 605	ical Statutory Expansion: • Federal: 47 U.S.C. § 605 (unauthorized use of communications) –
County Code § 12.4	pe County Ordinances: San Francisco County Code § 12.4 (privacy), Los Angeles County Code Titl
15 U.S.C. § 45	Titles: 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030, 2511, 1343; 15 U.S.C. § 45; 47 U.S.C. § 605; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; etc.
5 U.S.C. § 552	1343; 15 U.S.C. § 45; 47 U.S.C. § 605; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; etc. Military UCMJ Articles: Articl
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	& 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304 & 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 & Title 47, Telecommunications § 230

105.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (8)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications of users without consent through the use of tracking scripts and analytics, causing damag	directors, and third-party vendors. Count I – Violation of Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications of use
Count II – Violation of Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants exceeded authorized access by collecting and transmitting user data to third parties without authorization, causing loss and	ripts and analytics, causing damages. Count II – Violation of Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants exceeded authorized access by collecti
Count III – Violation of FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45): Unfair and deceptive practices in failing to disclose data collection and lacking reasonable security measures.	thorization, causing loss and damage. Count III – Violation of FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45): Unfair and deceptive practices in failing to disclose data collection a
Count IV – Violation of California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA): Failure to provide opt-out, selling/sharing personal information without consent.	lacking reasonable security measures. Count IV – Violation of California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA): Failure to provide opt-out, selling/sharing personal infor
Count V – Violation of California Penal Code § 502: Unauthorized computer access and data exfiltration.	personal information without consent. Count V – Violation of California Penal Code § 502: Unauthorized computer access and data exfiltration. Count VI – Violati
Count VI – Violation of Bivens (Fourth Amendment): Unreasonable search and seizure of users' digital communications (if federal actors involved).	omputer access and data exfiltration. Count VI – Violation of Bivens (Fourth Amendment): Unreasonable search and seizure of users' digital communications (if fe
Count VII – Common Law Invasion of Privacy (Intrusion upon Seclusion): Intrusion into private affairs of users.	cations (if federal actors involved). Count VII – Common Law Invasion of Privacy (Intrusion upon Seclusion): Intrusion into private affairs of users. Count VIII
Count VIII – Negligence: Failure to secure user data, causing emotional distress and economic loss.	rusion into private affairs of users. Count VIII – Negligence: Failure to secure user data, causing emotional distress and economic loss. Damages Sought: Treble

105.4 Dollar Figures (27)

$0.00 · $1.47 · $1.55 · $1.78 · $2.13 · $2.27 · $3.77 · $5.00 · $9.88 · $13.50 · $17.80 · $29.60 · $59.20 · $118.60 · $178.00 · $226.00 · $325.00 · $375.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $150,360.00 · $280,000.00

105.5 Dates (2)

2008-10-02 · 2026-08-13

Section 106 of 261

Section 106 — Forensic Audit Report – Chromium/Google – 12 August 2026

Source File	FORENSIC-0106-forensic-audit-report-chromium-google-12-august-2026-f5c89398.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-08-12 11:14:52
Size	41,575 bytes
SHA-256	f5c89398ee02119a7dc9cec7ab8dd368627f0a4d86583623888fcf43eee46d63

106.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Google LLC
defendant	Google LLC	l affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Google LLC (Alphabet Inc.), Microsoft Corporation,

106.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (22)

Citation	Source excerpt
Penal Code § 502	0 per incident. (b) State (California Penal Code § 502): (c)(1)(A) Knowingly and without permi
18 U.S.C. § 2511	o $10,000 per violation. (c) Federal (18 U.S.C. § 2511, Wiretap Act): (1)(a) Intentionally int
18 U.S.C. § 1030	to 5 years imprisonment. (d) Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1030, CFAA): (a)(2)(C) Intentionally accesse
18 U.S.C. § 1343	fine and up to 5 years. (e) Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1343, Wire Fraud): The scheme to defraud use
GDPR Art. 5	tory and punitive. (h) International (GDPR Art. 5, 6): Principles of lawfulness, fairness
18 U.S.C. § 1028	Penalty: Class E Felony. (c) Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1028, Identity Theft): (a)(7) Knowingly tran
18 U.S.C. § 1836	00 per count + 20 years. (e) Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1836, Defend Trade Secrets Act): Misappropri
GDPR Art. 32	e of the property. (h) International (GDPR Art. 32): Security of processing. Failing to pr
County Code § 4.5	International: (a) County (San Diego County Code § 4.5 – Data Security): This is a violation o
Commerce Code § 17.41	per file. (b) State (Texas Business & Commerce Code § 17.41 – Deceptive Trade Practices): Misrepres
18 U.S.C. § 1341	theft of trade secrets. (d) Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1341, Mail Fraud): The distribution of unlic
17 U.S.C. § 501	: $1,000,000 + 20 years. (e) Federal (17 U.S.C. § 501, Copyright Infringement): Direct and co
County Code § 22	mputers and Telecommunications); Harris County Code § 22 (Privacy); Maricopa County Ordinance §
18 U.S.C. § 3571	s: 567,710,208. Criminal exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 3571: $283,855,104,000,000 (up to $500,000 p
47 U.S.C. § 605	s – All Violations (Wire Fraud) 5.2.2 47 U.S.C. § 605: $110,000 – Unauthorized RF/Data Interc
42 U.S.C. § 1983	ve – Constitutional Violations 5.2.18 42 U.S.C. § 1983: No cap – State Actor Violations 5.2.
18 U.S.C. § 1961	. 6.6 Count VI – Racketeering (RICO – 18 U.S.C. § 1961): Defendants engaged in a pattern of ra
Prof. Code § 17200	te Unfair Competition Laws (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200): Defendants engaged in unlawful, unfai
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	& 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304 & 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 & Title 47, Telecommunications § 230

106.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (7)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications of millions of users without consent. This includes the collection of keystrokes, mou	entified in Section 3. Counts: 6.1 Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications of
Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants intentionally accessed protected computers without authorization and obtained information. This includes the exfiltratio	f $10,000 per violation, trebled. 6.2 Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants intentionally accessed protected c
Count III – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA): Defendants failed to provide adequate notice or obtain consent for the collection and sale of personal data. The class action seeks statutor	of $5,000 per violation, trebled. 6.3 Count III – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA): Defendants failed to provide adequate notice or obtai
Count IV – Violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): Defendants processed personal data of EU citizens without a lawful basis. The class action seeks fines of 4% of global annual turnover pe	7,500 per violation per consumer. 6.4 Count IV – Violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): Defendants processed personal data of EU citizens w
Count V – Copyright and Patent Infringement (17 U.S.C. § 501): Defendants distributed and used unlicensed, patented codecs (H.264, AAC, MP3, etc.). The class action seeks statutory damages of $150,000 per wo	al annual turnover per violation. 6.5 Count V – Copyright and Patent Infringement (17 U.S.C. § 501): Defendants distributed and used unlicensed, patented codecs
Count VI – Racketeering (RICO – 18 U.S.C. § 1961): Defendants engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity (wire fraud, mail fraud, computer fraud) to generate revenue from illegal data collection. The class	s of $150,000 per work infringed. 6.6 Count VI – Racketeering (RICO – 18 U.S.C. § 1961): Defendants engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity (wire fraud, m
Count VII – Violation of State Unfair Competition Laws (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200): Defendants engaged in unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices by misrepresenting their data collection polic	ks treble damages and forfeiture. 6.7 Count VII – Violation of State Unfair Competition Laws (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200): Defendants engaged in unlawful, u

106.4 Dollar Figures (71)

$0.00 · $1.30 · $1.70 · $2.10 · $3.50 · $4.70 · $6.30 · $28.00 · $67.00 · $135.00 · $300.00 · $500.00 · $1,000.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $25,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $75,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $110,750.00 · $150,000.00 · $500,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $1,010,000.00 · $1,107,500.00 · $1,195,750.00 · $4,500,000.00 · $6,645,000.00 · $60,600,000.00 · $71,745,000.00 · $270,000,000.00 · $398,700,000.00 · $3,636,000,000.00 · $4,304,700,000.00 · $6,480,000,000.00 · $9,568,800,000.00 · $45,360,000,000.00 · $66,981,600,000.00 · $87,264,000,000.00 · $100,000,000,000.00 · $103,312,800,000.00 · $197,121,600,000.00 · $291,091,381,500.00 · $591,364,800,000.00 · $610,848,000,000.00 · $723,189,600,000.00 · $873,274,144,500.00 · $1,182,729,600,000.00 · $1,746,548,289,000.00 · $2,365,459,200,000.00 · $2,654,570,880,000.00 · $3,142,783,861,500.00 · $3,493,096,578,000.00 · $7,963,712,640,000.00 · $9,428,351,584,500.00 · $15,927,425,280,000.00 · $18,856,703,169,000.00 · $31,854,850,560,000.00 · $37,713,406,338,000.00 · $42,578,265,600,000.00 · $62,874,047,609,000.00 · $283,855,104,000,000.00 · $458,216,745,720,075.00 · $573,387,310,080,000.00 · $678,839,623,289,000.00 · $2,036,518,869,867,000.00

106.5 Dates (2)

2008-08-12 · 2026-08-12

Section 107 of 261

Section 107 — Forensic Audit Report – SoftBank Vision Fund (visionfund.com/contact)

Source File	FORENSIC-0107-audit-softbank-vision-fund-visionfund-contact-185e97af.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-08-10 10:39:04
Size	40,335 bytes
SHA-256	185e97afc64433a98c74ce77b08e531e1fae8e6e06600d22693ff8335b429f31

107.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) – estimated 18 million us
defendant	SB Investment Advisers	including US citizens and residents. Defendants: SB Investment Advisers (UK) Limited; CEO/Executive; Google LLC;

107.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (24)

Citation	Source excerpt
GDPR Art. 5	(despite default denial) High 2018–2026 GDPR Art. 5, 6, 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); 18 U.S.C. §
18 U.S.C. § 2511	GDPR Art. 5, 6, 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); 18 U.S.C. § 2511; Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 gtag('consen
Civ. Code § 1798.100	ivacy Art. 5(3); 18 U.S.C. § 2511; Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 gtag('consent', 'default', …) ; GTM s
GDPR Art. 7	not effectively enforced High 2018–2026 GDPR Art. 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); FTC Act § 5 <scrip
GDPR Art. 6	consent for marketing Medium 2018–2026 GDPR Art. 6(1)(a), 7; Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 <in
GDPR Art. 44	hout adequate safeguards High 2020–2026 GDPR Art. 44–49; Schrems II Scripts to consent.cooki
Civ. Code § 1798.135	6 GDPR Art. 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.135 Cookie banner buttons: "Accept all", "D
Penal Code § 631	arate violation. • State: California Penal Code § 631 (wiretapping) – $5,000 per violation pe
Penal Code § 33.02	son; New York Penal Law § 250.00; Texas Penal Code § 33.02; Illinois 720 ILCS 5/16D‑3 – each scrip
18 U.S.C. § 1030	damages $10,000 per violation + treble; 18 U.S.C. § 1030 – $5,000 per unauthorised access; 47 U.
47 U.S.C. § 605	1030 – $5,000 per unauthorised access; 47 U.S.C. § 605 – $110,000 per use; 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) –
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	ss; 47 U.S.C. § 605 – $110,000 per use; 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) – $50,120 per violation. • Military
County Code § 4.5	, International: • County: San Diego County Code § 4.5 – data security; each user visit is a v
County Code § 22	ort, International: • County: Harris County Code § 22 – privacy; each sign‑up without consent
15 U.S.C. § 7701	violation. • Federal: CAN‑SPAM Act (15 U.S.C. § 7701) – requires opt‑out mechanism; each ema
5 U.S.C. § 552	028, 1037, 1341, 371, 1001, 1589, 1961; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a), 6501–6506, 6801,
18 U.S.C. § 3571	for all counts. Criminal exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 3571: up to $500,000 per count (capped at $1
18 U.S.C. § 1343	counts: 1.4B. Criminal exposure: under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 – up to 20 years per count, but realist
42 U.S.C. § 1983	+ punitive Constitutional violations 42 U.S.C. § 1983 No cap State actors (if any) State s
Pen. Code § 502	(if any) State statutes (e.g., Cal. Pen. Code § 502) $5,000 per count Unauthorized computer
18 U.S.C. § 1961	s a separate count. Count VII – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Enterprise (defendants) engaged in a
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

107.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (8)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications (tracking data) without consent. Over 18 million separate interceptions (page views).	med third‑party vendors. Counts: Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications (trac
Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers (users' devices) via scripts. Over 18 million counts.	separate interceptions (page views). Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers (us
Count III – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Deceptive trade practices – failure to provide granular consent and effective blocking of tracking.	via scripts. Over 18 million counts. Count III – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Deceptive trade practices – failure to provide granular consent a
Count IV – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Failure to provide notice, opt‑out, and deletion rights for 1.8 million California consumers.	t and effective blocking of tracking. Count IV – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Failure to provide notice
Count V – Violation of the GDPR (Arts. 5, 6, 7, 13–14, 44–49): Unlawful data processing, lack of granular consent, inadequate transparency, and illegal cross‑border transfers. 5.4 million EU user counts.	for 1.8 million California consumers. Count V – Violation of the GDPR (Arts. 5, 6, 7, 13–14, 44–49): Unlawful data processing, lack of granular consent, inadequ
Count VI – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Use of deceptive practices to induce users to visit the site; each visit is a separate count.	ransfers. 5.4 million EU user counts. Count VI – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Use of deceptive practices to induce users to visit the site; each visit is a se
Count VII – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Enterprise (defendants) engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity (wire fraud, money laundering) through data collection and use.	site; each visit is a separate count. Count VII – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Enterprise (defendants) engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity (wire fraud, mo
Count VIII – Bivens Constitutional Torts: Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search/seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process), Sixth Amendment (right to counsel), Eighth Amendment (cruel/unusual). Each federal actor	ing) through data collection and use. Count VIII – Bivens Constitutional Torts: Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search/seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process), S

107.4 Dollar Figures (41)

$0.00 · $1.00 · $1.42 · $10.00 · $12.00 · $18.00 · $20.00 · $50.00 · $63.42 · $69.66 · $89.16 · $100.00 · $111.45 · $139.30 · $139.31 · $180.00 · $198.00 · $248.00 · $300.00 · $400.00 · $417.93 · $417.94 · $418.10 · $418.14 · $450.00 · $1,000.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $72,620.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $280,000.00 · $287,500.00 · $500,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $139,314,401,280.00 · $417,943,203,840.00

107.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 108 of 261

Section 108 — Forensic Audit Report – Glacier App

Source File	FORENSIC-0108-audited-entity-glacier-app-theglacierapp-dot-com-716e3199.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-08-26 06:10:17
Size	22,332 bytes
SHA-256	716e31994a67895428c30509a21f3c42005436a6e705bd333d1b07c225da3e47

108.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Glacier Tec
defendant	Glacier Technologies LLC	l affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Glacier Technologies LLC, Webflow, Inc., Lottie (Airbnb), and named individuals. Cou

108.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (13)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 2511	lly Non‑Compliant with the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511), the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) – a
5 U.S.C. § 552	ct (18 U.S.C. § 2511), the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) – as the site is used by federal empl
GDPR Art. 7	2024‑2026 ePrivacy Directive Art. 5(3), GDPR Art. 7, CCPA No consent banner or opt‑out link
GDPR Art. 13	) High 2024‑2026 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3), GDPR Art. 13, 14 No mention of third‑party sharing i
Penal Code § 631	00 per violation. • State (California Penal Code § 631): Wiretapping – each transmission is an
Penal Code § 502(c)	00 per violation. • State (California Penal Code § 502(c)): Unauthorized access – scripts access
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)	on – $5,000 per violation. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)): Wiretap Act – intentional interceptio
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)	10,000 per count + treble. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)): CFAA – obtaining information from a p
GDPR Art. 5	es $5,000 per user. • International – GDPR Art. 5(1)(a), 6(1): No lawful basis – fine €25
Professions Code § 17200	ation. • State (California Business & Professions Code § 17200): Unfair competition – $2,500 per viola
47 U.S.C. § 605	s – $50,120 per violation. • Federal (47 U.S.C. § 605): Unauthorized use of communications –
County Code § 4.5	. Expansion: • County (San Diego County Code § 4.5): Data security – failure to provide no
18 U.S.C. § 1030	ons without consent. Count II – CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected comp

108.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (7)

Header	Source excerpt
count 4 intercepts per visitor (Webflow main script, jQuery, Lottie, and other Webflow chunks). Additionally, the lack of consent is a separate violation. We assume an average of 1,000 daily visitors (based	timated 3–5 scripts). We conservatively count 4 intercepts per visitor (Webflow main script, jQuery, Lottie, and other Webflow chunks). Additionally, the lack o
Count I – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intercepted electronic communications without consent.	ie (Airbnb), and named individuals. Count I – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intercepted electronic communications without consent. Count II – CFAA
Count II – CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers.	ronic communications without consent. Count II – CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers. Count III – Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 5
Count III – Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Disclosure of records without consent.	orized access to protected computers. Count III – Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Disclosure of records without consent. Count IV – CCPA: Failure to provide n
Count IV – CCPA: Failure to provide notice and opt‑out.	isclosure of records without consent. Count IV – CCPA: Failure to provide notice and opt‑out. Count V – GDPR/ePrivacy: Processing w
Count V – GDPR/ePrivacy: Processing without consent.	ailure to provide notice and opt‑out. Count V – GDPR/ePrivacy: Processing without consent. Count VI – Common Law Invasion of Pri
Count VI – Common Law Invasion of Privacy.	ePrivacy: Processing without consent. Count VI – Common Law Invasion of Privacy. Damages Sought: Treble damages, sta

108.4 Dollar Figures (32)

$1.20 · $1.28 · $1.46 · $1.90 · $5.72 · $1,000.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $10,000.00 · $18,299.00 · $22,929.00 · $50,120.00 · $110,000.00 · $263,500.00 · $1,097,917.00 · $1,375,694.00 · $65,875,000.00 · $82,541,667.00 · $1,581,000,000.00 · $1,981,000,000.00 · $11,067,000,000.00 · $13,867,000,000.00 · $48,120,000,000.00 · $60,286,666,667.00 · $144,360,000,000.00 · $180,860,000,000.00 · $288,720,000,000.00 · $361,720,000,000.00 · $577,440,000,000.00 · $723,440,000,000.00 · $1,524,441,600,000.00 · $1,909,881,600,000.00

108.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 109 of 261

Section 109 — Forensic Audit Report – wishpond.com (Corrected)

Source File	FORENSIC-0109-wishpond-audit-2ade2a5b.html
Created	August 13, 2026
Modified	2026-08-13 23:27:06
Size	32,597 bytes
SHA-256	2ade2a5b562911a4702d99b90e552c2694095b3bed2c0caeca0b3ef467abdd98

109.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Wishpond Te
defendant	Wishpond Technologies Ltd	l affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Wishpond Technologies Ltd., Ali Tajsekandar (CEO), Google LLC, Meta Platforms, Inc.,

109.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (19)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 1343	, constituting a pattern of wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343), unauthorized interception of electron
18 U.S.C. § 2511	erception of electronic communications (18 U.S.C. § 2511), and deceptive trade practices (FTC Ac
Civ. Code § 1798.100	fing) High 2025–2026 FTC Act § 45, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 Line 2–5 (litespeed_docref) 3 Insecu
18 U.S.C. § 1030	ms (Missing CSRF Tokens) High 2025–2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030, COPPA All "Book a Demo" forms 4 Dec
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	bstantiated AI Claims) Medium 2025–2026 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 Hero se
Prof. Code § 17200	025–2026 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 Hero section text 2.1 Detailed
Penal Code § 631	00 per violation. • State: California Penal Code § 631 (Wiretapping) – Prohibits eavesdropping
47 C.F.R. § 64.2001	ver. • Regulatory: FCC rules on CPNI (47 C.F.R. § 64.2001 et seq.), NIST SP 800-53 (Privacy Contr
Civ. Code § 1798.100(b)	rnia Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) – Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100(b) – right to know what personal informati
County Code § 22	ory Expansion (3×): • County: Harris County Code § 22 (Privacy) – Violation of data security
18 U.S.C. § 1029	m. Penalty: $5,000 per violation. Also, 18 U.S.C. § 1029 (Access Device Fraud) if data is used t
County Code § 4.5	ricopa County Ordinance § 15, San Diego County Code § 4.5. State Penal Codes: Cal. Penal Code §§
47 U.S.C. § 605	1, 1030, 1037, 1361; 15 U.S.C. § 45(a); 47 U.S.C. § 605. Military UCMJ Articles: Art. 92, 107,
18 U.S.C. § 3571	for all counts. Criminal exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 3571: $12.645Q. Civil exposure: all statutor
15 U.S.C. § 45	Count III – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45): Defendants engaged in deceptive and u
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	& 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304 & 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 & Title 47, Telecommunications § 230

109.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (5)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications through tracking pixels without consent.	orms, Inc., Litespeed Technologies. Count I – Violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted el
Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants intentionally accessed protected computers without authorization, exceeding access to obtain data.	ough tracking pixels without consent. Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants intentionally accessed protected c
Count III – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45): Defendants engaged in deceptive and unfair practices by deploying dark patterns and failing to provide privacy disclosures.	ion, exceeding access to obtain data. Count III – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45): Defendants engaged in deceptive and unfair practices by deploying d
Count IV – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Defendants failed to provide notice and opt‑out mechanisms for the sale of personal information.	iling to provide privacy disclosures. Count IV – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Defendants failed to prov
Count V – Violation of the GDPR (Art. 5(1)(a), Art. 6(1), Art. 32): Defendants unlawfully processed personal data of EU residents without legal basis and failed to implement appropriate security measures.	for the sale of personal information. Count V – Violation of the GDPR (Art. 5(1)(a), Art. 6(1), Art. 32): Defendants unlawfully processed personal data of EU re

109.4 Dollar Figures (66)

$0.22 · $0.32 · $1.00 · $1.20 · $1.50 · $2.26 · $3.60 · $3.75 · $5.19 · $6.12 · $6.44 · $9.86 · $10.00 · $12.00 · $12.64 · $13.50 · $13.80 · $16.20 · $20.03 · $23.32 · $28.84 · $29.58 · $36.37 · $37.93 · $41.00 · $50.00 · $59.17 · $60.14 · $69.00 · $75.00 · $100.00 · $118.35 · $138.00 · $142.02 · $158.18 · $163.29 · $201.93 · $207.00 · $216.51 · $270.00 · $333.89 · $400.00 · $474.53 · $500.00 · $710.10 · $878.14 · $949.07 · $972.00 · $1,000.00 · $1,898.15 · $2,130.31 · $2,277.78 · $2,634.44 · $4,260.62 · $5,000.00 · $5,268.87 · $7,500.00 · $8,521.25 · $10,000.00 · $10,225.50 · $10,537.75 · $12,645.31 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $110,000.00 · $1,000,000.00

109.5 Dates (2)

2025-06-01 · 2026-08-13

Section 110 of 261

Section 110 — Forensic Audit Report – Veterans Advocacy Services

Source File	FORENSIC-0110-audited-entity-veterans-advocacy-services-veteransadvocacyse-994ebd09.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-08-26 06:19:09
Size	21,419 bytes
SHA-256	994ebd0904f8c384063493edf0e389ba747c70cca97a805f266ac1113aed1b19

110.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Veterans Ad
defendant	Veterans Advocacy Services	l affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Veterans Advocacy Services, Inc., Google LLC, GoDaddy Inc., and named individuals. Count I – Wiretap Act (18 U

110.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (12)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 2511	lly Non‑Compliant with the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511), the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) – a
5 U.S.C. § 552	ct (18 U.S.C. § 2511), the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) – as the site is used by federal empl
GDPR Art. 7	2021‑2026 ePrivacy Directive Art. 5(3), GDPR Art. 7, CCPA, FTC Act Cookie banner with only
GDPR Art. 13	) High 2021‑2026 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3), GDPR Art. 13, 14 No mention of Google Analytics or d
Penal Code § 631	00 per violation. • State (California Penal Code § 631): Wiretapping – each transmission is an
Penal Code § 502(c)	00 per violation. • State (California Penal Code § 502(c)): Unauthorized access – scripts access
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)	on – $5,000 per violation. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)): Wiretap Act – intentional interceptio
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)	10,000 per count + treble. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)): CFAA – obtaining information from a p
GDPR Art. 5	): $5,000 per user. • International – GDPR Art. 5,6: No lawful basis – €250,000 per viola
Professions Code § 17200	ation. • State (California Business & Professions Code § 17200): Unfair competition – $2,500 per viola
47 U.S.C. § 605	s – $50,120 per violation. • Federal (47 U.S.C. § 605): Unauthorized use of communications –
18 U.S.C. § 1030	ons without consent. Count II – CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected comp

110.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (6)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intercepted electronic communications without consent.	oDaddy Inc., and named individuals. Count I – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intercepted electronic communications without consent. Count II – CFAA
Count II – CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers.	ronic communications without consent. Count II – CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers. Count III – Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 5
Count III – Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Disclosure of records without consent.	orized access to protected computers. Count III – Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Disclosure of records without consent. Count IV – CCPA: Failure to provide n
Count IV – CCPA: Failure to provide notice and opt‑out.	isclosure of records without consent. Count IV – CCPA: Failure to provide notice and opt‑out. Count V – GDPR/ePrivacy: Processing w
Count V – GDPR/ePrivacy: Processing without valid consent.	ailure to provide notice and opt‑out. Count V – GDPR/ePrivacy: Processing without valid consent. Count VI – Common Law Invasion of Pri
Count VI – Common Law Invasion of Privacy.	cy: Processing without valid consent. Count VI – Common Law Invasion of Privacy. Damages Sought: Treble damages, sta

110.4 Dollar Figures (32)

$1.08 · $1.32 · $1.80 · $1.83 · $5.50 · $1,000.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $9,149.00 · $10,000.00 · $10,306.00 · $50,120.00 · $110,000.00 · $263,500.00 · $548,958.00 · $618,403.00 · $32,937,500.00 · $37,104,167.00 · $790,500,000.00 · $890,500,000.00 · $5,533,500,000.00 · $6,233,500,000.00 · $24,060,000,000.00 · $27,101,666,667.00 · $72,180,000,000.00 · $81,305,000,000.00 · $144,360,000,000.00 · $162,610,000,000.00 · $288,720,000,000.00 · $325,220,000,000.00 · $1,628,380,800,000.00 · $1,834,240,800,000.00

110.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 111 of 261

Section 111 — Forensic Audit Report – Pinterest Homepage

Source File	FORENSIC-0111-pinrest-audit-0ddbd879.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-08-10 21:14:37
Size	41,866 bytes
SHA-256	0ddbd87984fb94957da375992d4eb0b46bd0ee4a41148ce77ecc458f669c5237

111.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	urt – Northern District of California Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) – estimated 450 million m
defendant	Pinterest	ion) – estimated 450 million members. Defendants: Pinterest, Inc.; Ben Silbermann; Evan Sharp; Google LLC

111.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (27)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 1343	ertising, constituting wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 and illegal electronic surveillance und
18 U.S.C. § 2511	d illegal electronic surveillance under 18 U.S.C. § 2511. The total deterministic gross liability
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)	A – unauthorized access) High 2010-2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C), (a)(5)(C) Exfiltration of user data wi
Civ. Code § 1798.100	CPA/CPRA Violations High 2020-2026 Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq. No "Do Not Sell My Personal Inf
15 U.S.C. § 6801	GLBA Privacy Violation Medium 1999-2026 15 U.S.C. § 6801 Failure to protect nonpublic personal i
15 U.S.C. § 7701	tion 8 CAN-SPAM Act Medium 2003-2026 15 U.S.C. § 7701 No opt-out mechanism for promotional em
42 U.S.C. § 12181	9 ADA / Section 508 Medium 1998-2026 42 U.S.C. § 12181; 29 U.S.C. § 794d Lack of accessible al
29 U.S.C. § 794	508 Medium 1998-2026 42 U.S.C. § 12181; 29 U.S.C. § 794d Lack of accessible alternatives for tr
18 U.S.C. § 1961	Pattern of Racketeering High 2010-2026 18 U.S.C. § 1961-1968 Multiple predicate acts: wire frau
Penal Code § 631	ion. • State (California): California Penal Code § 631 (wiretapping) – every unauthorized inte
Professions Code § 17200	ble damages. Also California Business & Professions Code § 17200 (unfair competition). • Federal (18 U
GDPR Art. 5	minal, and punitive. • International: GDPR Art. 5(1)(a) – lawfulness, fairness, transpare
Penal Code § 502(c)(2)	on 2 (State Computer Crime): California Penal Code § 502(c)(2) – unauthorized access to computer syste
18 U.S.C. § 1030	e) and constitutes computer fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1030. The code also includes WebUSB, WebBluet
Penal Code § 502	5 all applicable. • State (California Penal Code § 502): Unauthorized computer access and data
Penal Code § 487	since the 1990s. • State (California Penal Code § 487): Grand theft by false pretenses (theft
15 U.S.C. § 45	e17 1.05e18 1.74e19 FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45) $50,120 per violation 2.23e11 1.
Admin. Code § 31.2	s) County Ordinances: San Francisco Admin. Code § 31.2 (data privacy), Los Angeles County Code
County Code § 12.70	Code § 31.2 (data privacy), Los Angeles County Code § 12.70 (electronic surveillance), Cook County
5 U.S.C. § 552	15 U.S.C. §§ 45, 6501-6506, 6801, 7701; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 42 U.S.C. § 12181; 47 U.S.C. §§ 301,
18 U.S.C. § 3571	.32e12 counts). Criminal exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 3571: up to $500,000 per count – total $1.16
47 U.S.C. § 605	1343 $1,000,000 + 20 yrs Wire Fraud 47 U.S.C. § 605 $110,000 Unauthorized publication of co
42 U.S.C. § 1983	ctual + punitive Constitutional tort 42 U.S.C. § 1983 No cap State action State statutes v
18 U.S.C. § 1962	of global turnover. Count VII – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1962): Defendants engaged in a pattern of ra
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

111.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (13)

Header	Source excerpt
count 4.45e10	ap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) $10,000 per count 4.45e10 2.67e12 1.60e14 3.85e15 2.69e16
count 2.23e10	CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030) $5,000 per count 2.23e10 1.34e12 8.02e13 1.93e15 1.35e16
count 4.45e12	Wire Fraud (§ 1343) $1,000,000 per count 4.45e12 2.67e14 1.60e16 3.85e17 2.69e18
Count I – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications of plaintiffs without consent. Each user-day is a separate violation. Seek statutory damages of $10,00	dors named in the audit. Counts: Count I – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications of plaintiffs without
Count II – Computer Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants exceeded authorized access and obtained information from protected computers. Seek $5,000 per violation, trebled.	es of $10,000 per violation, trebled. Count II – Computer Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants exceeded authorized access and obtained information from protecte
Count III – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Defendants devised a scheme to defraud advertisers and users via interstate wire transmissions. Each transmission is a separate count. Seek $1,000,000 per count.	. Seek $5,000 per violation, trebled. Count III – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Defendants devised a scheme to defraud advertisers and users via interstate wir
Count IV – COPPA (15 U.S.C. §§ 6501-6506): Defendants collected personal information from children under 13 without verifiable parental consent. Seek $51,744 per child per violation.	ate count. Seek $1,000,000 per count. Count IV – COPPA (15 U.S.C. §§ 6501-6506): Defendants collected personal information from children under 13 without verifi
Count V – CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Defendants failed to provide opt-out and sold personal information without notice. Seek $7,500 per intentional violation per consumer.	Seek $51,744 per child per violation. Count V – CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Defendants failed to provide opt-out and sold personal information wit
Count VI – GDPR (Art. 5, 6, 7, 25): Defendants processed data without lawful basis and without data protection by design. Seek €250,000 per violation or 4% of global turnover.	r intentional violation per consumer. Count VI – GDPR (Art. 5, 6, 7, 25): Defendants processed data without lawful basis and without data protection by design.
Count VII – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1962): Defendants engaged in a pattern of racketeering through predicate acts of wire fraud, computer fraud, and money laundering. Seek treble damages and forfeiture.	r violation or 4% of global turnover. Count VII – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1962): Defendants engaged in a pattern of racketeering through predicate acts of wire fraud,
Count VIII – Bivens Constitutional Tort: Defendants, acting under color of law, violated plaintiffs' Fourth, Fifth, Sixth (right to counsel), and Eighth Amendment rights. Seek actual and punitive damages per pl	. Seek treble damages and forfeiture. Count VIII – Bivens Constitutional Tort: Defendants, acting under color of law, violated plaintiffs' Fourth, Fifth, Sixth
Count IX – UCMJ Violations: For any active-duty military plaintiffs, Defendants' conduct violated Articles 92, 133, and 134. Seek fines and confinement for responsible military personnel.	l and punitive damages per plaintiff. Count IX – UCMJ Violations: For any active-duty military plaintiffs, Defendants' conduct violated Articles 92, 133, and 13
Count X – Tort Claims: Intrusion upon seclusion, public disclosure of private facts, fraud, negligent infliction of emotional distress. Seek compensatory, consequential, and punitive damages.	t for responsible military personnel. Count X – Tort Claims: Intrusion upon seclusion, public disclosure of private facts, fraud, negligent infliction of emotio

111.4 Dollar Figures (44)

$1.00 · $1.11 · $1.16 · $1.20 · $1.23 · $1.30 · $1.40 · $1.47 · $1.48 · $1.50 · $1.68 · $2.20 · $2.30 · $2.40 · $2.45 · $2.50 · $2.80 · $2.83 · $3.20 · $3.34 · $3.67 · $3.69 · $4.04 · $4.67 · $6.61 · $7.38 · $9.03 · $15.60 · $178.60 · $500.00 · $624.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $25,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $75,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $250,000.00 · $500,000.00 · $1,000,000.00

111.5 Dates (1)

2026-08-10

Section 112 of 261

Section 112 — Forensic Audit Report – Roommates.com

Source File	FORENSIC-0112-audited-entity-roommates-0aa83a0f.html
Created	August 13, 2026
Modified	2026-08-14 03:57:50
Size	31,150 bytes
SHA-256	0aa83a0f8eb36218c8f19e59722fed41affc3953711d6cc7f1f1cad7e24d971b

112.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Roommates.c
defendant	Roommates.com Operator	l affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Roommates.com Operator (Doe LLC), Google LLC, FraudBlocker, Inc

112.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (20)

Citation	Source excerpt
Penal Code § 631	internal telemetry) High 2001–2026 Cal. Penal Code § 631, 18 U.S.C. § 2511, GDPR Art. 5, ePrivac
18 U.S.C. § 2511	) High 2001–2026 Cal. Penal Code § 631, 18 U.S.C. § 2511, GDPR Art. 5, ePrivacy Dir. Lines: GTM
GDPR Art. 5	al. Penal Code § 631, 18 U.S.C. § 2511, GDPR Art. 5, ePrivacy Dir. Lines: GTM script, Fraud
Prof. Code § 17200	High 2001–2026 FTC Act § 5, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, CCPA Pricing section – "Auto-renewing"
18 U.S.C. § 1030	ure flag evident Medium 2001–2026 CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030), Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.81.5 Meta CSRF
Civ. Code § 1798.81.5	2001–2026 CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030), Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.81.5 Meta CSRF token, but missing HttpOnly/S
GDPR Art. 7	or all trackers Medium 2018–2026 (GDPR) GDPR Art. 7, 13, 22; CCPA § 1798.100 Termly resourc
Prof. Code § 17500	dium 2001–2026 FTC Act § 5, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 Line: "19982+ active recently" – no sou
County Code § 12.20	International: • County: Los Angeles County Code § 12.20 (privacy protections) – violation per u
County Code § 12.30	ory Expansion: • County: Los Angeles County Code § 12.30 (consumer protection) – $5,000 per viol
Professions Code § 17200	ation. • State: California Business & Professions Code § 17200 (unfair competition) – restitution and
Civ. Code § 1760	s up to $2,500 per violation; also Cal. Civ. Code § 1760 (unlawful subscription terms). • Fede
GDPR Art. 22	f recurring charges. • International: GDPR Art. 22 (automated decision-making) – not direc
5 U.S.C. § 552	118M $236M $472M $11.8B Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) $5,000 $2.89 $173 $10,417 $250,000 $1
15 U.S.C. § 45	.S.C. Titles: 18 U.S.C. § 2511, § 1030, 15 U.S.C. § 45, § 6501, 5 U.S.C. § 552a – per occurren
15 U.S.C. § 6501	from children without parental consent, 15 U.S.C. § 6501. Count V – California Unfair Competiti
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	& 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304 & 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 & Title 47, Telecommunications § 230

112.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (7)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Wiretap Act Violations: Defendants intercepted electronic communications without consent, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2511.	Inc., Termly, Inc., and Does 1-50. Count I – Wiretap Act Violations: Defendants intercepted electronic communications without consent, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
Count II – Computer Fraud and Abuse Act: Unauthorized access to users' computers to collect data, 18 U.S.C. § 1030.	nt, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2511. Count II – Computer Fraud and Abuse Act: Unauthorized access to users' computers to collect data, 18 U.S.C. § 1030. Count
Count III – FTC Act Unfair/Deceptive Practices: Dark patterns and misleading claims, 15 U.S.C. § 45.	rs to collect data, 18 U.S.C. § 1030. Count III – FTC Act Unfair/Deceptive Practices: Dark patterns and misleading claims, 15 U.S.C. § 45. Count IV – COPPA Viol
Count IV – COPPA Violations: Collection of personal information from children without parental consent, 15 U.S.C. § 6501.	nd misleading claims, 15 U.S.C. § 45. Count IV – COPPA Violations: Collection of personal information from children without parental consent, 15 U.S.C. § 6501.
Count V – California Unfair Competition Law: Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.	t parental consent, 15 U.S.C. § 6501. Count V – California Unfair Competition Law: Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. Count VI – Common Law Fraud: Misrepre
Count VI – Common Law Fraud: Misrepresentations regarding user activity and subscription terms.	Law: Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. Count VI – Common Law Fraud: Misrepresentations regarding user activity and subscription terms. Count VII – Invasion of Pri
Count VII – Invasion of Privacy (Intrusion upon Seclusion).	user activity and subscription terms. Count VII – Invasion of Privacy (Intrusion upon Seclusion). Damages Sought: Compensatory, statu

112.4 Dollar Figures (69)

$1.14 · $1.29 · $1.45 · $1.75 · $2.28 · $2.29 · $2.42 · $2.89 · $2.90 · $3.50 · $3.80 · $4.56 · $5.00 · $5.79 · $6.00 · $7.61 · $7.62 · $9.05 · $11.40 · $11.80 · $14.90 · $15.20 · $16.90 · $17.83 · $22.00 · $22.08 · $22.80 · $22.90 · $27.93 · $39.40 · $45.60 · $45.70 · $50.00 · $66.00 · $66.24 · $73.60 · $87.00 · $91.20 · $91.30 · $91.50 · $118.00 · $173.00 · $174.00 · $182.50 · $220.80 · $236.00 · $347.00 · $441.60 · $472.00 · $875.00 · $883.20 · $897.00 · $1,000.00 · $1,678.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $5,208.00 · $10,000.00 · $10,417.00 · $10,442.00 · $20,833.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $53,820.00 · $100,720.00 · $125,000.00 · $250,000.00 · $250,600.00 · $500,000.00

112.5 Dates (2)

2001-01-01 · 2026-08-13

Section 113 of 261

Section 113 — Consolidated Evidence Report – Chromium Forensic Audit

Source File	FORENSIC-0113-consolidated-evidence-report-chromium-forensic-audit-f4828aec.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-08-12 13:12:57
Size	23,404 bytes
SHA-256	f4828aec74a676f576d95af60c2b6146ec89addb0cde38fa51e2c05576d1cbc6

113.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

113.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (16)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 1028	.3 Legal Violations Established: (a) 18 U.S.C. § 1028 – Identity Theft: Harvesting OAuth toke
18 U.S.C. § 1343	lty: Up to 15 years imprisonment. (b) 18 U.S.C. § 1343 – Wire Fraud: The systematic collection
GDPR Art. 32	er count + 20 years imprisonment. (c) GDPR Art. 32 – Security of Processing: Failure to ad
17 U.S.C. § 501	.3 Legal Violations Established: (a) 17 U.S.C. § 501 – Copyright Infringement: Direct and co
35 U.S.C. § 271	ges: $150,000 per work infringed. (b) 35 U.S.C. § 271 – Patent Infringement: Use of patented
18 U.S.C. § 1836	d VIA Licensing patents violated. (c) 18 U.S.C. § 1836 – Defend Trade Secrets Act: Misappropri
18 U.S.C. § 1341	nstitutes theft of trade secrets. (d) 18 U.S.C. § 1341 – Mail Fraud: Distribution of unlicense
18 U.S.C. § 2511	.3 Legal Violations Established: (a) 18 U.S.C. § 2511 – Wiretap Act: (1)(a) Intentionally int
18 U.S.C. § 1030	, and up to 5 years imprisonment. (b) 18 U.S.C. § 1030 – CFAA: (a)(2)(C) Intentionally accesse
GDPR Art. 5	er count + 20 years imprisonment. (d) GDPR Art. 5, 6: Principles of lawfulness, fairness,
County Code § 22	ook County Ordinance Chapter 30, Harris County Code § 22, Maricopa County Ordinance § 15, San Di
County Code § 4.5	ricopa County Ordinance § 15, San Diego County Code § 4.5. Penalties: $500 – $2,500 per violation.
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	& 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304 & 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 & Title 47, Telecommunications § 230

113.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

113.4 Dollar Figures (18)

$500.00 · $2,500.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $150,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $1,195,750.00 · $71,745,000.00 · $4,304,700,000.00 · $103,312,800,000.00 · $723,189,600,000.00 · $3,142,783,861,500.00 · $9,428,351,584,500.00 · $18,856,703,169,000.00 · $37,713,406,338,000.00 · $458,216,745,720,075.00 · $678,839,623,289,000.00

113.5 Dates (1)

2026-08-12

Section 114 of 261

Section 114 — Forensic Audit Report – Google Search Results Page (Expanded 9x)

Source File	FORENSIC-0114-audited-entity-google-llc-alphabet-inc-6075990b.html
Created	August 14, 2026
Modified	2026-08-14 19:51:07
Size	73,327 bytes
SHA-256	6075990b3e94c6a56383e88fe277216b6d5ca5a37f90d484efbdfccc35e83bfe

114.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	t Court – Civil Action (Class Action) Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) – estimated 4.9 billion u
defendant	Google LLC	ction) – estimated 4.9 billion users. Defendants: Google LLC, Alphabet Inc., Sundar Pichai, and other officers, directors, and third-party vendors. Count I – Vi

114.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (36)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 2511	data (navigator.userAgent) H 1998-2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511, CCPA § 1798.100, GDPR Art. 5 Line 1 (w
GDPR Art. 5	2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511, CCPA § 1798.100, GDPR Art. 5 Line 1 (window._hst) 2 Exfiltration
18 U.S.C. § 1030	screen resolution (biw/bih) H 2000-2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030, CCPA § 1798.100, GDPR Art. 5 Line 1 (b
18 U.S.C. § 1343	in cleartext (q parameter) H 1998-2026 18 U.S.C. § 1343, GLBA § 6801, CCPA Line 1 (q=Logic…)
GDPR Art. 6	rf token) H 2005-2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511, GDPR Art. 6 Line 1 (sxsrf=APpeQnt…) 6 Unauthor
18 U.S.C. § 1836	ce token (hardcoded secret) H 2010-2026 18 U.S.C. § 1836, CFAA Line 1 (nonce="7nD52KAw22vpslQLw_
Penal Code § 502	2000-2026 CFAA, FTC Act § 5, California Penal Code § 502 Line 20 (q parameter echoed) 18 Use
GDPR Art. 32	ch terms H 1998-2026 GLBA § 6801, CCPA, GDPR Art. 32 Line 1 (q parameter in URL) 21 Colle
GDPR Art. 7	collection H 2010-2026 CCPA § 1798.100, GDPR Art. 7 UI missing opt-out 30 Dark pattern:
GDPR Art. 20	to provide data portability M 2010-2026 GDPR Art. 20, CCPA No export option 34 Failure to
GDPR Art. 17	o provide right to deletion M 2010-2026 GDPR Art. 17, CCPA No deletion mechanism 35 Failu
GDPR Art. 16	vide right to rectification M 2010-2026 GDPR Art. 16, CCPA No correction mechanism 36 Fai
GDPR Art. 35	rotection impact assessment M 2010-2026 GDPR Art. 35 No DPIA 37 Failure to designate a Da
GDPR Art. 37	e a Data Protection Officer M 2010-2026 GDPR Art. 37 No DPO listed 38 Failure to maintain
GDPR Art. 30	ds of processing activities M 2010-2026 GDPR Art. 30 No records 39 Failure to notify data
GDPR Art. 33	ta breaches within 72 hours H 2010-2026 GDPR Art. 33, CCPA No breach notification 40 Fail
Penal Code § 502(c)	00 per violation. • State: California Penal Code § 502(c) (Unauthorized Computer Access) – $10,00
Civil Code § 1798.100	violation + treble damages. California Civil Code § 1798.100 (CCPA) – $7,500 per intentional violati
Professions Code § 17200	tional violation. California Business & Professions Code § 17200 (Unfair Competition) – $2,500 per viola
5 U.S.C. § 552	,000 per count + 20 years imprisonment. 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act) – $5,000 per violation.
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	a (Privacy Act) – $5,000 per violation. 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act) – $50,120 per violation. 15 U
15 U.S.C. § 6801	5(a) (FTC Act) – $50,120 per violation. 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA) – $100,000 per violation + $1,00
15 U.S.C. § 7701	5(a) (FTC Act) – $50,120 per violation. 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-SPAM) – $51,744 per violation (if
Civil Code § 3426	00 per violation. • State: California Civil Code § 3426 (Uniform Trade Secrets Act) – damages a
Financial Code § 4050	0 per intentional violation. California Financial Code § 4050 (Financial Data Privacy) – $10,000 per
Civil Code § 51	00 per violation. • State: California Civil Code § 51 (Unruh Civil Rights Act) – $5,000 per v
Government Code § 11135	Act) – $5,000 per violation. California Government Code § 11135 – $5,000 per violation. • Federal: 42
42 U.S.C. § 12181	35 – $5,000 per violation. • Federal: 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA) – $75,000 per violation. 29 U.S.C
29 U.S.C. § 794	§ 12181 (ADA) – $75,000 per violation. 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508) – $75,000 per violation.
18 U.S.C. § 2701	ation of the Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. § 2701): Defendants unlawfully accessed stored
15 U.S.C. § 45	Count VI – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45): Defendants engaged in unfair and dece
18 U.S.C. § 2710	on of the Video Privacy Protection Act (18 U.S.C. § 2710): Defendants disclosed personally ident
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	& 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304 & 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 & Title 47, Telecommunications § 230

114.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (14)

Header	Source excerpt
count is accounted for in the totals.	gories for clarity, but each individual count is accounted for in the totals. Violation Category Avg Pena
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications without consent, resulting in damages to plaintiffs.	directors, and third-party vendors. Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications wi
Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants accessed protected computers without authorization and exceeded authorized access to obtain information and commit fraud	, resulting in damages to plaintiffs. Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants accessed protected computers witho
Count III – Violation of the Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. § 2701): Defendants unlawfully accessed stored communications and obtained data without consent.	obtain information and commit fraud. Count III – Violation of the Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. § 2701): Defendants unlawfully accessed stored communicat
Count IV – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Defendants devised a scheme to defraud users by misrepresenting data collection practices and using the wire communication system to execute the fraud.	ns and obtained data without consent. Count IV – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Defendants devised a scheme to defraud users by misrepresenting data collection
Count V – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA): Defendants failed to provide opt-out mechanisms, sold and collected personal information without consent, and failed to maintain reasonable	nication system to execute the fraud. Count V – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA): Defendants failed to provide opt-out mechanisms, sold a
Count VI – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive acts or practices in commerce by misrepresenting data collection and using dark patterns to manipulate user cho	ntain reasonable security procedures. Count VI – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive acts or practices in comm
Count VII – Violation of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Defendants failed to protect the security and confidentiality of consumers' personal financial information.	patterns to manipulate user choices. Count VII – Violation of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Defendants failed to protect the security and confi
Count VIII – Violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act (18 U.S.C. § 2710): Defendants disclosed personally identifiable information of video subscribers without consent.	mers' personal financial information. Count VIII – Violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act (18 U.S.C. § 2710): Defendants disclosed personally identifiabl
Count IX – Violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. § 1836): Defendants misappropriated trade secrets by exposing nonce and API keys, and by failing to protect proprietary algorithms.	of video subscribers without consent. Count IX – Violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. § 1836): Defendants misappropriated trade secrets by expos
Count X – Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12181): Defendants failed to provide accessible interfaces for users with disabilities, violating Title III.	ng to protect proprietary algorithms. Count X – Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12181): Defendants failed to provide accessible in
Count XI – Violation of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. § 794d): Defendants failed to ensure accessibility of electronic information to individuals with disabilities.	th disabilities, violating Title III. Count XI – Violation of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. § 794d): Defendants failed to ensure accessibilit
Count XII – Bivens Constitutional Torts: Defendants acting under color of law violated plaintiffs' Fourth (unreasonable search and seizure), Fifth (due process, self-incrimination), Sixth (right to counsel in	ion to individuals with disabilities. Count XII – Bivens Constitutional Torts: Defendants acting under color of law violated plaintiffs' Fourth (unreasonable se
Count XIII – Common Law Tort Claims: Intrusion upon seclusion, public disclosure of private facts, false light, appropriation, defamation, fraud, misrepresentation, negligence, and civil conspiracy.	cruel and unusual punishment) rights. Count XIII – Common Law Tort Claims: Intrusion upon seclusion, public disclosure of private facts, false light, appropriat

114.4 Dollar Figures (104)

$4.90 · $12.80 · $47.00 · $54.20 · $63.97 · $108.00 · $127.90 · $1,000.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $75,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $250,000.00 · $375,000.00 · $500,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $2,506,000.00 · $3,750,000.00 · $5,000,000.00 · $12,500,000.00 · $15,000,000.00 · $22,500,000.00 · $30,000,000.00 · $50,000,000.00 · $75,131,000.00 · $150,360,000.00 · $225,000,000.00 · $300,000,000.00 · $750,000,000.00 · $900,000,000.00 · $1,350,000,000.00 · $1,800,000,000.00 · $3,000,000,000.00 · $4,507,860,000.00 · $9,021,600,000.00 · $13,500,000,000.00 · $18,000,000,000.00 · $21,600,000,000.00 · $32,400,000,000.00 · $43,200,000,000.00 · $45,000,000,000.00 · $151,200,000,000.00 · $180,000,000,000.00 · $216,518,400,000.00 · $226,800,000,000.00 · $270,471,600,000.00 · $302,400,000,000.00 · $324,000,000,000.00 · $432,000,000,000.00 · $657,000,000,000.00 · $985,500,000,000.00 · $1,080,000,000,000.00 · $1,314,000,000,000.00 · $1,515,628,800,000.00 · $1,971,000,000,000.00 · $2,268,000,000,000.00 · $2,956,500,000,000.00 · $3,024,000,000,000.00 · $3,942,000,000,000.00 · $4,320,000,000,000.00 · $5,913,000,000,000.00 · $6,491,318,400,000.00 · $6,586,660,000,000.00 · $7,560,000,000,000.00 · $7,884,000,000,000.00 · $9,855,000,000,000.00 · $11,826,000,000,000.00 · $13,140,000,000,000.00 · $15,768,000,000,000.00 · $19,759,980,000,000.00 · $29,565,000,000,000.00 · $30,240,000,000,000.00 · $32,850,000,000,000.00 · $39,420,000,000,000.00 · $39,519,960,000,000.00 · $45,439,228,800,000.00 · $59,130,000,000,000.00 · $78,840,000,000,000.00 · $79,039,920,000,000.00 · $98,550,000,000,000.00 · $118,260,000,000,000.00 · $131,400,000,000,000.00 · $157,680,000,000,000.00 · $197,100,000,000,000.00 · $197,422,160,000,000.00 · $213,000,000,000,000.00 · $319,000,000,000,000.00 · $394,200,000,000,000.00 · $426,000,000,000,000.00 · $592,266,480,000,000.00 · $788,400,000,000,000.00 · $1,184,532,960,000,000.00 · $1,576,800,000,000,000.00 · $2,134,000,000,000,000.00 · $2,369,065,920,000,000.00 · $3,190,000,000,000,000.00 · $4,260,000,000,000,000.00 · $10,640,000,000,000,000.00 · $42,600,000,000,000,000.00 · $63,970,000,000,000,000.00

114.5 Dates (1)

2026-08-14

Section 115 of 261

Section 115 — Forensic Audit Report – Songtradr Homepage

Source File	FORENSIC-0115-audited-entity-songtradr-76d517d5.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-08-14 01:27:43
Size	32,973 bytes
SHA-256	76d517d54eca1be5762f3afe9970a20ffe2da6af99543c36b3f6b33c4a23b84d

115.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	ourt – Central District of California Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) – estimated 24 million U.
defendant	Songtradr	n) – estimated 24 million U.S. users. Defendants: Songtradr, Inc., its officers, directors, and third-party vendors. Count I – Violation of Wiretap Act (18 U.S.

115.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (12)

Citation	Source excerpt
Penal Code § 502	00 per violation. • State: California Penal Code § 502 (unauthorized computer access) – fine $
18 U.S.C. § 2511	al violation per consumer. • Federal: 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act) – $10,000 per violation +
18 U.S.C. § 1030	$10,000 per violation + treble damages; 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA) – $5,000 per violation + treble;
Professions Code § 17200	ures). • State: California Business & Professions Code § 17200 (unfair competition) – $2,500 per viola
47 U.S.C. § 605	ical Statutory Expansion: • Federal: 47 U.S.C. § 605 (unauthorized use of communications) –
15 U.S.C. § 6801	tatutory Expansion: • Federal: GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801) – financial privacy; FTC Act – unfair/
15 U.S.C. § 45	Titles: 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030, 2511, 1343; 15 U.S.C. § 45; 47 U.S.C. § 605; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 15 U
5 U.S.C. § 552	1343; 15 U.S.C. § 45; 47 U.S.C. § 605; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); etc. Milit
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	& 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304 & 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 & Title 47, Telecommunications § 230

115.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (9)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications of users without consent through the use of tracking scripts and analytics, causing damag	directors, and third-party vendors. Count I – Violation of Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications of use
Count II – Violation of Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants exceeded authorized access by collecting and transmitting user data to third parties without authorization, causing loss and	ripts and analytics, causing damages. Count II – Violation of Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants exceeded authorized access by collecti
Count III – Violation of FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45): Unfair and deceptive practices in failing to disclose data collection and lacking reasonable security measures.	thorization, causing loss and damage. Count III – Violation of FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45): Unfair and deceptive practices in failing to disclose data collection a
Count IV – Violation of California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA): Failure to provide opt-out, selling/sharing personal information without consent.	lacking reasonable security measures. Count IV – Violation of California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA): Failure to provide opt-out, selling/sharing personal infor
Count V – Violation of California Penal Code § 502: Unauthorized computer access and data exfiltration.	personal information without consent. Count V – Violation of California Penal Code § 502: Unauthorized computer access and data exfiltration. Count VI – Violati
Count VI – Violation of Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA): Failure to protect financial privacy (Recurly.js).	omputer access and data exfiltration. Count VI – Violation of Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA): Failure to protect financial privacy (Recurly.js). Count VII – Viol
Count VII – Violation of Bivens (Fourth Amendment): Unreasonable search and seizure of users' digital communications (if federal actors involved).	otect financial privacy (Recurly.js). Count VII – Violation of Bivens (Fourth Amendment): Unreasonable search and seizure of users' digital communications (if f
Count VIII – Common Law Invasion of Privacy (Intrusion upon Seclusion): Intrusion into private affairs of users.	cations (if federal actors involved). Count VIII – Common Law Invasion of Privacy (Intrusion upon Seclusion): Intrusion into private affairs of users. Count IX
Count IX – Negligence: Failure to secure user data, causing emotional distress and economic loss.	rusion into private affairs of users. Count IX – Negligence: Failure to secure user data, causing emotional distress and economic loss. Damages Sought: Treble d

115.4 Dollar Figures (26)

$0.00 · $1.00 · $2.00 · $2.10 · $2.40 · $3.80 · $5.48 · $16.40 · $24.00 · $38.36 · $63.40 · $166.70 · $180.00 · $228.00 · $240.00 · $500.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $25,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $200,480.00 · $280,000.00

115.5 Dates (2)

2014-03-11 · 2026-08-13

Section 116 of 261

Section 116 — Forensic Audit Report – AP News Homepage (Expanded)

Source File	FORENSIC-0116-audited-entity-associated-press-c295ec8e.html
Created	August 14, 2026
Modified	2026-08-14 11:12:16
Size	94,409 bytes
SHA-256	c295ec8e01b1b5971b3a090544f27237e5e377f3a236037c1bc5f369b3a0d20b

116.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) – estimated 100,000,000 c
defendant	The Associated Press	estimated 100,000,000 class members. Defendants: The Associated Press, Brightspot CMS, OneTrust, Permutive, Viafoura, Freestar, Kameleoon, Google, and Does 1-50

116.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (87)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 2511	terception of Electronic Communications 18 U.S.C. § 2511; Cal. Penal Code § 631; N.Y. Penal Law
Penal Code § 631	c Communications 18 U.S.C. § 2511; Cal. Penal Code § 631; N.Y. Penal Law § 250.00; Tex. Penal Co
Penal Code § 33.02	de § 631; N.Y. Penal Law § 250.00; Tex. Penal Code § 33.02; Fla. Stat. § 934.01 High 5.0e12 $10,00
Fla. Stat. § 934.01	Law § 250.00; Tex. Penal Code § 33.02; Fla. Stat. § 934.01 High 5.0e12 $10,000 (civil) + treble
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)	ed Access to Protected Computers (CFAA) 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C), (a)(4); Cal. Penal Code § 502; 720 ILC
Penal Code § 502	18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C), (a)(4); Cal. Penal Code § 502; 720 ILCS 5/16D High 5.0e12 $5,000 + tr
GDPR Art. 6	Failure to Obtain Valid Consent (GDPR) GDPR Art. 6, 7; ePrivacy Dir. Art. 5(3) High 1.5e12
15 U.S.C. § 45	k Patterns – No Reject-All FTC Act § 5 (15 U.S.C. § 45); Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 Medium
Prof. Code § 17200	C Act § 5 (15 U.S.C. § 45); Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 Medium 2.0e11 $50,120 6 Unlawful Dev
GDPR Art. 5	Fingerprinting ePrivacy Dir. Art. 5(3); GDPR Art. 5; 18 U.S.C. § 2511 High 5.0e12 €250,000
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(6)	00 7 Insecure Form (XSS/CSRF Vector) 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(6); FTC Act § 5; GDPR Art. 32 Medium 1.0e6
GDPR Art. 32	r) 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(6); FTC Act § 5; GDPR Art. 32 Medium 1.0e6 $50,120 + damages 8 Loc
Civ. Code § 1798.100	ivacy Dir. Art. 5(3); GDPR Art. 5; Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 High 5.0e12 €250,000 9 Wiretap Act –
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)	nterception of Communications (General) 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a) High 5.0e12 $10,000 + treble 10 CFAA
15 U.S.C. § 6801	LBA – Failure to Provide Privacy Notice 15 U.S.C. § 6801 et seq. Medium 2.0e11 $100,000 + patter
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	13 FTC Act – Unfair/Deceptive Practices 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) High 2.0e11 $50,120 14 Bivens – Four
18 U.S.C. § 1343	0e11 Actual + punitive 22 Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. § 1343 High 5.0e12 $1,000,000 + 20 years 23
18 U.S.C. § 371	0,000 + 20 years 23 Civil Conspiracy 18 U.S.C. § 371; Common Law High 5.0e12 $250,000 + 5 ye
18 U.S.C. § 1961	$250,000 + 5 years 24 RICO Violation 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. High 5.0e12 Treble damages + fo
18 U.S.C. § 1029	+ forfeiture 25 Access Device Fraud 18 U.S.C. § 1029 High 5.0e12 $250,000 + 10 years 26 I
18 U.S.C. § 1028	250,000 + 10 years 26 Identity Fraud 18 U.S.C. § 1028 High 5.0e12 $250,000 + 15 years 27 C
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(4)	puter Fraud in Connection with Commerce 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(4) High 5.0e12 $250,000 + 10 years 28 P
5 U.S.C. § 552	+ 10 years 28 Privacy Act Violation 5 U.S.C. § 552a High 5.0e12 $5,000 per violation 29
15 U.S.C. § 7701	violation 29 CAN-SPAM Act Violation 15 U.S.C. § 7701 et seq. Medium 1.0e10 $51,744 30 ADA
29 U.S.C. § 794	30 ADA Compliance Failure (Section 508) 29 U.S.C. § 794d Medium 1.0e6 $75,000 31 UN Guiding
Com. Code § 17.41	ceptive Trade Practices Act Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 17.41 Medium 1.0e11 $10,000 39 California
Penal Code § 632	sonment 41 California Eavesdropping (Penal Code § 632) Cal. Penal Code § 632 High 5.0e12 $2,5
Penal Code § 33.07	elony 45 Texas Online Impersonation (Penal Code § 33.07) Tex. Penal Code § 33.07 Medium 1.0e11
Fla. Stat. § 815.01	1 Felony 46 Florida Computer Crimes (Fla. Stat. § 815.01) Fla. Stat. § 815.01-815.07 High 5.0e12
Fla. Stat. § 815.01-815.07	a Computer Crimes (Fla. Stat. § 815.01) Fla. Stat. § 815.01-815.07 High 5.0e12 Felony + damages 47 Flor
Fla. Stat. § 934.01-934.10	orida Wiretapping (Fla. Stat. § 934.01) Fla. Stat. § 934.01-934.10 High 5.0e12 $10,000 + treble 48 Illi
Va. Code § 18.2-152.1	damages 52 Virginia Computer Crimes (Va. Code § 18.2-152.1) Va. Code § 18.2-152.1 High 5.0e12 Felo
Gen. Stat. § 42-515	55 Connecticut Data Privacy Act (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-515) Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-515 Medium 2.0e1
Utah Code § 13-61-101	$7,500 56 Utah Consumer Privacy Act (Utah Code § 13-61-101) Utah Code § 13-61-101 Medium 2.0e11 $7
Va. Code § 59.1-575	Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act (Va. Code § 59.1-575) Va. Code § 59.1-575 Medium 2.0e11 $7,5
Fla. Stat. § 501.171	58 Florida Information Protection Act (Fla. Stat. § 501.171) Fla. Stat. § 501.171 Medium 2.0e11 $5,
Com. Code § 503.001	60 Texas Biometric Privacy (Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 503.001) Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 503.001 Medium
Civ. Code § 1798.83	62 California Shine the Light (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.83) Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.83 Medium 2.0e11
Rev. Code § 1354.01	00 69 Ohio Data Protection Act (Ohio Rev. Code § 1354.01) Ohio Rev. Code § 1354.01 Medium 2.0e11
Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1	and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1) N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 Medium 2.0e11
Tenn. Code § 47-18-101	75 Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (Tenn. Code § 47-18-101) Tenn. Code § 47-18-101 Medium 2.0e11 $
Ind. Code § 24-5-0.5-1	7 Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act (Ind. Code § 24-5-0.5-1) Ind. Code § 24-5-0.5-1 Medium 2.0e11 $
Rev. Stat. § 407.010	ssouri Merchandising Practices Act (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 407.010) Mo. Rev. Stat. § 407.010 Medium 2.0e11
Wis. Stat. § 100.20	79 Wisconsin Consumer Protection Act (Wis. Stat. § 100.20) Wis. Stat. § 100.20 Medium 2.0e11 $5,0
Minn. Stat. § 325	esota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act (Minn. Stat. § 325F.69) Minn. Stat. § 325F.69 Medium 2.0e1
Iowa Code § 714.16	1 $5,000 81 Iowa Consumer Fraud Act (Iowa Code § 714.16) Iowa Code § 714.16 Medium 2.0e11 $5,00
Ark. Code § 4-88-101	Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Ark. Code § 4-88-101) Ark. Code § 4-88-101 Medium 2.0e11 $5,
Miss. Code § 75-24-1	83 Mississippi Consumer Protection Act (Miss. Code § 75-24-1) Miss. Code § 75-24-1 Medium 2.0e11 $5,
Ala. Code § 8-19-1	Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Ala. Code § 8-19-1) Ala. Code § 8-19-1 Medium 2.0e11 $5,00
Va. Code § 46	Consumer Credit and Protection Act (W. Va. Code § 46A-6-101) W. Va. Code § 46A-6-101 Medium
Mont. Code § 30-14-101	91 Montana Consumer Protection Act (Mont. Code § 30-14-101) Mont. Code § 30-14-101 Medium 2.0e11 $
Idaho Code § 48-601	00 92 Idaho Consumer Protection Act (Idaho Code § 48-601) Idaho Code § 48-601 Medium 2.0e11 $5,0
Wyo. Stat. § 40-12-101	93 Wyoming Consumer Protection Act (Wyo. Stat. § 40-12-101) Wyo. Stat. § 40-12-101 Medium 2.0e11 $
Rev. Stat. § 59-1601	Nebraska Consumer Protection Act (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 59-1601) Neb. Rev. Stat. § 59-1601 Medium 2.0e1
County Code § 22	. 30 Medium 1.0e11 $2,500 115 Harris County Code § 22 (Privacy) Harris County Code § 22 Mediu
County Code § 4.5	15 High 5.0e12 $2,500 117 San Diego County Code § 4.5 (Data Security) San Diego County Code §
10 U.S.C. § 892	e 92 – Failure to Obey Order/Regulation 10 U.S.C. § 892 High 1.0e7 Full pay + confinement 11
10 U.S.C. § 893	J Article 93 – Cruelty and Maltreatment 10 U.S.C. § 893 High 1.0e7 Full pay + confinement 12
10 U.S.C. § 907	Article 107 – False Official Statements 10 U.S.C. § 907 High 1.0e7 Full pay + confinement 12
10 U.S.C. § 921	rticle 121 – Larceny (Data as Property) 10 U.S.C. § 921 High 1.0e7 Full pay + confinement 12
10 U.S.C. § 923	icle 123 – Forgery (Digital Signatures) 10 U.S.C. § 923 High 1.0e7 Full pay + confinement 12
10 U.S.C. § 932	e 132 – Fraud Against the United States 10 U.S.C. § 932 High 1.0e7 Full pay + confinement 12
10 U.S.C. § 933	uct Unbecoming an Officer and Gentleman 10 U.S.C. § 933 High 1.0e7 Full pay + confinement 12
10 U.S.C. § 934	eneral Article (Disorders and Neglects) 10 U.S.C. § 934 High 1.0e7 Full pay + confinement 12
18 U.S.C. § 2510(12)	electronic communication" is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2510(12) to include any transfer of signs, signa
18 U.S.C. § 2511(4)	rther provides criminal penalties under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(4): fine and imprisonment for not more tha
18 U.S.C. § 2520	ars. Civil remedies are available under 18 U.S.C. § 2520, allowing recovery of actual damages bu
Penal Code § 502(c)	s may be available. State: California Penal Code § 502(c) makes it unlawful to knowingly access a
Civil Code § 1798.100	,000 per violation. State: California Civil Code § 1798.100 requires businesses to inform consumers
Civ. Code § 1798.135	tatutory Expansion: California: Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.135 requires a business that sells or share
Civ. Code § 1798.120	lear and conspicuous" requirement. Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.120 grants consumers the right to opt out o
Professions Code § 17200	rocess). State: California Business & Professions Code § 17200 (UCL) prohibits unfair competition, whi
GDPR Art. 7	le and not misleading. International: GDPR Art. 7(3) requires that withdrawal of consent
15 U.S.C. § 6501	dren under 13. Statutory Expansion: 15 U.S.C. § 6501 et seq. requires operators of websites
Civ. Code § 1798.99.50	e Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.99.50). Line Reference: Lines 1442-1482.
42 U.S.C. § 1983	tablished constitutional violations). 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Provides a parallel remedy for state a
18 U.S.C. § 1341	s that further a scheme). Mail Fraud: 18 U.S.C. § 1341 also applies if any communication is se
18 U.S.C. § 1964(c)	f racketeering activity). Civil RICO: 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) allows private plaintiffs to recover tr
15 U.S.C. § 7704	: CAN-SPAM Act Statutory Expansion: 15 U.S.C. § 7704 requires clear and conspicuous identifi
47 U.S.C. § 605	aud) $1,000,000 + 20 years All users 47 U.S.C. § 605 $110,000 All users COPPA $51,744 Chi
18 U.S.C. § 1030	+ $100,000 criminal All users CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030) $5,000 + treble + 10 years All users
28 U.S.C. § 1331	Google, and Does 1-50. Jurisdiction: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question); 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (s
28 U.S.C. § 1367	n: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question); 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (supplemental jurisdiction). Count
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	& 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304 & 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 & Title 47, Telecommunications § 230

116.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (20)

116.4 Dollar Figures (58)

$1.00 · $1.05 · $1.27 · $1.60 · $1.64 · $2.92 · $4.57 · $5.85 · $6.26 · $7.31 · $11.70 · $13.72 · $14.62 · $24.86 · $27.44 · $29.25 · $46.37 · $49.73 · $54.88 · $58.51 · $99.47 · $104.40 · $116.02 · $150.30 · $188.66 · $290.06 · $383.90 · $471.66 · $580.12 · $927.30 · $943.32 · $986.20 · $1,000.00 · $2,000.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $25,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $75,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $250,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $10,000,000.00 · $1,740,000,000,000.00 · $104,400,000,000,000.00 · $6,264,000,000,000,000.00 · $150,300,000,000,000,000.00 · $1,052,000,000,000,000,000.00 · $4,574,000,000,000,000,000.00 · $13,722,000,000,000,000,000.00 · $27,444,000,000,000,000,000.00 · $54,888,000,000,000,000,000.00 · $1,647,000,000,000,000,000,000.00

116.5 Dates (1)

2026-08-14

Section 117 of 261

Section 117 — Forensic Audit Report – Target File

Source File	FORENSIC-0117-audited-entity-chromium-google-code-repository-732359c0.html
Created	August 12, 2026
Modified	2026-08-12 09:41:18
Size	40,698 bytes
SHA-256	732359c07e936486ae837bc442292ee8bd3303d4ea57577d3187d24189643d99

117.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Google LLC
defendant	Google LLC	affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Google LLC (Alphabet Inc.), Microsoft Corporation,

117.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (23)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 1030	iltration (Telemetry) High 2008-Present 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap), GDP
18 U.S.C. § 2511	h 2008-Present 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap), GDPR, CCPA tracking_files.tx
18 U.S.C. § 1028	Harvesting & Exposure High 2008-Present 18 U.S.C. § 1028 (Identity Theft), 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wir
18 U.S.C. § 1343	sent 18 U.S.C. § 1028 (Identity Theft), 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud), Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100
Civ. Code § 1798.100	t), 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud), Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA) credentials.txt (1,700+ files)
17 U.S.C. § 501	Infringement (Codecs) High 2008-Present 17 U.S.C. § 501 (Copyright Infringement), 35 U.S.C. § 2
35 U.S.C. § 271	U.S.C. § 501 (Copyright Infringement), 35 U.S.C. § 271 (Patent Infringement) extensions.txt (5
Penal Code § 502	000 per incident. • State (California Penal Code § 502): (c) (1) (A) Knowingly and without per
GDPR Art. 5	satory and punitive. • International (GDPR Art. 5, 6): Principles of lawfulness, fairness
18 U.S.C. § 1836	,000 per count + 20 years. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1836, Defend Trade Secrets Act): Misappropri
GDPR Art. 32	lue of the property. • International (GDPR Art. 32): Security of processing. Failing to pr
County Code § 4.5	, International: • County (San Diego County Code § 4.5 – Data Security): This is a violation o
Commerce Code § 17.41	0 per file. • State (Texas Business & Commerce Code § 17.41 – Deceptive Trade Practices): Misrepres
18 U.S.C. § 1341	es theft of trade secrets. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1341, Mail Fraud): The distribution of unlic
County Code § 22	mputers and Telecommunications); Harris County Code § 22 (Privacy); Maricopa County Ordinance §
18 U.S.C. § 3571	s: 567,710,208. Criminal exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 3571: $283,855,104,000,000 (up to $500,000 p
47 U.S.C. § 605	+ 20 yrs All Violations (Wire Fraud) 47 U.S.C. § 605 $110,000 Unauthorized RF/Data Intercept
42 U.S.C. § 1983	+ punitive Constitutional Violations 42 U.S.C. § 1983 No cap State Actor Violations State
18 U.S.C. § 1961	nged. Count VI – Racketeering (RICO – 18 U.S.C. § 1961): Defendants engaged in a pattern of ra
Prof. Code § 17200	te Unfair Competition Laws (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200): Defendants engaged in unlawful, unfai
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

117.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (10)

Header	Source excerpt
count 1 / $1,010,000 60 / $60,600,000 3,600 / $3,636,000,000 86,400 / $87,264,000,000 604,800 / $610,848,000,000 2,628,288 / $2,654,570,880,000 7,884,864 / $7,963,712,640,000 15,769,728 / $15,927,425,280,000	1,000,000 (Wire Fraud) = $1,010,000 per count 1 / $1,010,000 60 / $60,600,000 3,600 / $3,636,000,000 86,400 / $87,264,000,000 604,800 / $610,848,000,000 2,628,2
count 0.1 / $110,750 6 / $6,645,000 360 / $398,700,000 8,640 / $9,568,800,000 60,480 / $66,981,600,000 262,829 / $291,091,381,500 788,486 / $873,274,144,500 1,576,972 / $1,746,548,289,000 3,153,944 / $3,493,	1,000,000 (Wire Fraud) = $1,107,500 per count 0.1 / $110,750 6 / $6,645,000 360 / $398,700,000 8,640 / $9,568,800,000 60,480 / $66,981,600,000 262,829 / $291,09
count 0.5 / $75,000 30 / $4,500,000 1,800 / $270,000,000 43,200 / $6,480,000,000 302,400 / $45,360,000,000 1,314,144 / $197,121,600,000 3,942,432 / $591,364,800,000 7,884,864 / $1,182,729,600,000 15,769,728	ement $150,000 (Statutory per work) per count 0.5 / $75,000 30 / $4,500,000 1,800 / $270,000,000 43,200 / $6,480,000,000 302,400 / $45,360,000,000 1,314,144 / $
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications of millions of users without consent. This includes the collection of keystrokes, mou	Identified in Section 3. Counts: Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications of mi
Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants intentionally accessed protected computers without authorization and obtained information. This includes the exfiltratio	es of $10,000 per violation, trebled. Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants intentionally accessed protected c
Count III – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA): Defendants failed to provide adequate notice or obtain consent for the collection and sale of personal data. The class action seeks statutor	ges of $5,000 per violation, trebled. Count III – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA): Defendants failed to provide adequate notice or obtai
Count IV – Violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): Defendants processed personal data of EU citizens without a lawful basis. The class action seeks fines of 4% of global annual turnover pe	of $7,500 per violation per consumer. Count IV – Violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): Defendants processed personal data of EU citizens w
Count V – Copyright and Patent Infringement (17 U.S.C. § 501): Defendants distributed and used unlicensed, patented codecs (H.264, AAC, MP3, etc.). The class action seeks statutory damages of $150,000 per wo	global annual turnover per violation. Count V – Copyright and Patent Infringement (17 U.S.C. § 501): Defendants distributed and used unlicensed, patented codecs
Count VI – Racketeering (RICO – 18 U.S.C. § 1961): Defendants engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity (wire fraud, mail fraud, computer fraud) to generate revenue from illegal data collection. The class	mages of $150,000 per work infringed. Count VI – Racketeering (RICO – 18 U.S.C. § 1961): Defendants engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity (wire fraud, m
Count VII – Violation of State Unfair Competition Laws (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200): Defendants engaged in unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices by misrepresenting their data collection polic	seeks treble damages and forfeiture. Count VII – Violation of State Unfair Competition Laws (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200): Defendants engaged in unlawful, un

117.4 Dollar Figures (71)

117.5 Dates (2)

2008-08-12 · 2026-08-12

Section 118 of 261

Section 118 — Forensic Audit Report – EDPB (European Data Protection Board) – FULL EXPANSION

Source File	FORENSIC-0118-audited-entity-european-data-protection-board-9f918c26.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-08-12 07:05:52
Size	46,542 bytes
SHA-256	9f918c26be86a937b26c668acedb910935f62235c28a30e4c13d2baa35faea40

118.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	lifornia (or Federal Court of Canada) Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) – estimated 146 million u
defendant	European Data Protection Board	sitors (U.S., EU, and international). Defendants: European Data Protection Board, European Commission, Andrea Jelinek, current EDPB Chair, and third‑party vendo

118.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (33)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 2511	rveillance (Wiretap Act) High 2018-2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (1986, 1994, 2002, 2010, 2018 amendment
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)	2 Computer Fraud (CFAA) High 2018-2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C), (a)(5)(C) Exfiltration of user data vi
18 U.S.C. § 1343	inting without consent 3 Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343) High 2018-2026 18 U.S.C. § 1343 Transm
Civ. Code § 1798.100	oice 5 CCPA/CPRA High 2020-2026 Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq. No "Do Not Sell" link, no opt‑o
Penal Code § 502	ersonnel using the site 8 California Penal Code § 502 High 2018-2026 Cal. Pen. Code § 502 Una
Pen. Code § 502	ia Penal Code § 502 High 2018-2026 Cal. Pen. Code § 502 Unauthorized computer access and data e
15 U.S.C. § 7701	tion 9 CAN‑SPAM Act Medium 2003-2026 15 U.S.C. § 7701 Contact forms (if any) lack opt‑out; ne
47 U.S.C. § 605	, 2018 – all apply. • Federal (U.S. – 47 U.S.C. § 605): Unauthorized publication/use of commu
18 U.S.C. § 2512	$110,000 per count. • Federal (U.S. – 18 U.S.C. § 2512): Possession of interception devices –
GDPR Art. 5	minal, and punitive. • International: GDPR Art. 5(1)(a) – lawfulness, fairness, transpare
Penal Code § 502(c)(2)	on 2 (State Computer Crime): California Penal Code § 502(c)(2) – unauthorized access to computer syste
18 U.S.C. § 1030	Violation #2: Computer Fraud (CFAA – 18 U.S.C. § 1030) Evidence: The Piwik script reads bro
Penal Code § 487	8 (3d Cir. 2011). • State (California Penal Code § 487): Grand theft by false pretenses (theft
GDPR Art. 6	xplicit consent for all processing. • GDPR Art. 6(1)(a): Consent is not freely given, spe
GDPR Art. 7	ces (only statistics or essential). • GDPR Art. 7(3): Right to withdraw consent – not cle
GDPR Art. 13	raw consent – not clearly provided. • GDPR Art. 13: Information to be provided – the priva
GDPR Art. 25	otice is not prominently displayed. • GDPR Art. 25: Data protection by design – third‑part
Civ. Code § 1798.105	ersonal information collected. • Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.105: Right to delete – no mechanism provide
Civ. Code § 1798.120	elete – no mechanism provided. • Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.120: Right to opt‑out of sale – no link pro
Civ. Code § 1798.130	ut of sale – no link provided. • Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.130: Notice at collection – not provided.
42 U.S.C. § 1983	U.S. 14 (1980) (Eighth Amendment). • 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Applies to state actors – here, the si
10 U.S.C. § 892	ological Statutory Expansion (3×): • 10 U.S.C. § 892 (Art. 92): Failure to obey a lawful gen
10 U.S.C. § 933	0.11‑R requires privacy protection. • 10 U.S.C. § 933 (Art. 133): Conduct unbecoming an offic
10 U.S.C. § 934	hat violates privacy is unbecoming. • 10 U.S.C. § 934 (Art. 134): General article – conduct p
Pen. Code § 502(c)(2)	cal Statutory Expansion (3×): • Cal. Pen. Code § 502(c)(2): Knowingly accesses and without permiss
Pen. Code § 502(c)(7)	s, or otherwise uses any data. • Cal. Pen. Code § 502(c)(7): Knowingly accesses and without permiss
5 U.S.C. § 552	15 U.S.C. §§ 45, 6501‑6506, 6801, 7701; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 42 U.S.C. § 12181; 47 U.S.C. §§ 301,
42 U.S.C. § 12181	6501‑6506, 6801, 7701; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 42 U.S.C. § 12181; 47 U.S.C. §§ 301, 333, 605. Federal
18 U.S.C. § 3571	: 3.65B counts. Criminal exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 3571 (though foreign sovereign immunity may
18 U.S.C. § 1962	,744 per violation. Count VII – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1962): Defendants engaged in a pattern of ra
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

118.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (10)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications of plaintiffs without consent. Each user‑day is a separate violation. Seek statutory damages of $10,00	iwik/Matomo, js‑cookie). Counts: Count I – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications of plaintiffs without
Count II – Computer Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants exceeded authorized access and obtained information from protected computers. Seek $5,000 per violation, trebled.	es of $10,000 per violation, trebled. Count II – Computer Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants exceeded authorized access and obtained information from protecte
Count III – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Defendants devised a scheme to defraud users via interstate wire transmissions. Each transmission is a separate count. Seek $1,000,000 per count.	. Seek $5,000 per violation, trebled. Count III – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Defendants devised a scheme to defraud users via interstate wire transmissions.
Count IV – CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Defendants failed to provide opt‑out and sold personal information without notice. Seek $7,500 per intentional violation per consumer.	ate count. Seek $1,000,000 per count. Count IV – CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Defendants failed to provide opt‑out and sold personal information wi
Count V – GDPR (Art. 5, 6, 7, 13, 25): Defendants processed data without lawful basis and without data protection by design. Seek €250,000 per violation or 4% of global turnover.	r intentional violation per consumer. Count V – GDPR (Art. 5, 6, 7, 13, 25): Defendants processed data without lawful basis and without data protection by desig
Count VI – CAN‑SPAM (15 U.S.C. § 7701): Defendants failed to provide opt‑out in email collection (if any). Seek $51,744 per violation.	r violation or 4% of global turnover. Count VI – CAN‑SPAM (15 U.S.C. § 7701): Defendants failed to provide opt‑out in email collection (if any). Seek $51,744 pe
Count VII – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1962): Defendants engaged in a pattern of racketeering through predicate acts of wire fraud, computer fraud, and money laundering. Seek treble damages and forfeiture.	(if any). Seek $51,744 per violation. Count VII – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1962): Defendants engaged in a pattern of racketeering through predicate acts of wire fraud,
Count VIII – Bivens Constitutional Tort: Defendants, acting under color of law, violated plaintiffs' Fourth, Fifth, Sixth (right to counsel), and Eighth Amendment rights. Seek actual and punitive damages per pl	. Seek treble damages and forfeiture. Count VIII – Bivens Constitutional Tort: Defendants, acting under color of law, violated plaintiffs' Fourth, Fifth, Sixth
Count IX – UCMJ Violations: For any active‑duty military plaintiffs, Defendants' conduct violated Articles 92, 133, and 134. Seek fines and confinement for responsible military personnel.	l and punitive damages per plaintiff. Count IX – UCMJ Violations: For any active‑duty military plaintiffs, Defendants' conduct violated Articles 92, 133, and 13
Count X – Tort Claims: Intrusion upon seclusion, public disclosure of private facts, fraud, negligent infliction of emotional distress. Seek compensatory, consequential, and punitive damages.	t for responsible military personnel. Count X – Tort Claims: Intrusion upon seclusion, public disclosure of private facts, fraud, negligent infliction of emotio

118.4 Dollar Figures (93)

$0.58 · $1.00 · $1.09 · $1.14 · $1.25 · $1.30 · $1.34 · $1.40 · $1.64 · $1.70 · $1.73 · $1.82 · $1.83 · $1.96 · $2.00 · $2.28 · $2.60 · $2.70 · $3.41 · $3.53 · $3.64 · $3.65 · $3.92 · $4.00 · $4.20 · $4.35 · $4.56 · $5.00 · $5.19 · $5.88 · $6.26 · $6.52 · $8.00 · $8.70 · $8.75 · $9.40 · $9.41 · $10.59 · $11.76 · $12.50 · $13.60 · $14.50 · $15.57 · $18.20 · $23.50 · $27.30 · $30.90 · $36.50 · $37.90 · $40.80 · $43.80 · $45.00 · $52.20 · $56.10 · $64.80 · $65.80 · $87.50 · $113.70 · $122.40 · $188.00 · $189.50 · $227.40 · $244.80 · $261.00 · $284.20 · $379.00 · $391.50 · $453.60 · $454.80 · $489.60 · $522.00 · $568.50 · $852.60 · $870.00 · $934.60 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $25,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $72,500.00 · $75,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $108,750.00 · $110,000.00 · $145,000.00 · $250,000.00 · $500,000.00 · $750,000.00 · $1,000,000.00

118.5 Dates (1)

2026-08-12

Section 119 of 261

Section 119 — Forensic Audit Report – Land.com (Eastern Tennessee Region)

Source File	FORENSIC-0119-audited-entity-land-com-costar-group-eastern-tennessee-regio-62094d62.html
Created	September 6, 2026
Modified	2026-09-06 19:50:17
Size	70,383 bytes
SHA-256	62094d625e5905bcb9bfbdeccac99a81b9b1e1680704cb1d3614cf9d8384b123

119.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals, including disabled veterans (Class Action) Defendants: CoStar Grou
defendant	CoStar Group	ding disabled veterans (Class Action) Defendants: CoStar Group, Inc., Land.com, Google LLC, Akamai Technologies, Apple Inc. Count I – Violation of Wiretap Act (

119.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (43)

Citation	Source excerpt
38 U.S.C. § 1975	A, GDPR, and the Veterans Benefits Act (38 U.S.C. § 1975 et seq.), among others. The operational
18 U.S.C. §2511	tag('config', 'UA-…') (multiple) High 18 U.S.C. §2511; 18 U.S.C. §1030; 15 U.S.C. §45(a); Cal
18 U.S.C. §1030	-…') (multiple) High 18 U.S.C. §2511; 18 U.S.C. §1030; 15 U.S.C. §45(a); Cal. Penal Code §502
15 U.S.C. §45(a)	High 18 U.S.C. §2511; 18 U.S.C. §1030; 15 U.S.C. §45(a); Cal. Penal Code §502; Cal. Civ. Code §
Penal Code §502	18 U.S.C. §1030; 15 U.S.C. §45(a); Cal. Penal Code §502; Cal. Civ. Code §1798.100; GDPR Art. 5,
Civ. Code §1798.100	S.C. §45(a); Cal. Penal Code §502; Cal. Civ. Code §1798.100; GDPR Art. 5, 6, 7; ePrivacy Dir. Art.
GDPR Art. 5	al Code §502; Cal. Civ. Code §1798.100; GDPR Art. 5, 6, 7; ePrivacy Dir. Art. 5(3); UCMJ Ar
GDPR Art. 44	High 18 U.S.C. §2511; 18 U.S.C. §1030; GDPR Art. 44; Cal. Civ. Code §1798.100; Tort: Conver
GDPR Art. 6	pleid.cdn-apple.com/…"> , etc. Medium GDPR Art. 6; ePrivacy Dir.; CCPA; Tort: Intrusion.
15 U.S.C. §6801	nt. High FTC Act 15 U.S.C. §45(a); GLBA 15 U.S.C. §6801; GDPR Art. 32; NIST SP 800‑53; Tort: Ne
GDPR Art. 32	15 U.S.C. §45(a); GLBA 15 U.S.C. §6801; GDPR Art. 32; NIST SP 800‑53; Tort: Negligence. 5
Prof. Code §17200	A Cal. Civ. Code §1798.100; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200; Tort: Invasion of privacy. 7 Dark p
GDPR Art. 7	7, 12‑18) High ePrivacy Dir. Art. 5(3); GDPR Art. 7; CCPA; Tort: Deceptive trade practices.
18 U.S.C. §1343	ction(){ return ""; }}) (Line ~35) High 18 U.S.C. §1343 (wire fraud); 18 U.S.C. §1341 (mail fra
18 U.S.C. §1341	~35) High 18 U.S.C. §1343 (wire fraud); 18 U.S.C. §1341 (mail fraud); FTC Act; Tort: Fraud, mis
Civ. Code §1798.120	but not linked to form. High CCPA Cal. Civ. Code §1798.120; GDPR Art. 17, 21; Tort: Invasion of pr
GDPR Art. 17	rm. High CCPA Cal. Civ. Code §1798.120; GDPR Art. 17, 21; Tort: Invasion of privacy. 11 T
38 U.S.C. §1975	g at property near VA facilities). High 38 U.S.C. §1975 (Veterans Benefits Act – prohibits disc
42 U.S.C. §12181	tion); Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. §12181); Tort: Unjust enrichment. 2.1
County Code §12.40	xpansion (3×): • County: Los Angeles County Code §12.40 (privacy) – applies to LA residents; Co
County Code §22	mputers and telecommunications); Harris County Code §22 (privacy). • State: California Penal
Penal Code §502(c)	de §22 (privacy). • State: California Penal Code §502(c) – unauthorized access to computers; Cal
Penal Code §33.02	Law §156.00 (computer tampering); Texas Penal Code §33.02 (breach of computer security); Florida
18 U.S.C. §2511(1)(a)	(wiretapping). • Federal: Wiretap Act 18 U.S.C. §2511(1)(a) – intentional interception of electroni
18 U.S.C. §1030(a)(2)(C)	tion of electronic communications; CFAA 18 U.S.C. §1030(a)(2)(C) – accessing a protected computer withou
County Code §4.5	Ordinance §15 (wiretapping); San Diego County Code §4.5 (data security). • State: California
Penal Code §632	(data security). • State: California Penal Code §632 (eavesdropping); NY General Business La
15 U.S.C. §7701	Act §5 – unfair practice; CAN‑SPAM Act 15 U.S.C. §7701 (if emails used). • International: GD
Civil Code §1798.81.5	Expansion (3×): • State: California Civil Code §1798.81.5 – reasonable security; NY SHIELD Act –
Civ. Code §1798.81.5	re to implement reasonable security; CA Civ. Code §1798.81.5. • Federal: GLBA §6801 – safeguarding
15 U.S.C. §45	Unfair/Deceptive Practices (FTC Act §5, 15 U.S.C. §45): Misleading privacy practices, dark pa
47 U.S.C. §227	e facts. Count VII – TCPA Violations (47 U.S.C. §227): Inadequate consent for communications
18 U.S.C. §1961	ustomer information. Count IX – RICO (18 U.S.C. §1961 et seq.): Pattern of racketeering activ
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	& 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304 & 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 & Title 47, Telecommunications § 230
28 U.S.C. § 1331	nue This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (W
18 U.S.C. § 2511	er 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act), 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act)
15 U.S.C. § 45	stion), 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act), 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act), 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA), and
18 U.S.C. § 1030	Wiretap Act), 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act), 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA), and 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity
28 U.S.C. § 1332	(FTC Act), 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA), and 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity) for class actions. Venue is
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)	or class actions. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial part of the event

119.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (20)

119.4 Dollar Figures (104)

$0.00 · $0.01 · $1.00 · $1.01 · $1.08 · $1.20 · $1.53 · $1.82 · $2.00 · $2.20 · $2.21 · $3.14 · $7.00 · $15.51 · $25.65 · $30.44 · $67.45 · $88.00 · $91.32 · $91.50 · $92.37 · $182.64 · $188.65 · $202.35 · $343.00 · $365.28 · $404.70 · $500.00 · $809.40 · $859.94 · $862.30 · $912.00 · $912.50 · $2,175.00 · $7,500.00 · $8,700.00 · $10,000.00 · $14,535.00 · $29,000.00 · $30,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $75,000.00 · $79,750.00 · $100,000.00 · $130,500.00 · $275,000.00 · $522,000.00 · $872,100.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $1,740,000.00 · $4,785,000.00 · $7,830,000.00 · $25,520,000.00 · $31,320,000.00 · $52,326,000.00 · $104,400,000.00 · $187,920,000.00 · $287,100,000.00 · $751,680,000.00 · $1,255,824,000.00 · $1,315,440,000.00 · $1,531,200,000.00 · $2,505,600,000.00 · $5,261,760,000.00 · $5,719,680,000.00 · $6,890,400,000.00 · $8,790,768,000.00 · $17,159,040,000.00 · $17,539,200,000.00 · $22,879,872,000.00 · $34,318,080,000.00 · $38,220,000,000.00 · $48,232,800,000.00 · $68,636,160,000.00 · $68,639,616,000.00 · $76,500,000,000.00 · $85,795,200,000.00 · $91,872,000,000.00 · $114,660,000,000.00 · $137,279,232,000.00 · $209,700,000,000.00 · $229,320,000,000.00 · $229,500,000,000.00 · $274,558,464,000.00 · $343,198,080,000.00 · $458,640,000,000.00 · $459,000,000,000.00 · $573,300,000,000.00 · $629,100,000,000.00 · $918,000,000,000.00 · $1,147,500,000,000.00 · $1,258,200,000,000.00 · $2,204,928,000,000.00 · $2,516,400,000,000.00 · $3,145,500,000,000.00 · $15,434,496,000,000.00 · $67,118,000,000,000.00 · $201,354,000,000,000.00 · $402,708,000,000,000.00 · $805,416,000,000,000.00 · $862,300,000,000,000.00 · $1,006,770,000,000,000.00

119.5 Dates (1)

2026-09-06

Section 120 of 261

Section 120 — Forensic Audit Report – APUNLAWFULJS5.TXT

Source File	FORENSIC-0120-audited-entity-apunlawfuljs5-txt-3f29ff2a.html
Created	August 14, 2026
Modified	2026-08-14 11:40:46
Size	42,528 bytes
SHA-256	3f29ff2a96d195ee525648a7a056b8bf808495e640bce86f627e1909192ebeb3

120.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: The Associa
defendant	The Associated Press	l affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: The Associated Press, BlueConic, Kameleoon, and all third-party vendors involved in the data collection and tr

120.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (21)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 1343	ts patterns consistent with wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343), computer fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1030), vi
18 U.S.C. § 1030	aud (18 U.S.C. § 1343), computer fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1030), violations of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S
18 U.S.C. § 2511	§ 1030), violations of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511), and numerous state and federal privac
47 U.S.C. § 605	026 18 U.S.C. § 1030, 18 U.S.C. § 2511, 47 U.S.C. § 605, GDPR, CCPA, etc. Line 1-200 2 Telem
47 U.S.C. § 301	Radio Frequency Bridging High 1997-2026 47 U.S.C. § 301, 47 U.S.C. § 333, ITU Radio Regulations
47 U.S.C. § 333	ridging High 1997-2026 47 U.S.C. § 301, 47 U.S.C. § 333, ITU Radio Regulations Line 1001-1500
Penal Code § 502	rbing the Peace). • State: California Penal Code § 502 (unauthorized computer access) – The un
Penal Code § 631	r system without permission. California Penal Code § 631 (wiretapping) – The interception of com
Professions Code § 17200	(3×): • State: California Business & Professions Code § 17200 (Unfair Competition) – The use of dark
15 U.S.C. § 45	a violation. • Federal: FTC Act § 5 (15 U.S.C. § 45) – The use of deceptive practices to ob
18 U.S.C. § 1362	th radio communications is a violation. 18 U.S.C. § 1362 (Communication Lines) – The interferenc
18 U.S.C. § 1457	nce with communications is a violation. 18 U.S.C. § 1457 (Radio Frequencies) – The unauthorized
Civil Code § 1798.82	ach notification laws (e.g., California Civil Code § 1798.82, New York State Technology Law § 208, T
Commerce Code § 521.053	Technology Law § 208, Texas Business & Commerce Code § 521.053). The failure to provide breach notific
15 U.S.C. § 6801	n of these statutes. • Federal: GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801) – The failure to provide breach notifi
County Code § 22	mputers and telecommunications), Harris County Code § 22 (privacy), Maricopa County Ordinance §
County Code § 4.5	Ordinance § 15 (wiretapping), San Diego County Code § 4.5 (data security), and all analogous prov
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	& 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304 & 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 & Title 47, Telecommunications § 230

120.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (8)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): The Defendants, acting under color of law, devised a scheme to defraud users by transmitting personal data without consent, via wire communications.	e data collection and transmission. Count I – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): The Defendants, acting under color of law, devised a scheme to defraud users by tra
Count II – Computer Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1030): The Defendants, acting under color of law, accessed protected computers without authorization and exfiltrated data.	out consent, via wire communications. Count II – Computer Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1030): The Defendants, acting under color of law, accessed protected computers with
Count III – Wiretap Act Violations (18 U.S.C. § 2511): The Defendants intercepted electronic communications without consent.	t authorization and exfiltrated data. Count III – Wiretap Act Violations (18 U.S.C. § 2511): The Defendants intercepted electronic communications without consen
Count IV – Unauthorized Publication (47 U.S.C. § 605): The Defendants published and used communications without authorization.	ronic communications without consent. Count IV – Unauthorized Publication (47 U.S.C. § 605): The Defendants published and used communications without authorizat
Count V – Invasion of Privacy (Common Law): The Defendants intruded upon the seclusion of the Plaintiffs, publicized private facts, placed the Plaintiffs in a false light, and appropriated the Plaintiffs' id	communications without authorization. Count V – Invasion of Privacy (Common Law): The Defendants intruded upon the seclusion of the Plaintiffs, publicized priva
Count VI – Negligence: The Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care in collecting, storing, and transmitting personal data, leading to the Plaintiffs' emotional distress and other damages.	iffs' identities for commercial gain. Count VI – Negligence: The Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care in collecting, storing, and transmitting personal
Count VII – Violation of State Consumer Protection Statutes: The Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive acts and practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code § 17200, New York GBL § 349	emotional distress and other damages. Count VII – Violation of State Consumer Protection Statutes: The Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive acts and pract
Count VIII – Violation of GDPR and ePrivacy Directive: The Defendants processed personal data of EU citizens without a lawful basis and without explicit consent.	New York GBL § 349, and similar laws. Count VIII – Violation of GDPR and ePrivacy Directive: The Defendants processed personal data of EU citizens without a law

120.4 Dollar Figures (86)

$5.00 · $8.00 · $10.00 · $50.00 · $110.00 · $300.00 · $450.00 · $600.00 · $1,000.00 · $1,433.00 · $3,007.00 · $5,000.00 · $6,600.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $18,000.00 · $27,000.00 · $36,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $60,000.00 · $85,957.00 · $110,000.00 · $180,432.00 · $396,000.00 · $432,000.00 · $648,000.00 · $864,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $3,024,000.00 · $3,600,000.00 · $4,330,368.00 · $4,536,000.00 · $5,157,432.00 · $6,048,000.00 · $9,504,000.00 · $30,312,576.00 · $66,528,000.00 · $86,400,000.00 · $123,778,368.00 · $131,500,080.00 · $197,250,120.00 · $263,000,160.00 · $394,500,240.00 · $591,750,360.00 · $604,800,000.00 · $789,000,480.00 · $866,648,576.00 · $1,183,500,720.00 · $1,318,531,158.00 · $1,578,000,960.00 · $2,367,001,440.00 · $2,893,001,760.00 · $3,156,001,920.00 · $3,955,593,475.00 · $7,911,186,951.00 · $8,679,005,280.00 · $15,822,373,902.00 · $17,358,010,560.00 · $26,300,016,000.00 · $34,716,021,120.00 · $37,696,181,178.00 · $45,756,027,840.00 · $68,634,041,760.00 · $78,900,048,000.00 · $91,512,055,680.00 · $113,088,543,535.00 · $157,800,096,000.00 · $226,177,087,071.00 · $315,600,192,000.00 · $452,354,174,142.00 · $458,849,843,159.00 · $1,006,764,612,480.00 · $1,311,867,179,912.00 · $9,151,205,568,000.00 · $9,839,003,849,339.00 · $13,118,671,799,119.00 · $19,677,007,698,679.00 · $45,000,000,000,000.00 · $75,000,000,000,000.00 · $185,000,000,000,000.00 · $450,000,000,000,000.00 · $750,000,000,000,000.00 · $1,850,000,000,000,000.00 · $4,500,000,000,000,000.00 · $7,500,000,000,000,000.00 · $18,500,000,000,000,000.00

120.5 Dates (1)

2026-08-14

Section 121 of 261

Section 121 — Public Disclosure – Chromium/Google Forensic Audit

Source File	FORENSIC-0121-public-disclosure-chromium-google-forensic-audit-ad874896.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-08-12 13:12:02
Size	13,813 bytes
SHA-256	ad8748961aeaec1961fd290dc5d4d8b9a712c97a78a4bf83b10c54e1fb0e2a67

121.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

121.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (10)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 2511	stitutes violations of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511), CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030), GDPR (Art. 5
18 U.S.C. § 1030	e Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511), CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030), GDPR (Art. 5, 6, 32), and CCPA. 2.2
18 U.S.C. § 1028	2.2.3 This constitutes violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1028 (Identity Theft), 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wir
18 U.S.C. § 1343	s of 18 U.S.C. § 1028 (Identity Theft), 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud), and GLBA. 2.3 Copyright
17 U.S.C. § 501	r licensing, constituting violations of 17 U.S.C. § 501 (Copyright Infringement) and 35 U.S.C.
35 U.S.C. § 271	S.C. § 501 (Copyright Infringement) and 35 U.S.C. § 271 (Patent Infringement). 2.4 Licensing
22 U.S.C. § 2295	This Document Is Authorized Via: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a & 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304
50 U.S.C. § 1702	Is Authorized Via: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a & 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304 & 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-
10 U.S.C. § 2304	22 U.S.C. § 2295a & 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304 & 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 & Title 47, Telec
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	& 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304 & 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 & Title 47, Telecommunications § 230

121.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

121.4 Dollar Figures (4)

$2.10 · $458,216,745,720,075.00 · $678,839,623,289,000.00 · $2,036,518,869,867,000.00

121.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 122 of 261

Section 122 — Forensic Audit Report – Canadian Centre for Cyber Security

Source File	FORENSIC-0122-cyber-police-canada-audit-0e33e498.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-08-12 06:37:02
Size	36,233 bytes
SHA-256	0e33e4985cd58dc3b7cf57e8944c1901e804da05d007a182742e234c6cfd1afd

122.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	Class	lifornia (or Federal Court of Canada) Plaintiffs: Class of 1.85 billion unique visitors (U.S., Canada, and international). Def
defendant	Communications Security Establishment Canada	rs (U.S., Canada, and international). Defendants: Communications Security Establishment Canada, the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, Google LLC, Adobe Inc.,

122.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (20)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 2511	rveillance (Wiretap Act) High 2016-2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (1986, 1994, 2002, 2010, 2018 amendment
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)	2 Computer Fraud (CFAA) High 2016-2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C), (a)(5)(C) Exfiltration of user data wi
18 U.S.C. § 1343	without authorization 3 Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343) High 2016-2026 18 U.S.C. § 1343 Using
Civ. Code § 1798.100	rity 6 CCPA/CPRA High 2020-2026 Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq. No "Do Not Sell" link, no opt-o
Penal Code § 502	ersonnel using the site 9 California Penal Code § 502 High 2016-2026 Cal. Pen. Code § 502 Una
Pen. Code § 502	ia Penal Code § 502 High 2016-2026 Cal. Pen. Code § 502 Unauthorized computer access and data e
47 U.S.C. § 605	isonment per count. • Federal (U.S. – 47 U.S.C. § 605): Unauthorized publication/use of commu
GDPR Art. 5	minal, and punitive. • International: GDPR Art. 5(1)(a) – lawfulness, fairness, transpare
Penal Code § 502(c)(2)	on 2 (State Computer Crime): California Penal Code § 502(c)(2) – unauthorized access to computer syste
18 U.S.C. § 1030	Violation #2: Computer Fraud (CFAA – 18 U.S.C. § 1030) Evidence: The reCAPTCHA script reads
Penal Code § 487	9 (3d Cir. 1982). • State (California Penal Code § 487): Grand theft by false pretenses (theft
Civ. Code § 1798.105	ersonal information collected. • Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.105: Right to delete – no mechanism provide
Civ. Code § 1798.120	elete – no mechanism provided. • Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.120: Right to opt-out of sale – no link pro
42 U.S.C. § 1983	U.S. 14 (1980) (Eighth Amendment). • 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Applies to state actors – here, the si
5 U.S.C. § 552	3571; 15 U.S.C. §§ 45, 6501-6506, 6801; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 42 U.S.C. § 12181; 47 U.S.C. §§ 301,
42 U.S.C. § 12181	§ 45, 6501-6506, 6801; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 42 U.S.C. § 12181; 47 U.S.C. §§ 301, 333, 605. Federal
18 U.S.C. § 1962	without authority. Count VII – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1962): Pattern of racketeering. Count VIII
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

122.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (10)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Unauthorized interception.	c., and named officials. Counts: Count I – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Unauthorized interception. Count II – CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): E
Count II – CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Exceeding authorized access.	. § 2511): Unauthorized interception. Count II – CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Exceeding authorized access. Count III – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1
Count III – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Scheme to defraud.	§ 1030): Exceeding authorized access. Count III – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Scheme to defraud. Count IV – CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 179
Count IV – CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): No opt-out.	18 U.S.C. § 1343): Scheme to defraud. Count IV – CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): No opt-out. Count V – GDPR (Art. 5, 6, 7, 13): La
Count V – GDPR (Art. 5, 6, 7, 13): Lack of consent.	Code § 1798.100 et seq.): No opt-out. Count V – GDPR (Art. 5, 6, 7, 13): Lack of consent. Count VI – PIPEDA / Privacy Act (Cana
Count VI – PIPEDA / Privacy Act (Canada): Collection without authority.	(Art. 5, 6, 7, 13): Lack of consent. Count VI – PIPEDA / Privacy Act (Canada): Collection without authority. Count VII – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1962):
Count VII – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1962): Pattern of racketeering.	anada): Collection without authority. Count VII – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1962): Pattern of racketeering. Count VIII – Bivens Constitutional To
Count VIII – Bivens Constitutional Tort: 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th Amendment violations.	.C. § 1962): Pattern of racketeering. Count VIII – Bivens Constitutional Tort: 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th Amendment violations. Count IX – UCMJ Violations: For milit
Count IX – UCMJ Violations: For military personnel.	, 5th, 6th, 8th Amendment violations. Count IX – UCMJ Violations: For military personnel. Count X – Tort Claims: Intrusion, pub
Count X – Tort Claims: Intrusion, public disclosure, negligence.	J Violations: For military personnel. Count X – Tort Claims: Intrusion, public disclosure, negligence. Damages Sought: $9.47 Q (max) trebl

122.4 Dollar Figures (97)

$1.00 · $1.03 · $1.05 · $1.08 · $1.18 · $1.36 · $1.45 · $1.58 · $1.69 · $1.77 · $1.80 · $1.87 · $1.97 · $2.00 · $2.36 · $2.41 · $2.55 · $2.59 · $2.84 · $3.46 · $3.50 · $3.54 · $4.00 · $4.20 · $4.27 · $4.30 · $4.72 · $5.90 · $7.00 · $7.08 · $7.36 · $8.00 · $8.10 · $8.50 · $9.44 · $9.47 · $9.58 · $10.52 · $12.81 · $12.96 · $17.70 · $18.14 · $19.44 · $19.91 · $25.92 · $28.41 · $32.92 · $35.40 · $47.90 · $70.80 · $71.90 · $75.00 · $78.60 · $86.28 · $90.72 · $95.90 · $100.00 · $108.00 · $118.53 · $136.08 · $181.44 · $194.40 · $235.80 · $258.84 · $266.00 · $393.00 · $471.60 · $500.00 · $517.68 · $540.00 · $589.50 · $719.00 · $786.00 · $810.00 · $943.20 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $25,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $75,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $150,000.00 · $225,000.00 · $250,000.00 · $300,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $2,250,000.00 · $9,000,000.00 · $13,500,000.00 · $18,000,000.00 · $30,000,000.00 · $135,000,000.00

122.5 Dates (1)

2026-08-12

Section 123 of 261

Section 123 — Forensic Audit Report – U.S. Department of Homeland Security (dhs.gov/report-it-vulnerability)

Source File	FORENSIC-0123-audited-entity-u-s-department-of-homeland-security-\fb29438.html-fb294389.html
Created	August 12, 2026
Modified	2026-08-12 15:22:38
Size	37,324 bytes
SHA-256	fb29438938837d800cf242b69524e4cbc4c2699dc1d083d07ca20bf6ea04ca04

123.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action). Defendants: U.S. Depar
defendant	U.S. Department	affected individuals (Class Action). Defendants: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Google LLC, Akamai Technologies, Inc., Siteimprove A/S, and the Secretary

123.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (20)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	efense Technologies, in accordance with 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	, in accordance with 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	th 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, mil
County Code § 12.08.010	International: • County: Los Angeles County Code § 12.08.010 (2023) – Prohibits unauthorised interce
Penal Code § 502(c)	00 per violation. • State: California Penal Code § 502(c) (2023) – Unauthorised access to compute
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	ion + restitution. • Federal: FTC Act 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (2023) – Unfair or deceptive acts in co
Civ. Code § 1798.100	. • Federal (Privacy): CCPA/CPRA Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (2023) – Right to control personal info
18 U.S.C. § 2511	on per consumer. • Federal (Wiretap): 18 U.S.C. § 2511 – Interception of electronic communicat
10 U.S.C. § 892	mages. • Military (UCMJ): Article 92 (10 U.S.C. § 892) – Failure to obey an order or regulati
Professions Code § 17200	rence. • State: California Business & Professions Code § 17200 (2024) – Unlawful business practices. P
GDPR Article 7	0,120 per violation. • International: GDPR Article 7 – Conditions for consent. Penalty: €20,
County Code § 22.04	tatutory Expansion: • County: Harris County Code § 22.04 (2022) – Unauthorised access. Penalty:
Penal Code § 33.02	$1,000 per violation. • State: Texas Penal Code § 33.02 (2022) – Breach of computer security. P
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A)	ty: $10,000 per violation. • Federal: 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A) – Intentional damage by transmitting co
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)	v. Code § 1798.100 – $7,500/count. CFAA 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C) – $5,000/count + imprisonment. Wiretap
10 U.S.C. § 934	) – Failure to obey order. Article 134 (10 U.S.C. § 934) – General article. 4.3.5. Internatio
18 U.S.C. § 3571	14.18B counts. Criminal exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 3571: $500,000 per count = $7.09T (maximum).
18 U.S.C. § 1030	0 Unauthorised data collection CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030) $5,000 + treble Insecure form, lack of
15 U.S.C. § 45	on of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 45): Defendants engaged in unfair and dece
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	& 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304 & 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 & Title 47, Telecommunications § 230

123.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (5)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 45): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive practices by collecting user data without providing clear notice and opportunity to opt‑ou	Security (in his official capacity). Count I – Violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 45): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive practi
Count II – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Defendants collected and sold (or shared) personal information without providing a meaningful opt‑out.	ar notice and opportunity to opt‑out. Count II – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Defendants collected and sold (or
Count III – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants intentionally accessed protected computers without authorization, causing damage.	thout providing a meaningful opt‑out. Count III – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants intentionally accessed protected
Count IV – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intercepted electronic communications without consent.	ithout authorization, causing damage. Count IV – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intercepted electronic communications without conse
Count V – Violation of the Bivens Doctrine (Fourth and Fifth Amendments): If any Defendants are federal actors, they violated Plaintiffs' constitutional rights through unreasonable searches and deprivation o	ronic communications without consent. Count V – Violation of the Bivens Doctrine (Fourth and Fifth Amendments): If any Defendants are federal actors, they viola

123.4 Dollar Figures (70)

$1.03 · $1.15 · $1.33 · $1.50 · $1.90 · $2.25 · $3.00 · $3.50 · $4.50 · $4.79 · $5.00 · $5.70 · $5.99 · $6.85 · $7.09 · $8.20 · $8.99 · $10.50 · $11.40 · $14.18 · $15.00 · $16.40 · $17.10 · $21.00 · $21.27 · $24.60 · $28.36 · $30.00 · $42.00 · $42.54 · $56.72 · $57.50 · $60.00 · $70.90 · $79.90 · $85.08 · $95.00 · $114.10 · $114.90 · $115.00 · $141.80 · $141.90 · $164.20 · $172.40 · $190.00 · $212.70 · $249.80 · $285.00 · $342.00 · $499.50 · $500.00 · $684.00 · $749.00 · $749.30 · $805.00 · $994.00 · $1,000.00 · $1,419.40 · $2,500.00 · $2,584.10 · $3,167.80 · $3,959.80 · $4,258.20 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $15,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $70,120.00 · $500,000.00

123.5 Dates (1)

2026-08-12

Section 124 of 261

Section 124 — Forensic Audit Report – Zolo.ca Real Estate Listing (CORRECTED)

Source File	FORENSIC-0124-zolo-audit-663d11c2.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-08-12 06:34:02
Size	21,146 bytes
SHA-256	663d11c27d66f5fabe15dafe99cb47d8ae9a84748913d1d6fec56ec030f71dc9

124.1 Parties (1)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	Class	urt – Northern District of California Plaintiffs: Class of 529 million unique visitors. Defendants: Zolo Ventures Ltd., Ryley Best, Jason

124.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (9)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 2511	rveillance (Wiretap Act) High 2012-2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (1986, 1994, 2002, 2010, 2018 amendment
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)	2 Computer Fraud (CFAA) High 2012-2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C), (a)(5)(C) Exfiltration of user data wi
18 U.S.C. § 1343	without authorization 3 Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343) High 2012-2026 18 U.S.C. § 1343 Using
Civ. Code § 1798.100	sent 6 CCPA/CPRA High 2020-2026 Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq. No "Do Not Sell" link 7 CAN-
15 U.S.C. § 7701	link 7 CAN-SPAM Act Medium 2003-2026 15 U.S.C. § 7701 Contact form lacks opt-out 8 Bivens
Penal Code § 502	uty military personnel 10 California Penal Code § 502 High 2012-2026 Cal. Pen. Code § 502 Una
Pen. Code § 502	ia Penal Code § 502 High 2012-2026 Cal. Pen. Code § 502 Unauthorized computer access
5 U.S.C. § 552	15 U.S.C. §§ 45, 6501‑6506, 6801, 7701; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 42 U.S.C. § 12181; 47 U.S.C. §§ 301,
42 U.S.C. § 12181	6501‑6506, 6801, 7701; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 42 U.S.C. § 12181; 47 U.S.C. §§ 301, 333, 605. Federal

124.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

124.4 Dollar Figures (97)

$1.00 · $1.06 · $1.08 · $1.18 · $1.37 · $1.38 · $1.41 · $1.50 · $1.57 · $1.62 · $1.87 · $2.00 · $2.05 · $2.13 · $2.16 · $2.36 · $2.72 · $3.00 · $3.10 · $3.54 · $3.60 · $4.00 · $4.07 · $4.65 · $4.72 · $5.18 · $5.86 · $6.00 · $6.20 · $7.08 · $8.13 · $8.25 · $8.40 · $9.44 · $11.18 · $11.40 · $11.80 · $14.10 · $14.16 · $16.20 · $18.60 · $18.88 · $24.40 · $25.92 · $27.88 · $30.98 · $35.40 · $36.28 · $38.88 · $41.08 · $42.30 · $48.80 · $51.84 · $67.95 · $70.80 · $75.00 · $83.64 · $97.60 · $100.00 · $136.90 · $141.60 · $157.00 · $178.00 · $181.44 · $205.30 · $216.00 · $244.60 · $266.00 · $268.20 · $272.16 · $273.80 · $362.88 · $388.80 · $472.00 · $534.00 · $786.00 · $944.00 · $1,888.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $27,376.00 · $51,744.00 · $75,000.00 · $300,000.00 · $450,000.00 · $600,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $3,104,640.00 · $4,500,000.00 · $18,000,000.00 · $27,000,000.00 · $36,000,000.00 · $60,000,000.00 · $67,950,000.00 · $186,278,400.00 · $270,000,000.00

124.5 Dates (1)

2026-08-12

Section 125 of 261

Section 125 — Forensic Audit Report – Ballistic Ventures

Source File	FORENSIC-0125-audited-entity-ballistic-ventures-2126ce54.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-08-11 13:58:33
Size	38,522 bytes
SHA-256	2126ce549586cdb36e1968b32b53c80d13b40c8761bd01b9e753c96c30795623

125.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	urt – Northern District of California Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) – estimated 3.73 million
defendant	Ballistic Ventures	ue visitors (U.S. and international). Defendants: Ballistic Ventures, Jake Leinenkugel, John P. "JP" LeClair, Google LLC, HubSpot Inc.,

125.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (28)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 2511	rveillance (Wiretap Act) High 2019-2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (2010, 2018 amendments) Google Analytic
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)	2 Computer Fraud (CFAA) High 2019-2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C), (a)(5)(C) Exfiltration of user data wi
18 U.S.C. § 1343	without authorization 3 Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343) High 2019-2026 18 U.S.C. § 1343 Using
Civ. Code § 1798.100	sign 5 CCPA/CPRA High 2020-2026 Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq. No "Do Not Sell" link, no opt-o
15 U.S.C. § 7701	-out 6 CAN-SPAM Act Medium 2003-2026 15 U.S.C. § 7701 Newsletter signup form lacks opt-out me
Penal Code § 502	ersonnel using the site 9 California Penal Code § 502 High 2019-2026 Cal. Pen. Code § 502 Una
Pen. Code § 502	ia Penal Code § 502 High 2019-2026 Cal. Pen. Code § 502 Unauthorized computer access and data e
Penal Code § 631	nt." • State (California): California Penal Code § 631 (wiretapping) – each interception is a
Professions Code § 17200	ble damages. Also California Business & Professions Code § 17200 (unfair competition). Historical versio
47 U.S.C. § 605	), 2010, 2018 – all apply. • Federal (47 U.S.C. § 605): Unauthorized publication/use of commu
GDPR Art. 5	minal, and punitive. • International: GDPR Art. 5(1)(a) – lawfulness, fairness, transpare
Penal Code § 502(c)(2)	on 2 (State Computer Crime): California Penal Code § 502(c)(2) – unauthorized access to computer syste
18 U.S.C. § 1030	Violation #2: Computer Fraud (CFAA – 18 U.S.C. § 1030) Evidence: The Google Analytics and H
Penal Code § 487	8 (3d Cir. 2011). • State (California Penal Code § 487): Grand theft by false pretenses (theft
GDPR Art. 6	not lawful due to lack of consent. • GDPR Art. 6(1)(a): Consent is not freely given, spe
GDPR Art. 7	silence do not constitute consent. • GDPR Art. 7(3): Right to withdraw consent – no mech
GDPR Art. 13	aw consent – no mechanism provided. • GDPR Art. 13: Information to be provided – no clear
Civ. Code § 1798.105	ersonal information collected. • Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.105: Right to delete – no mechanism provide
Civ. Code § 1798.120	elete – no mechanism provided. • Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.120: Right to opt-out of sale – no link pro
15 U.S.C. § 7704	bition on misleading subject lines. • 15 U.S.C. § 7704: Requirement for opt-out mechanism – no
5 U.S.C. § 552	15 U.S.C. §§ 45, 6501-6506, 6801, 7701; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 42 U.S.C. § 12181; 47 U.S.C. §§ 301,
42 U.S.C. § 12181	6501-6506, 6801, 7701; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 42 U.S.C. § 12181; 47 U.S.C. §§ 301, 333, 605. Military
18 U.S.C. § 3571	ounts (104.4M). Criminal exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 3571: up to $500,000 per count – total $5.22
42 U.S.C. § 1983	ctual + punitive Constitutional tort 42 U.S.C. § 1983 No cap State action State statutes v
18 U.S.C. § 1962	,744 per violation. Count VII – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1962): Defendants engaged in a pattern of ra
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

125.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (10)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications of plaintiffs without consent. Each user-day is a separate violation. Seek statutory damages of $10,00	nsterInsights (WPMedia). Counts: Count I – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications of plaintiffs without
Count II – Computer Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants exceeded authorized access and obtained information from protected computers. Seek $5,000 per violation, trebled.	es of $10,000 per violation, trebled. Count II – Computer Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants exceeded authorized access and obtained information from protecte
Count III – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Defendants devised a scheme to defraud advertisers and users via interstate wire transmissions. Each transmission is a separate count. Seek $1,000,000 per count.	. Seek $5,000 per violation, trebled. Count III – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Defendants devised a scheme to defraud advertisers and users via interstate wir
Count IV – CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Defendants failed to provide opt-out and sold personal information without notice. Seek $7,500 per intentional violation per consumer.	ate count. Seek $1,000,000 per count. Count IV – CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Defendants failed to provide opt-out and sold personal information wi
Count V – GDPR (Art. 5, 6, 7, 25): Defendants processed data without lawful basis and without data protection by design. Seek €250,000 per violation or 4% of global turnover.	r intentional violation per consumer. Count V – GDPR (Art. 5, 6, 7, 25): Defendants processed data without lawful basis and without data protection by design. S
Count VI – CAN-SPAM (15 U.S.C. § 7701): Defendants failed to provide opt-out in email collection. Seek $51,744 per violation.	r violation or 4% of global turnover. Count VI – CAN-SPAM (15 U.S.C. § 7701): Defendants failed to provide opt-out in email collection. Seek $51,744 per violati
Count VII – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1962): Defendants engaged in a pattern of racketeering through predicate acts of wire fraud, computer fraud, and money laundering. Seek treble damages and forfeiture.	llection. Seek $51,744 per violation. Count VII – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1962): Defendants engaged in a pattern of racketeering through predicate acts of wire fraud,
Count VIII – Bivens Constitutional Tort: Defendants, acting under color of law, violated plaintiffs' Fourth, Fifth, Sixth (right to counsel), and Eighth Amendment rights. Seek actual and punitive damages per pl	. Seek treble damages and forfeiture. Count VIII – Bivens Constitutional Tort: Defendants, acting under color of law, violated plaintiffs' Fourth, Fifth, Sixth
Count IX – UCMJ Violations: For any active-duty military plaintiffs, Defendants' conduct violated Articles 92, 133, and 134. Seek fines and confinement for responsible military personnel.	l and punitive damages per plaintiff. Count IX – UCMJ Violations: For any active-duty military plaintiffs, Defendants' conduct violated Articles 92, 133, and 13
Count X – Tort Claims: Intrusion upon seclusion, public disclosure of private facts, fraud, negligent infliction of emotional distress. Seek compensatory, consequential, and punitive damages.	t for responsible military personnel. Count X – Tort Claims: Intrusion upon seclusion, public disclosure of private facts, fraud, negligent infliction of emotio

125.4 Dollar Figures (95)

$1.00 · $1.04 · $1.09 · $1.20 · $1.40 · $1.45 · $1.60 · $1.88 · $2.00 · $2.01 · $2.57 · $3.13 · $3.14 · $3.65 · $3.77 · $4.00 · $4.02 · $4.20 · $4.32 · $4.71 · $5.22 · $5.74 · $6.28 · $6.48 · $7.25 · $7.54 · $8.00 · $8.05 · $8.22 · $8.64 · $9.30 · $9.43 · $14.10 · $14.40 · $15.36 · $18.80 · $18.90 · $19.30 · $20.70 · $22.10 · $23.80 · $28.30 · $31.40 · $37.70 · $38.30 · $43.20 · $49.32 · $50.00 · $51.30 · $54.80 · $56.60 · $71.40 · $75.40 · $94.20 · $103.70 · $108.00 · $145.00 · $147.96 · $155.00 · $155.50 · $188.00 · $207.00 · $256.00 · $377.00 · $385.00 · $500.00 · $513.00 · $628.00 · $671.00 · $720.00 · $726.00 · $864.00 · $921.60 · $1,200.00 · $1,800.00 · $2,400.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $12,000.00 · $25,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $72,000.00 · $75,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $144,000.00 · $240,000.00 · $250,000.00 · $256,000.00 · $500,000.00 · $1,000,000.00

125.5 Dates (1)

2026-08-11

Section 126 of 261

Section 126 — Forensic Audit Report – qaudit-814-26.html (Shopify Blog)

Source File	FORENSIC-0126-forensic-audit-report-qaudit-814-26-html-shopify-blog-ac6f0312.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-08-14 18:47:06
Size	49,228 bytes
SHA-256	ac6f03121176e5838b19af0d3643baeb3798c1fe690af3ca82298d35ebcac096

126.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) – estimated 365,000 uniqu
defendant	Frater Setnakh Shop	ted 365,000 unique visitors per year. Defendants: Frater Setnakh Shop (setnakh.com), Shopify Inc., Google LLC,

126.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (26)

Citation	Source excerpt
GDPR Art. 5	nal data without consent High 2025-2026 GDPR Art. 5-7, ePrivacy, CCPA, Cal. Civ. Code § 179
Civ. Code § 1798.100	026 GDPR Art. 5-7, ePrivacy, CCPA, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100, 18 U.S.C. § 2511 GTM, GA, Facebook Pix
18 U.S.C. § 2511	ivacy, CCPA, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100, 18 U.S.C. § 2511 GTM, GA, Facebook Pixel, Judge.me, Ecom
Prof. Code § 22575	25-2026 ePrivacy Directive, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22575, FTC Act § 5 Multiple cookies (_ga, _fb
Civ. Code § 1798.135	sm High 2025-2026 CCPA § 1798.120, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.135, GDPR Art. 21 No global privacy control
GDPR Art. 21	§ 1798.120, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.135, GDPR Art. 21 No global privacy control, no opt-out l
GDPR Art. 6	sing without legal basis High 2025-2026 GDPR Art. 6, 9, UK GDPR, LGDP (Brazil) Processing o
18 U.S.C. § 1030	ser, OS, screen) Medium 2025-2026 CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030), Cal. Penal Code § 502 Browser and OS
Penal Code § 502	2025-2026 CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030), Cal. Penal Code § 502 Browser and OS detection via GA and GTM
Prof. Code § 22575(b)(3)	ck signals Medium 2025-2026 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22575(b)(3) No DNT check 8 Cross-border data tra
Prof. Code § 17200	High 2025-2026 FTC Act § 5, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 Implied consent via inaction; pre-check
GDPR Art. 12	GDPR data subject rights High 2025-2026 GDPR Art. 12-22 No access, rectification, erasure, p
GDPR Article 6	, etc.) without prior opt-in, violating GDPR Article 6(1)(a) and ePrivacy Article 5(3). <!–
County Code § 12.10.040	International: • County (Los Angeles County Code § 12.10.040 – Privacy): Prohibits interception of p
Penal Code § 632	00 per violation. • State (California Penal Code § 632 – Eavesdropping): Unauthorized recordin
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	iolation + treble damages. • Federal (15 U.S.C. § 45(a) – FTC Act): Unfair or deceptive practic
Penal Code § 33.02	Law § 156.00 – computer trespass; Texas Penal Code § 33.02. Violation #12: Non-compliance
County Code § 12.10	Type County Ordinances: Los Angeles County Code § 12.10, Cook County Ord. Ch. 30, Harris Co. §
15 U.S.C. § 45	42, 1030, 1341, 1343, 2511, 1361, 1961; 15 U.S.C. § 45, 6501; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 47 U.S.C. § 605
5 U.S.C. § 552	2511, 1361, 1961; 15 U.S.C. § 45, 6501; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 47 U.S.C. § 605 – fines up to $1,000,
47 U.S.C. § 605	15 U.S.C. § 45, 6501; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 47 U.S.C. § 605 – fines up to $1,000,000 per count. M
15 U.S.C. § 6501	00 intentional #1, #2, #3, #4 COPPA (15 U.S.C. § 6501) $51,744 #9 CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030)
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	& 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304 & 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 & Title 47, Telecommunications § 230

126.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (18)

126.4 Dollar Figures (23)

$1.00 · $1.20 · $1.50 · $2.73 · $3.87 · $10.95 · $13.70 · $1,000.00 · $2,000.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $40,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $200,000,000.00 · $267,969,600.00 · $297,744,000.00 · $893,232,000.00 · $2,977,440,000.00 · $5,000,000,000.00

126.5 Dates (3)

2024-07-01 · 2025-08-14 · 2026-08-14

Section 127 of 261

Section 127 — Forensic Audit Report – Edison Motors Contact Page

Source File	FORENSIC-0127-forensic-audit-report-edison-motors-contact-page-ab14937e.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-08-11 11:26:42
Size	24,280 bytes
SHA-256	ab14937ef32098242e7e065675a3d2f1c1cba21e7951d4bd3b0277dfef3f28da

127.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected users	t of Washington (or BC Supreme Court) Plaintiffs: All affected users (Class Action) – estimated 500,000 uniqu
defendant	Edison Motors Ltd	– estimated 500,000 unique visitors. Defendants: Edison Motors Ltd., Chace Barber, Google LLC, Cloudflare Inc., TheBomb (online). Counts: Wiretap Act (18

127.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (10)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 2511	rveillance (Wiretap Act) High 2020-2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511 Google Analytics script, Cloudflare Bea
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)	2 Computer Fraud (CFAA) High 2020-2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C) Exfiltration of user data without autho
18 U.S.C. § 1343	without authorization 3 Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343) High 2020-2026 18 U.S.C. § 1343 Using
Civ. Code § 1798.100	sign 5 CCPA/CPRA High 2020-2026 Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 No "Do Not Sell" link, no opt-out 6
15 U.S.C. § 7701	tion 7 CAN‑SPAM Act Medium 2003-2026 15 U.S.C. § 7701 Form may be used for email collection w
47 U.S.C. § 605	isonment per count. • Federal (U.S. – 47 U.S.C. § 605): Unauthorized publication/use of commu
GDPR Art. 5	$110,000 per count. • International (GDPR Art. 5(1)(a), 6(1)): Lawfulness, fairness, tra
18 U.S.C. § 1030	Violation #2: Computer Fraud (CFAA – 18 U.S.C. § 1030) Evidence: The tracking scripts read
Criminal Code § 342.1	0 years. Also applicable under Canadian Criminal Code § 342.1 (unauthorized use of computer). Line
42 U.S.C. § 12181	. §§ 6501, 6801, 7701; 47 U.S.C. § 605; 42 U.S.C. § 12181. International: GDPR, ePrivacy Directi

127.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

127.4 Dollar Figures (80)

$1.00 · $1.15 · $1.20 · $1.30 · $1.33 · $1.34 · $1.36 · $1.50 · $1.51 · $2.00 · $2.01 · $2.69 · $3.48 · $3.57 · $4.00 · $4.02 · $4.54 · $4.79 · $4.91 · $5.60 · $6.03 · $8.05 · $8.40 · $10.40 · $10.70 · $17.40 · $19.60 · $20.90 · $21.40 · $23.90 · $26.10 · $27.00 · $34.90 · $35.90 · $41.00 · $41.80 · $42.80 · $47.90 · $50.00 · $52.30 · $58.90 · $78.40 · $79.80 · $81.80 · $100.00 · $104.60 · $104.70 · $114.90 · $117.80 · $124.00 · $156.80 · $164.00 · $209.20 · $209.40 · $235.60 · $240.00 · $246.00 · $268.00 · $274.00 · $313.60 · $372.00 · $399.00 · $418.80 · $450.00 · $500.00 · $574.00 · $598.00 · $648.00 · $804.00 · $824.00 · $862.00 · $5,000.00 · $6,650.00 · $7,500.00 · $9,975.00 · $10,000.00 · $13,300.00 · $110,000.00 · $798,000.00 · $1,000,000.00

127.5 Dates (1)

2026-08-11

Section 128 of 261

Section 128 — Forensic Audit Report – Research Our Records | National Archives

Source File	FORENSIC-0128-national-archive-audit-final-1652e8b9.html
Created	July 30, 2026
Modified	2026-07-30 08:07:56
Size	36,774 bytes
SHA-256	1652e8b9ed644ca05b889938147c7a31c6b6bad359fa50c414d221e5dc6fef8f

128.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) – estimated 5 million uni
defendant	National Archives	estimated 5 million unique visitors. Defendants: National Archives and Records Administration, Archivist of the United States (in official and individual capaci

128.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (19)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 2511(4)(a)	on under the Wiretap Act, trebled under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(4)(a), plus additional penalties under the Pr
5 U.S.C. § 552	ed Tracking via Google Tag Manager High 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 15 U.S.C. § 45(a);
18 U.S.C. § 2511	oogle Tag Manager High 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 15 U.S.C. § 45(a); 47 U.S.C. § 605 Lin
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	High 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 15 U.S.C. § 45(a); 47 U.S.C. § 605 Lines 8–13 (GTM script
47 U.S.C. § 605	a; 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 15 U.S.C. § 45(a); 47 U.S.C. § 605 Lines 8–13 (GTM script) 2 Unauthoriz
Law Code § 7	e (Maryland – hosting state): Md. Crim. Law Code § 7‑302 (unauthorized access to computer sy
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)	lation per individual. – Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a) – intentional interception of wire, ora
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)	nes up to $500,000 per count. – CFAA, 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C) – intentionally accessing a protected c
44 U.S.C. § 3501	lation of the E‑Government Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. § 3501 note) requiring privacy impact assessme
GDPR Art. 32	t security controls. • International: GDPR Art. 32 – security of processing; lack of CSP m
Penal Code § 502	onsumer Data Protection Act, California Penal Code § 502 (for CA residents), etc. – each state's
18 U.S.C. § 3571	e: fines up to $500,000 per count under 18 U.S.C. § 3571 (for each violation of Title 18) – but
18 U.S.C. § 1343	ount Applies to (violation types) 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud) $1,000,000 + 20 yrs All tr
Civ. Code § 1798.100	,744 If children under 13 CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100) $7,500 intentional / $2,500 negligent
18 U.S.C. § 1030	0 + treble All tracking events CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030) $5,000 + treble All tracking events
42 U.S.C. § 1983	actual + punitive Federal officials 42 U.S.C. § 1983 No cap State actors (not applicable)
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

128.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (8)

Header	Source excerpt
Count Crime Accounting & Temporal Aggregation	rs absent. 3. Deterministic Per‑Count Crime Accounting & Temporal Aggregation Methodology: For each distinct violat
Count I – Violation of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a: Defendants maintained a system of records (user tracking data) without publishing a proper notice, and disclosed records to third parties (Google, Hub	tor of Digital Services. Counts: Count I – Violation of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a: Defendants maintained a system of records (user tracking data) without
Count II – Violation of the Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511: Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications (browsing data) without authorization. Statutory damages: $10,000 per interception (45	l per violation (5M × $5,000 = $25B). Count II – Violation of the Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511: Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications
Count III – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030: Defendants accessed users' protected computers without authorization (via scripts) and obtained information. Damages: $5,000 per vio	eption (45M events = $450B), trebled. Count III – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030: Defendants accessed users' protected computer
Count IV – Violation of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a): Unfair and deceptive practices by failing to disclose tracking and obtaining consent. Penalty: $50,120 per violation (45M = $2.25T).	per violation (45M = $225B), trebled. Count IV – Violation of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a): Unfair and deceptive practices by failing to disclose tracking and
Count V – Negligence and Breach of Fiduciary Duty: Defendants owed a duty to protect user data and failed to implement reasonable security measures (CSP, HSTS), resulting in harm.	$50,120 per violation (45M = $2.25T). Count V – Negligence and Breach of Fiduciary Duty: Defendants owed a duty to protect user data and failed to implement rea
Count VI – Bivens Claim (Fourth and Fifth Amendments): Federal officials violated users' right to be free from unreasonable searches (data collection) and due process (lack of notice). Damages against individ	sures (CSP, HSTS), resulting in harm. Count VI – Bivens Claim (Fourth and Fifth Amendments): Federal officials violated users' right to be free from unreasonabl
Count VII – Common Law Invasion of Privacy (Intrusion upon Seclusion): All defendants.	amages against individual defendants. Count VII – Common Law Invasion of Privacy (Intrusion upon Seclusion): All defendants. Damages Sought: Statutory damages a

128.4 Dollar Figures (51)

$1.35 · $1.50 · $1.62 · $1.84 · $2.25 · $2.70 · $2.73 · $4.00 · $5.00 · $25.00 · $50.00 · $55.00 · $225.00 · $450.00 · $1,000.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $25,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $75,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $200,000.00 · $350,840.00 · $500,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $1,503,600.00 · $10,000,000.00 · $13,700,000.00 · $82,190,000.00 · $91,520,000.00 · $95,890,000.00 · $416,665,000.00 · $575,330,000.00 · $1,235,784,840.00 · $1,496,055,080.00 · $2,500,000,000.00 · $8,650,458,000.00 · $10,472,389,680.00 · $25,000,000,000.00 · $37,590,000,000.00 · $45,509,507,200.00 · $150,000,000,000.00 · $1,092,233,216,000.00 · $1,843,643,552,000.00 · $2,255,400,000,000.00 · $2,730,583,040,000.00

128.5 Dates (1)

2026-07-30

Section 129 of 261

Section 129 — Forensic Audit Report – Target File

Source File	FORENSIC-0129-shawn-ryan-audit-a7139f5d.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-30 11:12:15
Size	38,533 bytes
SHA-256	a7139f5d27789367011e58c8ced4d2340d61afa0c506c7acaed8e82fbd3151be

129.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) – estimated 10 million un
defendant	Shawn Ryan	million unique visitors over 3 years. Defendants: Shawn Ryan (individually), Vigilance Elite LLC, Sha

129.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (28)

Citation	Source excerpt
GDPR Art. 5	filtration via Third‑Party Scripts High GDPR Art. 5, 6, 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); CCPA § 1798.
18 U.S.C. § 2511	Art. 5(3); CCPA § 1798.100; Wiretap Act 18 U.S.C. § 2511; CFAA 18 U.S.C. § 1030 Lines: <script a
18 U.S.C. § 1030	100; Wiretap Act 18 U.S.C. § 2511; CFAA 18 U.S.C. § 1030 Lines: <script async src="https://www.g
Civ. Code § 1798.150	dium FTC Act § 5; CCPA § 1798.100; Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150; GDPR Art. 32 Lines: <form method="post
GDPR Art. 32	§ 1798.100; Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150; GDPR Art. 32 Lines: <form method="post" action="/con
47 U.S.C. § 605	eolocation & Device Fingerprinting High 47 U.S.C. § 605; 18 U.S.C. § 1030; GDPR Art. 7, 13; ITU
GDPR Art. 7	High 47 U.S.C. § 605; 18 U.S.C. § 1030; GDPR Art. 7, 13; ITU Radio Regulations Lines: Locks
18 U.S.C. § 1343	Cookie Injection High 18 U.S.C. § 1030; 18 U.S.C. § 1343; Wiretap Act; Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 55
5 U.S.C. § 552	U.S.C. § 1343; Wiretap Act; Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a Lines: Locksmith script sets cookie `l
GDPR Art. 44	, Google Drive) High GLBA § 6801; CCPA; GDPR Art. 44-49; OECD Privacy Guidelines Lines: Link
GDPR Art. 21	nism (CCPA, GDPR) High CCPA § 1798.135; GDPR Art. 21; ePrivacy Art. 5(3) No consent banner o
Penal Code § 502	0 per occurrence. • State (California Penal Code § 502): Unauthorized computer access and data
Penal Code § 637.2	, Tort, International: • State (Cal. Penal Code § 637.2): Eavesdropping on electronic communica
47 U.S.C. § 301	h transmission is a count. • Federal (47 U.S.C. § 301): Unlicensed transmission of location d
47 U.S.C. § 333	ion of spectrum licensing. • Federal (47 U.S.C. § 333): Interference with radio communication
Penal Code § 33.02	, Tort, International: • State (Tex. Penal Code § 33.02): Breach of computer security; each car
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A)	t modification is a count. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A)): Knowingly causing the transmission of
18 U.S.C. § 1362	ge; each fetch is a count. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1362 – Communication lines): Malicious misch
15 U.S.C. § 45	fines); 47 U.S.C. § 605, § 301, § 333; 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC), § 6801 (GLBA); 5 U.S.C. § 552a (
18 U.S.C. § 3571	million. Criminal exposure: fines under 18 U.S.C. § 3571 (up to $250,000 per count × 7.7M = $1.9
42 U.S.C. § 1983	– actual + punitive All individuals 42 U.S.C. § 1983 No cap State actors (if any) State s
Civ. Code § 1798.100	e California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Failure to provide notice and
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	Count IV – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair and deceptive practices in fai
15 U.S.C. § 6801	ing. Count V – Violation of the GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Unauthorized sharing of financial inf
18 U.S.C. § 1961	cable to EU citizens. Count X – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Enterprise engaged in pattern of rack
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

129.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (12)

Header	Source excerpt
Count Crime Accounting & Temporal Aggregation	itionally. 3. Deterministic Per‑Count Crime Accounting & Temporal Aggregation Methodology: For each distinct violat
count is based on conversion rate estimated at 2% of visitors (200 submissions/day). Tip Line and Download clicks at 0.5% each (50/day). All monetary amounts in USD.	per visitor. Newsletter form submission count is based on conversion rate estimated at 2% of visitors (200 submissions/day). Tip Line and Download clicks at 0.5
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications (page views, cart data) without consent, affecting millions of users.	‑party data processors). Counts: Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications (page
Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers via script injection and cookie manipulation.	consent, affecting millions of users. Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers vi
Count III – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Failure to provide notice and opt‑out, selling personal information without consent.	pt injection and cookie manipulation. Count III – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Failure to provide notic
Count IV – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair and deceptive practices in failing to disclose tracking and data sharing.	personal information without consent. Count IV – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair and deceptive practices in failing to disclose tracking an
Count V – Violation of the GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Unauthorized sharing of financial information (if any cart/payment data collected).	o disclose tracking and data sharing. Count V – Violation of the GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Unauthorized sharing of financial information (if any cart/payment dat
Count VI – Violation of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Government contractors (if any) mishandling personal data.	(if any cart/payment data collected). Count VI – Violation of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Government contractors (if any) mishandling personal data. Coun
Count VII – Bivens Claim (403 U.S. 388): Fourth Amendment unreasonable search and seizure; Fifth Amendment due process; Sixth Amendment right to counsel (coerced data extraction); Eighth Amendment excessive su	s (if any) mishandling personal data. Count VII – Bivens Claim (403 U.S. 388): Fourth Amendment unreasonable search and seizure; Fifth Amendment due process; Si
Count VIII – Common Law Tort Claims: Intrusion upon seclusion, public disclosure of private facts, negligence, trespass to chattels, conversion, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.	hth Amendment excessive surveillance. Count VIII – Common Law Tort Claims: Intrusion upon seclusion, public disclosure of private facts, negligence, trespass to
Count IX – Violation of ePrivacy Directive (2002/58/EC) and GDPR: Processing without lawful basis and lack of consent, applicable to EU citizens.	nal infliction of emotional distress. Count IX – Violation of ePrivacy Directive (2002/58/EC) and GDPR: Processing without lawful basis and lack of consent, app
Count X – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Enterprise engaged in pattern of racketeering activity (fraud, wire fraud, money laundering) through systematic data theft.	f consent, applicable to EU citizens. Count X – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Enterprise engaged in pattern of racketeering activity (fraud, wire fraud, money launde

129.4 Dollar Figures (66)

$1.00 · $1.20 · $1.48 · $1.54 · $1.80 · $1.92 · $2.50 · $5.41 · $9.22 · $11.50 · $38.45 · $50.00 · $109.50 · $200.00 · $231.00 · $460.00 · $500.00 · $700.00 · $1,000.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $25,000.00 · $30,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $75,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $250,000.00 · $280,000.00 · $500,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $10,024,000.00 · $14,000,000.00 · $50,000,000.00 · $70,168,000.00 · $75,000,000.00 · $98,000,000.00 · $304,815,000.00 · $350,000,000.00 · $400,000,000.00 · $425,880,000.00 · $525,000,000.00 · $1,100,000,000.00 · $1,520,835,000.00 · $1,649,024,000.00 · $2,281,252,500.00 · $2,800,000,000.00 · $7,700,000,000.00 · $10,976,280,000.00 · $11,543,168,000.00 · $12,166,670,000.00 · $15,330,000,000.00 · $33,458,370,000.00 · $50,157,822,500.00 · $54,750,000,000.00 · $82,125,000,000.00 · $438,000,000,000.00 · $1,200,000,000,000.00 · $1,204,500,000,000.00 · $1,480,000,000,000.00 · $1,543,000,000,000.00 · $1,805,681,280,000.00 · $5,415,000,000,000.00

129.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 130 of 261

Section 130 — Forensic Audit Report – Felo.ai Adult AI Image Generator

Source File	FORENSIC-0130-felo-audit-8897c5af.html
Created	August 3, 2026
Modified	2026-08-03 09:40:24
Size	21,992 bytes
SHA-256	8897c5afacfb9745887901373c2b59ea26e1d83eabf799331a497fbe71bdb7b2

130.1 Parties (1)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals Defendants	AINT United States District Court Plaintiffs: All affected individuals Defendants: Felo Inc., Google LLC, Microsoft Corpo

130.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (6)

Citation	Source excerpt
GDPR Art. 5	le Tag Manager – potential data leakage GDPR Art. 5, ePrivacy ~41 <link rel="dns-prefetc
18 U.S.C. § 2511	ing via GTM – likely loaded dynamically 18 U.S.C. § 2511, § 1030; GDPR; ePrivacy ~120 Twitter
GDPR Art. 7	onsent not sufficient for GDPR/ePrivacy GDPR Art. 7, ePrivacy Directive Total Viola
18 U.S.C. § 1030	000,000 $798,000,000,000 CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030) $5,000 $3,615 $216,900 $13,014
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	,000 $399,000,000,000 FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) $50,120 $36,236 $2,174,160 $13
18 U.S.C. § 3571	800,000 counts. Criminal exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 3571: $39,900,000,000,000. Civil: $27,142,00

130.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (8)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): 79,800,000 counts of interception without consent.	LLC, Microsoft Corporation, X Corp. Count I – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): 79,800,000 counts of interception without consent. Count II – CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 10
Count II – CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): 79,800,000 counts of unauthorized access.	unts of interception without consent. Count II – CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): 79,800,000 counts of unauthorized access. Count III – FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a
Count III – FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): 79,800,000 counts of unfair/deceptive practices.	00,000 counts of unauthorized access. Count III – FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): 79,800,000 counts of unfair/deceptive practices. Count IV – GDPR (Art. 5,6,13): 7
Count IV – GDPR (Art. 5,6,13): 79,800,000 counts of unlawful processing.	counts of unfair/deceptive practices. Count IV – GDPR (Art. 5,6,13): 79,800,000 counts of unlawful processing. Count V – ePrivacy Directive: 79,800,
Count V – ePrivacy Directive: 79,800,000 counts of storing/accessing cookies without consent.	00,000 counts of unlawful processing. Count V – ePrivacy Directive: 79,800,000 counts of storing/accessing cookies without consent. Count VI – Negligence: Failu
Count VI – Negligence: Failure to secure headers and forms.	ng/accessing cookies without consent. Count VI – Negligence: Failure to secure headers and forms. Count VII – Intrusion Upon Seclusion:
Count VII – Intrusion Upon Seclusion: Invasion of privacy.	Failure to secure headers and forms. Count VII – Intrusion Upon Seclusion: Invasion of privacy. Count VIII – Bivens (Fourth, Fifth, S
Count VIII – Bivens (Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth): Constitutional violations.	Upon Seclusion: Invasion of privacy. Count VIII – Bivens (Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth): Constitutional violations. Damages Sought: $81,426,000,000,000

130.4 Dollar Figures (63)

$3,615.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,230.00 · $10,000.00 · $36,236.00 · $50,120.00 · $198,825.00 · $216,900.00 · $245,906.00 · $275,000.00 · $433,800.00 · $2,174,160.00 · $11,929,500.00 · $13,014,000.00 · $14,754,360.00 · $26,028,000.00 · $130,449,600.00 · $312,336,000.00 · $624,672,000.00 · $715,770,000.00 · $885,261,600.00 · $2,186,352,000.00 · $3,130,790,400.00 · $4,372,704,000.00 · $9,360,000,000.00 · $17,178,480,000.00 · $18,720,000,000.00 · $21,246,278,400.00 · $21,915,532,800.00 · $28,080,000,000.00 · $56,160,000,000.00 · $95,228,000,000.00 · $112,320,000,000.00 · $120,249,360,000.00 · $148,724,948,800.00 · $224,640,000,000.00 · $285,684,000,000.00 · $399,000,000,000.00 · $522,500,000,000.00 · $571,368,000,000.00 · $645,808,000,000.00 · $798,000,000,000.00 · $1,085,680,000,000.00 · $1,142,736,000,000.00 · $1,276,800,000,000.00 · $1,567,500,000,000.00 · $1,596,000,000,000.00 · $1,937,424,000,000.00 · $3,135,000,000,000.00 · $3,874,848,000,000.00 · $3,990,000,000,000.00 · $4,000,000,000,000.00 · $5,428,400,000,000.00 · $6,270,000,000,000.00 · $6,384,000,000,000.00 · $7,749,696,000,000.00 · $10,856,800,000,000.00 · $21,945,000,000,000.00 · $27,142,000,000,000.00 · $39,900,000,000,000.00 · $54,284,000,000,000.00 · $55,860,000,000,000.00 · $81,426,000,000,000.00

130.5 Dates (1)

2026-08-03

Section 131 of 261

Section 131 — Forensic Audit Report – Team Gatlin / Wix Website

Source File	FORENSIC-0131-team-gatlin-wix-website-audit-8846e161.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-31 18:01:58
Size	35,576 bytes
SHA-256	8846e161c9d191701c28cff36030f258011f01b71ee4f872baef63fe7d94633f

131.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) – estimated 1 million uni
defendant	Team Gatlin	million unique visitors over 3 years. Defendants: Team Gatlin (LLC), Susan Gatlin, Wix.com Ltd., and J

131.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (22)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 2511	awful basis, violating the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511), the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18
18 U.S.C. § 1030	511), the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030), the California Consumer Privacy Act (
GDPR Art. 5	onsent High 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap), GDPR Art. 5,6,7; CCPA § 1798.100; ePrivacy Art. 5(3
18 U.S.C. § 1343	advertising networks (wire fraud) High 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud); CFAA 18 U.S.C. § 1030 Goo
GDPR Art. 32	ders High FTC Act § 5; CCPA § 1798.100; GDPR Art. 32; 18 U.S.C. § 1030 Form action uses rela
5 U.S.C. § 552	to provide adequate privacy notice High 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	ice High 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act) No specific privacy notice on
GDPR Art. 21	, GDPR, ePrivacy) High CCPA § 1798.135; GDPR Art. 21; ePrivacy Art. 5(3) No cookie banner; t
GDPR Art. 7	ithout consent High ePrivacy Art. 5(3); GDPR Art. 7 Wix sets multiple cookies (e.g., svSess
Tennessee Code § 39-13-604	ion is a separate violation. • State (Tennessee Code § 39-13-604): Unauthorized computer access – each s
47 U.S.C. § 605	prisonment up to 10 years. • Federal (47 U.S.C. § 605 – Unauthorized Publication/Use of Commu
GDPR Art. 44	n; damages per user. • International (GDPR Art. 44-49): Transfer of personal data to third
Tennessee Code § 47-18-104	ites; each visit is a count. • State (Tennessee Code § 47-18-104): Deceptive practices; each submission
GDPR Art. 13	n; damages per user. • International (GDPR Art. 13): Controller must provide information;
15 U.S.C. § 45	3571 (criminal fines); 47 U.S.C. § 605; 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act), § 6801 (GLBA); 5 U.S.C. § 55
18 U.S.C. § 3571	ounts (15.34M). Criminal exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 3571: up to $500,000 per count × 15.34M = $7
Civ. Code § 1798.100	e California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Failure to provide notice and
15 U.S.C. § 6801	ing. Count V – Violation of the GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Unauthorized sharing of financial inf
18 U.S.C. § 1961	cable to EU citizens. Count X – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Enterprise engaged in pattern of rack
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

131.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (11)

Header	Source excerpt
Count Crime Accounting & Temporal Aggregation	m present. 3. Deterministic Per‑Count Crime Accounting & Temporal Aggregation Methodology: For each distinct violat
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications without consent.	(developers, operators). Counts: Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications witho
Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers via scripts and cookies.	ronic communications without consent. Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers vi
Count III – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Failure to provide notice and opt‑out, selling personal information without consent.	ed computers via scripts and cookies. Count III – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Failure to provide notic
Count IV – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair and deceptive practices in failing to disclose tracking and data sharing.	personal information without consent. Count IV – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair and deceptive practices in failing to disclose tracking an
Count V – Violation of the GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Unauthorized sharing of financial information (if any payment data collected).	o disclose tracking and data sharing. Count V – Violation of the GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Unauthorized sharing of financial information (if any payment data col
Count VI – Violation of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Government contractors (if any) mishandling personal data.	tion (if any payment data collected). Count VI – Violation of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Government contractors (if any) mishandling personal data. Coun
Count VII – Bivens Claim (403 U.S. 388): Fourth Amendment unreasonable search and seizure; Fifth Amendment due process; Sixth Amendment right to counsel; Eighth Amendment excessive surveillance.	s (if any) mishandling personal data. Count VII – Bivens Claim (403 U.S. 388): Fourth Amendment unreasonable search and seizure; Fifth Amendment due process; Si
Count VIII – Common Law Tort Claims: Intrusion upon seclusion, public disclosure of private facts, negligence, trespass to chattels, conversion, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.	hth Amendment excessive surveillance. Count VIII – Common Law Tort Claims: Intrusion upon seclusion, public disclosure of private facts, negligence, trespass to
Count IX – Violation of ePrivacy Directive (2002/58/EC) and GDPR: Processing without lawful basis and lack of consent, applicable to EU citizens.	nal infliction of emotional distress. Count IX – Violation of ePrivacy Directive (2002/58/EC) and GDPR: Processing without lawful basis and lack of consent, app
Count X – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Enterprise engaged in pattern of racketeering activity (fraud, wire fraud, money laundering) through systematic data theft.	f consent, applicable to EU citizens. Count X – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Enterprise engaged in pattern of racketeering activity (fraud, wire fraud, money launde

131.4 Dollar Figures (62)

$1.00 · $1.29 · $1.34 · $1.57 · $2.30 · $4.72 · $7.29 · $7.67 · $10.00 · $10.95 · $90.00 · $92.00 · $100.00 · $114.00 · $185.00 · $200.00 · $210.00 · $300.00 · $500.00 · $950.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $250,000.00 · $280,000.00 · $500,000.00 · $501,200.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $3,508,400.00 · $7,500,000.00 · $15,236,480.00 · $50,120,000.00 · $52,500,000.00 · $100,000,000.00 · $228,127,500.00 · $280,000,000.00 · $350,840,000.00 · $548,814,000.00 · $700,000,000.00 · $1,000,000,000.00 · $1,438,121,200.00 · $1,524,475,000.00 · $1,960,000,000.00 · $3,041,670,000.00 · $7,000,000,000.00 · $8,212,500,000.00 · $8,516,760,000.00 · $10,066,848,400.00 · $30,417,000,000.00 · $43,743,868,980.00 · $54,881,400,000.00 · $109,500,000,000.00 · $306,600,000,000.00 · $1,000,000,000,000.00 · $1,095,000,000,000.00 · $1,290,000,000,000.00 · $1,345,000,000,000.00 · $1,574,742,714,000.00 · $4,724,228,142,000.00

131.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 132 of 261

Section 132 — Forensic Audit Report – National Archives Research Page

Source File	FORENSIC-0132-audit-national-archives-research-page-352eaf26.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-30 07:17:36
Size	42,941 bytes
SHA-256	352eaf2698dcfc01b4ece4f6e27f4a0dff1516764d39b7fef024918598425fb8

132.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) — all users of the Nation
defendant	National Archives	ssed, or transferred without consent. Defendants: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), the United States Government (as

132.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (15)

Citation	Source excerpt
5 U.S.C. § 552	8/EC, and the U.S. Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a) which applies to federal agencies. Th
GDPR Art. 6	er (Analytics) Without Consent Critical GDPR Art. 6, 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); Privacy Act 5 U
18 U.S.C. § 2511	cal GDPR Art. 6, 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 Lines 111-112 (addtoany.com) 3 HubSp
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	sing Content Security Policy (CSP) High 15 U.S.C. § 45(a); 18 U.S.C. § 1030; NIST SP 800-53 No CS
18 U.S.C. § 1030	ty Policy (CSP) High 15 U.S.C. § 45(a); 18 U.S.C. § 1030; NIST SP 800-53 No CSP header or meta t
GDPR Art. 7	7 No Cookie Consent Mechanism Critical GDPR Art. 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); Privacy Act 5 U.S.
50 U.S.C. § 1702	Data Transfer to Third Parties Critical 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 18 U.S.C. § 1343; Privacy Act 5 U.S.C.
18 U.S.C. § 1343	hird Parties Critical 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 18 U.S.C. § 1343; Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a GTM, AddTh
47 U.S.C. § 301	user consent constitutes a violation of 47 U.S.C. § 301 (unlicensed radio transmission) and 47
47 U.S.C. § 333	301 (unlicensed radio transmission) and 47 U.S.C. § 333 (interference with radio communications
44 U.S.C. § 3541	ederal agencies must comply with FISMA (44 U.S.C. § 3541) and NIST guidance; the absence of CSP
18 U.S.C. § 2713	ional security concerns. The Cloud Act (18 U.S.C. § 2713) compels US-based companies to disclose
28 U.S.C. § 1346	olation of the Federal Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C. § 1346): The United States is liable for the n
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

132.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (9)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intercepted wire, oral, and electronic communications (IP addresses, browsing data) without consent. Each data transmission constitutes a	llection and processing. Counts: Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intercepted wire, oral, and electronic communications (IP
Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants accessed Plaintiffs' computers without authorization through the placement of tracking cookies and JavaScript code. Plai	tion, trebled, plus punitive damages. Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants accessed Plaintiffs' computers wit
Count III – Violation of the Federal Wire Fraud Statute (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud Plaintiffs of their privacy rights through deceptive practices. Plaintiffs seek restitution	njunctive relief, and treble damages. Count III – Violation of the Federal Wire Fraud Statute (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud Plai
Count IV – Violation of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Defendants collected and disclosed records (IP addresses, browsing history) without consent and without public notice. Plaintiffs seek damage	on, treble damages, and disgorgement. Count IV – Violation of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Defendants collected and disclosed records (IP addresse
Count V – Violation of the Federal Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C. § 1346): The United States is liable for the negligent and intentional acts of its agencies, including the failure to implement reasonable securi	junctive relief, and attorneys' fees. Count V – Violation of the Federal Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C. § 1346): The United States is liable for the negligent and i
Count VI – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive practices by failing to implement reasonable security measures (CSP, SRI, CSRF) and by misrepresenting the p	Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages. Count VI – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive practices by failing t
Count VII – Violation of GDPR (EU) 2016/679 (for EU Class Members): Defendants processed personal data of EU residents without lawful basis, consent, or adequate safeguards. Plaintiffs seek damages of up to €2	ive relief, restitution, and damages. Count VII – Violation of GDPR (EU) 2016/679 (for EU Class Members): Defendants processed personal data of EU residents wit
Count VIII – Violation of ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC (for EU Class Members): Defendants stored and accessed information on the terminal equipment of EU residents without consent. Plaintiffs seek damages of u	bal turnover, plus injunctive relief. Count VIII – Violation of ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC (for EU Class Members): Defendants stored and accessed information
Count IX – Violation of the IEEPA (50 U.S.C. § 1702): Defendants transferred personal data to foreign-owned entities (Google, Oracle, HubSpot) without adequate safeguards. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief an	ages of up to €250,000 per violation. Count IX – Violation of the IEEPA (50 U.S.C. § 1702): Defendants transferred personal data to foreign-owned entities (Goog

132.4 Dollar Figures (27)

$1.20 · $2.16 · $5.55 · $5.79 · $6.43 · $17.38 · $120.00 · $360.00 · $579.40 · $643.80 · $720.00 · $5,000.00 · $10,000.00 · $30,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $137,830.00 · $250,600.00 · $270,000.00 · $78,000,000,000.00 · $120,000,000,000.00 · $396,000,000,000.00 · $720,000,000,000.00 · $780,000,000,000.00 · $1,200,000,000,000.00 · $5,184,000,000,000.00 · $6,480,000,000,000.00

132.5 Dates (1)

2016-07-27

Section 133 of 261

Section 133 — Forensic Audit Report – Alba Luxury

Source File	FORENSIC-0133-audited-entity-alba-luxury-e9ee7c70.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-08-04 12:30:06
Size	39,374 bytes
SHA-256	e9ee7c7040628cf3d6ddb42b23717bd1b5245c3746c1f153a53b1121bdedc121

133.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Alba Home
defendant	Alba Home Sirmione s.r.l	affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Alba Home Sirmione s.r.l. (owner/operator), Google, LLC, Facebook,

133.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (22)

Citation	Source excerpt
GDPR Art. 7	t prior informed consent High 2015–2026 GDPR Art. 7, ePrivacy Art. 5(3), CCPA § 1798.100, 1
18 U.S.C. § 2511	7, ePrivacy Art. 5(3), CCPA § 1798.100, 18 U.S.C. § 2511 Lines 41‑47 (FB Pixel), 24‑30 (GA), 33‑
18 U.S.C. § 1030	no rate‑limiting Medium 2015–2026 CFAA 18 U.S.C. § 1030, California Privacy Rights Act, GDPR Ar
GDPR Art. 32	§ 1030, California Privacy Rights Act, GDPR Art. 32 Lines 338‑355 (contact form), 361‑366 (
GDPR Art. 44	drive, Google, Facebook) High 2015–2026 GDPR Art. 44‑49, CCPA § 1798.115, GLBA § 6801 Lines
GDPR Art. 5	015–2026 ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC, GDPR Art. 5(3), FTC Act 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) Lines 12‑
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	ive 2002/58/EC, GDPR Art. 5(3), FTC Act 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) Lines 12‑19 (Iubenda), 24‑30 (GA), 41‑4
Civ. Code § 1798.100	• State (California): CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.) — failure to provide notice an
Penal Code § 631	consumer per violation. Also California Penal Code § 631 (wiretapping) — interception of electro
County Code § 4.5	• County (San Diego County): San Diego County Code § 4.5 (data security) — failure to implement
Professions Code § 17200	ate (California): California Business & Professions Code § 17200 (unlawful, unfair, fraudulent business
Penal Code § 502	fair business practice. Also California Penal Code § 502 (unauthorized computer access) — insecu
18 U.S.C. § 1343	iolation + treble damages. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Wire Fraud — the form is part of a sc
15 U.S.C. § 6801	t + 20 years imprisonment. • Federal (15 U.S.C. § 6801): GLBA — Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 3
47 U.S.C. § 605	rns; $5,000 per violation. • Federal (47 U.S.C. § 605): Unauthorized publication/use of commu
Penal Code § 33.02	56.00 (computer crimes) — $5,000; Texas Penal Code § 33.02 (breach of computer security) — $5,000;
18 U.S.C. § 371	343 (Wire Fraud) — $1,000,000 + 20 yrs; 18 U.S.C. § 371 (conspiracy) — $500,000; 18 U.S.C. § 35
18 U.S.C. § 3571	8 U.S.C. § 371 (conspiracy) — $500,000; 18 U.S.C. § 3571 (criminal fines) — up to $500,000 per c
42 U.S.C. § 1983	itutional torts (4th, 5th, 6th, 8th) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 No cap State actors (if applicable)
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

133.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (7)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intercepted electronic communications of Plaintiffs without consent by placing tracking pixels and cookies. (Damages: $10,000 per violati	identified in Section 3. Counts: Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intercepted electronic communications of Plaintiffs witho
Count II – Violation of the CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants exceeded authorized access by injecting tracking scripts and failing to secure forms, enabling unauthorised access to Plaintiffs' data. (Damages	ges: $10,000 per violation + treble). Count II – Violation of the CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants exceeded authorized access by injecting tracking scripts a
Count III – Violation of California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Defendants failed to provide notice and opt‑out for sale/sharing of personal information. (Damages: $7,500 per intentional	ages: $5,000 per violation + treble). Count III – Violation of California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Defendants failed to provide notice
Count IV – Violation of FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive acts by misrepresenting their data collection practices. (Damages: $50,120 per violation).	s: $7,500 per intentional violation). Count IV – Violation of FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive acts by misrepresenting th
Count V – Violation of GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Defendants failed to implement a security program to protect financial data collected through forms. (Damages: $100,000 per violation).	es. (Damages: $50,120 per violation). Count V – Violation of GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Defendants failed to implement a security program to protect financial dat
Count VI – Bivens Constitutional Torts (Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth Amendments): Unreasonable search/seizure, deprivation of due process, denial of right to counsel (coerced data extraction), and excessive f	s. (Damages: $100,000 per violation). Count VI – Bivens Constitutional Torts (Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth Amendments): Unreasonable search/seizure, deprivation
Count VII – Common Law Tort Claims: Intrusion upon seclusion, public disclosure of private facts, negligence, and civil conspiracy. (Damages: economic × 3 + punitive).	: actual damages + punitive, no cap). Count VII – Common Law Tort Claims: Intrusion upon seclusion, public disclosure of private facts, negligence, and civil co

133.4 Dollar Figures (74)

$1.00 · $1.75 · $4.00 · $7.00 · $8.50 · $14.00 · $21.00 · $26.25 · $35.00 · $62.30 · $70.00 · $78.75 · $95.48 · $124.81 · $374.43 · $385.00 · $600.00 · $750.00 · $900.00 · $1,000.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $25,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $72,620.00 · $75,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $115,000.00 · $160,120.00 · $200,000.00 · $347,740.00 · $500,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $4,357,200.00 · $6,900,000.00 · $9,607,200.00 · $20,864,400.00 · $261,432,000.00 · $414,000,000.00 · $576,432,000.00 · $1,251,864,000.00 · $6,274,368,000.00 · $9,936,000,000.00 · $13,834,368,000.00 · $30,044,736,000.00 · $43,920,576,000.00 · $69,552,000,000.00 · $96,840,576,000.00 · $187,320,000,000.00 · $190,960,000,000.00 · $210,313,152,000.00 · $302,400,000,000.00 · $421,046,400,000.00 · $572,880,000,000.00 · $907,200,000,000.00 · $914,406,400,000.00 · $1,145,760,000,000.00 · $1,263,139,200,000.00 · $1,814,400,000,000.00 · $2,291,520,000,000.00 · $2,526,278,400,000.00 · $2,743,219,200,000.00 · $3,628,800,000,000.00 · $5,052,556,800,000.00 · $5,486,438,400,000.00 · $10,972,876,800,000.00 · $26,066,400,000,000.00 · $41,280,000,000,000.00 · $57,468,000,000,000.00 · $124,814,400,000,000.00

133.5 Dates (1)

2026-08-04

Section 134 of 261

Section 134 — Forensic Audit Report – Italian Government (governo.it)

Source File	FORENSIC-0134-audited-entity-italian-government-presidenza-del-consiglio-d-70f4c052.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-08-04 17:09:41
Size	32,604 bytes
SHA-256	70f4c052dbb844dfeaa1c8bf1542f39783567b7f7c9a11b52bf923e625fb3924

134.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Presidenza
defendant	Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri	affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri (Italian Government), Sogei S.p.A., and

134.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (20)

Citation	Source excerpt
GDPR Art. 7	ng without prior consent High 2005–2026 GDPR Art. 7, ePrivacy Art. 5(3), CCPA § 1798.100, 1
18 U.S.C. § 2511	7, ePrivacy Art. 5(3), CCPA § 1798.100, 18 U.S.C. § 2511 Lines 112‑128 (Matomo script) 2 Soci
GDPR Art. 5	005–2026 ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC, GDPR Art. 5(3), FTC Act 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) Lines 112
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	ive 2002/58/EC, GDPR Art. 5(3), FTC Act 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) Lines 112‑128 (Matomo), 131‑155 (consen
GDPR Art. 44	(Matomo, social media) Medium 2005–2026 GDPR Art. 44‑49, CCPA § 1798.115 Lines 112‑128 (Mato
Civ. Code § 1798.100	• State (California): CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.) — failure to provide notice an
Penal Code § 631	consumer per violation. Also California Penal Code § 631 (wiretapping) — interception of electro
18 U.S.C. § 1030	00,000 per criminal count. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1030): CFAA — accessing a protected computer
GDPR Article 6	is subject to heightened scrutiny under GDPR Article 6(1)(c) and Article 6(3). • ePrivacy D
47 U.S.C. § 605	th social media platforms. • Federal (47 U.S.C. § 605): Unauthorized publication/use of commu
County Code § 4.5	County Ordinance Chapter 30, San Diego County Code § 4.5 — each violation adds $1,000 per count.
Penal Code § 33.02	ork Penal Law §§ 156.00 — $5,000; Texas Penal Code § 33.02 — $5,000; Illinois 720 ILCS 5/16D — $5,
15 U.S.C. § 6801	$110,000; 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) — $50,120; 15 U.S.C. § 6801 — $100,000; 18 U.S.C. § 1343 — $1,000,0
18 U.S.C. § 1343	— $50,120; 15 U.S.C. § 6801 — $100,000; 18 U.S.C. § 1343 — $1,000,000 + 20 yrs; 18 U.S.C. § 371
18 U.S.C. § 371	18 U.S.C. § 1343 — $1,000,000 + 20 yrs; 18 U.S.C. § 371 — $500,000; 18 U.S.C. § 3571 — up to $5
18 U.S.C. § 3571	0 + 20 yrs; 18 U.S.C. § 371 — $500,000; 18 U.S.C. § 3571 — up to $500,000 per count. Military
42 U.S.C. § 1983	tual + punitive Constitutional torts 42 U.S.C. § 1983 No cap State actors (if applicable)
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

134.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (7)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Unauthorised interception of communications via Matomo analytics.	social media platforms. Counts: Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Unauthorised interception of communications via Matomo analytics. Cou
Count II – Violation of the CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorised access via analytics scripts.	communications via Matomo analytics. Count II – Violation of the CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorised access via analytics scripts. Count III – Violation of CC
Count III – Violation of CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Failure to provide opt‑out for data sharing.	horised access via analytics scripts. Count III – Violation of CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Failure to provide opt‑out for data sharing. Count IV – Violati
Count IV – Violation of FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Deceptive practices.	to provide opt‑out for data sharing. Count IV – Violation of FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Deceptive practices. Count V – Violation of GDPR and ePriv
Count V – Violation of GDPR and ePrivacy (EU law): Processing EU citizens' data without valid consent.	U.S.C. § 45(a)): Deceptive practices. Count V – Violation of GDPR and ePrivacy (EU law): Processing EU citizens' data without valid consent. Count VI – Bivens C
Count VI – Bivens Constitutional Torts (IV, V, VI, VIII Amendments): Unreasonable search, due process, right to counsel, excessive fines.	citizens' data without valid consent. Count VI – Bivens Constitutional Torts (IV, V, VI, VIII Amendments): Unreasonable search, due process, right to counsel, e
Count VII – Common Law Tort Claims: Intrusion, public disclosure, negligence, conspiracy.	s, right to counsel, excessive fines. Count VII – Common Law Tort Claims: Intrusion, public disclosure, negligence, conspiracy. Damages Sought: Statutory damage

134.4 Dollar Figures (70)

$1.00 · $1.50 · $4.00 · $6.50 · $16.00 · $20.00 · $32.00 · $40.00 · $60.00 · $75.20 · $80.00 · $120.00 · $174.80 · $180.00 · $187.80 · $563.40 · $1,000.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $25,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $72,620.00 · $75,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $160,120.00 · $200,000.00 · $282,860.00 · $500,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $3,007,200.00 · $4,357,200.00 · $9,607,200.00 · $16,971,600.00 · $180,432,000.00 · $261,432,000.00 · $576,432,000.00 · $1,018,296,000.00 · $4,330,368,000.00 · $6,274,368,000.00 · $13,834,368,000.00 · $24,439,104,000.00 · $30,312,576,000.00 · $43,920,576,000.00 · $96,840,576,000.00 · $112,400,000,000.00 · $131,800,000,000.00 · $171,073,728,000.00 · $190,960,000,000.00 · $395,400,000,000.00 · $421,046,400,000.00 · $572,880,000,000.00 · $743,806,400,000.00 · $790,800,000,000.00 · $1,145,760,000,000.00 · $1,263,139,200,000.00 · $1,581,600,000,000.00 · $2,231,419,200,000.00 · $2,291,520,000,000.00 · $2,526,278,400,000.00 · $4,462,838,400,000.00 · $5,052,556,800,000.00 · $8,925,676,800,000.00 · $33,300,000,000,000.00 · $48,200,000,000,000.00 · $106,300,000,000,000.00 · $187,800,000,000,000.00

134.5 Dates (1)

2026-08-04

Section 135 of 261

Section 135 — Forensic Audit Report – circulate.it (Cloze)

Source File	FORENSIC-0135-audited-entity-cloze-inc-circulate-dot-it-0537f09f.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-08-04 17:51:10
Size	32,410 bytes
SHA-256	0537f09f3ba3bbf09266bea117a68abc8a483955b9dbe431230289a1b203a9d4

135.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Cloze, Inc
defendant	Cloze	affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Cloze, Inc., Mixpanel, Inc., Google, LLC, Facebook, Inc., Help Scout, Inc. Counts: Count I – Violation of the Wi

135.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (19)

Citation	Source excerpt
GDPR Art. 7	atus, not on user choice. This violates GDPR Art. 7, Art. 6(1)(a), and ePrivacy Directive A
18 U.S.C. § 2511	7, ePrivacy Art. 5(3), CCPA § 1798.100, 18 U.S.C. § 2511 Lines 43‑64 (Mixpanel), 65‑73 (FB Pixel
GDPR Art. 5	015–2026 ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC, GDPR Art. 5(3), FTC Act 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) Lines 37‑
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	ive 2002/58/EC, GDPR Art. 5(3), FTC Act 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) Lines 37‑42 (GPC check), 44‑64 (scripts
GDPR Art. 44	e, Facebook, Help Scout) High 2015–2026 GDPR Art. 44‑49, CCPA § 1798.115 Lines 43‑64 (Mixpan
Civ. Code § 1798.100	• State (California): CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.) — failure to provide notice an
Penal Code § 631	consumer per violation. Also California Penal Code § 631 (wiretapping) — interception of electro
18 U.S.C. § 1030	00,000 per criminal count. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1030): CFAA — accessing a protected computer
County Code § 4.5	• County (San Diego County): San Diego County Code § 4.5 (data security) — unauthorized data tra
47 U.S.C. § 605	d‑party support platforms. • Federal (47 U.S.C. § 605): Unauthorized publication/use of commu
Penal Code § 33.02	ork Penal Law §§ 156.00 — $5,000; Texas Penal Code § 33.02 — $5,000; Illinois 720 ILCS 5/16D — $5,
15 U.S.C. § 6801	$110,000; 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) — $50,120; 15 U.S.C. § 6801 — $100,000; 18 U.S.C. § 1343 — $1,000,0
18 U.S.C. § 1343	— $50,120; 15 U.S.C. § 6801 — $100,000; 18 U.S.C. § 1343 — $1,000,000 + 20 yrs; 18 U.S.C. § 371
18 U.S.C. § 371	18 U.S.C. § 1343 — $1,000,000 + 20 yrs; 18 U.S.C. § 371 — $500,000; 18 U.S.C. § 3571 — up to $5
18 U.S.C. § 3571	0 + 20 yrs; 18 U.S.C. § 371 — $500,000; 18 U.S.C. § 3571 — up to $500,000 per count. Military
42 U.S.C. § 1983	tual + punitive Constitutional torts 42 U.S.C. § 1983 No cap State actors (if applicable)
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

135.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (7)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Unauthorised interception of communications via analytics scripts.	, Inc., Help Scout, Inc. Counts: Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Unauthorised interception of communications via analytics scripts. C
Count II – Violation of the CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorised access via analytics scripts.	communications via analytics scripts. Count II – Violation of the CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorised access via analytics scripts. Count III – Violation of C
Count III – Violation of CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Failure to provide opt‑out for data sharing.	horised access via analytics scripts. Count III – Violation of CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Failure to provide opt‑out for data sharing. Count IV – Violati
Count IV – Violation of FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Deceptive practices.	to provide opt‑out for data sharing. Count IV – Violation of FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Deceptive practices. Count V – Violation of GDPR and ePriv
Count V – Violation of GDPR and ePrivacy (EU law): Processing EU citizens' data without valid consent.	U.S.C. § 45(a)): Deceptive practices. Count V – Violation of GDPR and ePrivacy (EU law): Processing EU citizens' data without valid consent. Count VI – Bivens C
Count VI – Bivens Constitutional Torts (IV, V, VI, VIII Amendments): Unreasonable search, due process, right to counsel, excessive fines.	citizens' data without valid consent. Count VI – Bivens Constitutional Torts (IV, V, VI, VIII Amendments): Unreasonable search, due process, right to counsel, e
Count VII – Common Law Tort Claims: Intrusion, public disclosure, negligence, conspiracy.	s, right to counsel, excessive fines. Count VII – Common Law Tort Claims: Intrusion, public disclosure, negligence, conspiracy. Damages Sought: Statutory damage

135.4 Dollar Figures (71)

$2.00 · $3.50 · $8.00 · $12.00 · $16.00 · $24.00 · $30.00 · $40.00 · $49.50 · $60.00 · $77.20 · $90.00 · $100.90 · $300.00 · $302.70 · $500.00 · $800.00 · $1,000.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $25,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $72,620.00 · $75,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $160,120.00 · $200,000.00 · $282,860.00 · $500,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $3,007,200.00 · $4,357,200.00 · $9,607,200.00 · $16,971,600.00 · $180,432,000.00 · $261,432,000.00 · $576,432,000.00 · $1,018,296,000.00 · $4,330,368,000.00 · $6,274,368,000.00 · $13,834,368,000.00 · $24,439,104,000.00 · $30,312,576,000.00 · $43,920,576,000.00 · $78,500,000,000.00 · $96,840,576,000.00 · $131,800,000,000.00 · $171,073,728,000.00 · $190,960,000,000.00 · $395,400,000,000.00 · $421,046,400,000.00 · $572,880,000,000.00 · $743,806,400,000.00 · $790,800,000,000.00 · $1,145,760,000,000.00 · $1,263,139,200,000.00 · $1,581,600,000,000.00 · $2,231,419,200,000.00 · $2,291,520,000,000.00 · $2,526,278,400,000.00 · $4,462,838,400,000.00 · $5,052,556,800,000.00 · $8,925,676,800,000.00 · $17,900,000,000,000.00 · $25,900,000,000,000.00 · $57,100,000,000,000.00 · $100,900,000,000,000.00

135.5 Dates (1)

2026-08-04

Section 136 of 261

Section 136 — Forensic Audit Report – Italy Sotheby's International Realty

Source File	FORENSIC-0136-audited-entity-italy-sotheby-s-international-realty-084ff779.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-08-04 12:40:21
Size	33,067 bytes
SHA-256	084ff77979664569253bcdf1c64af6ef644772b707ce528cf2a831616bd0bf84

136.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: RE ITALY S
defendant	RE ITALY S.r.l	affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: RE ITALY S.r.l., Tawk.to Inc., Google LLC, and other third‑party vendors. Counts: Count I –

136.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (21)

Citation	Source excerpt
GDPR Art. 7	at without prior consent High 2006–2026 GDPR Art. 7, ePrivacy Art. 5(3), CCPA § 1798.100, 1
18 U.S.C. § 2511	7, ePrivacy Art. 5(3), CCPA § 1798.100, 18 U.S.C. § 2511 Lines 1850‑1870 (Tawk.to script) 2 G
GDPR Art. 5	acking without consent Medium 2006–2026 GDPR Art. 5(3), ePrivacy, FTC Act Lines 34‑40 (GTM
18 U.S.C. § 1030	no rate‑limiting Medium 2006–2026 CFAA 18 U.S.C. § 1030, California Privacy Rights Act, GDPR Ar
GDPR Art. 32	§ 1030, California Privacy Rights Act, GDPR Art. 32 Lines 1740‑1800 (contact form) 4 Thi
GDPR Art. 44	le Fonts, Maps, Tawk.to) High 2006–2026 GDPR Art. 44‑49, CCPA § 1798.115 Lines 22‑27 (Google
Civ. Code § 1798.100	• State (California): CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.) — failure to provide notice an
Penal Code § 631	consumer per violation. Also California Penal Code § 631 (wiretapping) — interception of electro
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	iolation + treble damages. • Federal (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): FTC Act — unfair or deceptive acts or
County Code § 4.5	• County (San Diego County): San Diego County Code § 4.5 (data security) — failure to implement
Professions Code § 17200	ate (California): California Business & Professions Code § 17200 — unfair business practices. • Federa
18 U.S.C. § 1343	SRF creates vulnerability. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Wire Fraud — form part of scheme to d
15 U.S.C. § 6801	part of scheme to defraud. • Federal (15 U.S.C. § 6801): GLBA — failure to safeguard financial
Penal Code § 33.02	ork Penal Law §§ 156.00 — $5,000; Texas Penal Code § 33.02 — $5,000; Illinois 720 ILCS 5/16D — $5,
47 U.S.C. § 605	1 — $10,000; 18 U.S.C. § 1030 — $5,000; 47 U.S.C. § 605 — $110,000; 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) — $50,120
18 U.S.C. § 371	18 U.S.C. § 1343 — $1,000,000 + 20 yrs; 18 U.S.C. § 371 — $500,000; 18 U.S.C. § 3571 — up to $5
18 U.S.C. § 3571	0 + 20 yrs; 18 U.S.C. § 371 — $500,000; 18 U.S.C. § 3571 — up to $500,000 per count. Military
42 U.S.C. § 1983	tual + punitive Constitutional torts 42 U.S.C. § 1983 No cap State actors State statutes v
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

136.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (7)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Unauthorised interception of chat communications.	her third‑party vendors. Counts: Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Unauthorised interception of chat communications. Count II – Violati
Count II – Violation of the CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorised access via insecure forms and tracking scripts.	interception of chat communications. Count II – Violation of the CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorised access via insecure forms and tracking scripts. Count III
Count III – Violation of CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Failure to provide opt‑out for data sharing.	insecure forms and tracking scripts. Count III – Violation of CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Failure to provide opt‑out for data sharing. Count IV – Violatio
Count IV – Violation of FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Deceptive practices.	to provide opt‑out for data sharing. Count IV – Violation of FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Deceptive practices. Count V – Violation of GLBA (15 U.S.C
Count V – Violation of GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Inadequate security safeguards.	U.S.C. § 45(a)): Deceptive practices. Count V – Violation of GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Inadequate security safeguards. Count VI – Bivens Constitutional Tort
Count VI – Bivens Constitutional Torts (IV, V, VI, VIII Amendments): Unreasonable search, due process, right to counsel, excessive fines.	801): Inadequate security safeguards. Count VI – Bivens Constitutional Torts (IV, V, VI, VIII Amendments): Unreasonable search, due process, right to counsel, e
Count VII – Common Law Tort Claims: Intrusion, public disclosure, negligence, conspiracy.	s, right to counsel, excessive fines. Count VII – Common Law Tort Claims: Intrusion, public disclosure, negligence, conspiracy. Damages Sought: Statutory damage

136.4 Dollar Figures (70)

$1.00 · $2.50 · $4.50 · $10.00 · $12.00 · $20.00 · $25.00 · $37.50 · $50.00 · $61.50 · $100.00 · $112.50 · $136.10 · $159.20 · $477.60 · $1,000.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $25,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $60,120.00 · $72,620.00 · $75,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $115,000.00 · $200,000.00 · $247,740.00 · $500,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $3,607,200.00 · $4,357,200.00 · $6,900,000.00 · $14,864,400.00 · $216,432,000.00 · $261,432,000.00 · $414,000,000.00 · $891,864,000.00 · $5,194,368,000.00 · $6,274,368,000.00 · $9,936,000,000.00 · $21,404,736,000.00 · $36,360,576,000.00 · $43,920,576,000.00 · $69,552,000,000.00 · $78,200,000,000.00 · $149,833,152,000.00 · $158,000,000,000.00 · $190,960,000,000.00 · $302,400,000,000.00 · $474,000,000,000.00 · $572,880,000,000.00 · $651,360,000,000.00 · $907,200,000,000.00 · $948,000,000,000.00 · $1,145,760,000,000.00 · $1,814,400,000,000.00 · $1,896,000,000,000.00 · $1,954,080,000,000.00 · $2,291,520,000,000.00 · $3,628,800,000,000.00 · $3,908,160,000,000.00 · $7,816,320,000,000.00 · $38,600,000,000,000.00 · $46,700,000,000,000.00 · $73,900,000,000,000.00 · $159,200,000,000,000.00

136.5 Dates (1)

2026-08-04

Section 137 of 261

Section 137 — Forensic Audit Report – Twin Lakes Estate (haydenoutdoors.com)

Source File	FORENSIC-0137-forensic-audit-report-hayden-outdoors-twin-lakes-estate-43cdd4aa.html
Created	September 7, 2026
Modified	2026-09-07 15:22:35
Size	31,573 bytes
SHA-256	43cdd4aa9c3c53229d4952865fa2b4df0ebc9a56f1ffa4d3f8b371c708a97536

137.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Hayden Outd
defendant	Hayden Outdoors	l affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Hayden Outdoors, LLC; Meta Platforms, Inc.; Alphabet Inc. (G

137.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (19)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 2511	rized Facebook Pixel Tracking High 2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511, 47 U.S.C. § 605, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798
47 U.S.C. § 605	el Tracking High 2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511, 47 U.S.C. § 605, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100, GDPR Art. 5
Civ. Code § 1798.100	18 U.S.C. § 2511, 47 U.S.C. § 605, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100, GDPR Art. 5‑7 Meta Pixel script block
GDPR Art. 5	.S.C. § 605, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100, GDPR Art. 5‑7 Meta Pixel script block 2 Google T
18 U.S.C. § 1030	Manager Without Prior Consent High 2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), GDPR Art. 7 GTM‑MTJ
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	ior Consent High 2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), GDPR Art. 7 GTM‑MTJDD2 iframe and scri
GDPR Art. 7	26 18 U.S.C. § 1030, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), GDPR Art. 7 GTM‑MTJDD2 iframe and script 3 HubSp
18 U.S.C. § 1343	cript Active High 2026 47 U.S.C. § 605, 18 U.S.C. § 1343 //js.hs‑scripts.com/8863428.js 4 Mat
5 U.S.C. § 552	alytics (WPMU DEV) Tracking Medium 2026 5 U.S.C. § 552a, GDPR Art. 5‑7 analytics.wpmucdn.com/m
County Code § 22	• County (Carroll County, TN): Carroll County Code § 22‑101 (unauthorized surveillance) – Penal
Civ. Code § 1798.150	ny. • State (California – CCPA): Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150 – Statutory damages $750 per consumer p
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)	l violation. • Federal (Wiretap Act): 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a) – $10,000 per violation + treble damage
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)	n + treble damages. • Federal (CFAA): 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C) – Unauthorized access to protected comp
Penal Code § 33.02	632, NY Penal Law §§ 156.00, 250.00, TX Penal Code § 33.02, etc. Federal U.S.C. Titles: 18 U.S.C
18 U.S.C. § 1961	ia interstate wires. Count IV – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Pattern of racketeering activity invo
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	& 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304 & 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 & Title 47, Telecommunications § 230

137.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (10)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Unlawful interception of electronic communications without consent.	; Automattic, Inc.; and Does 1‑100. Count I – Violation of Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Unlawful interception of electronic communications without consent. C
Count II – Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers to obtain information.	ronic communications without consent. Count II – Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers to obtain informati
Count III – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Scheme to defraud by transmitting tracking data via interstate wires.	cted computers to obtain information. Count III – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Scheme to defraud by transmitting tracking data via interstate wires. Count IV
Count IV – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Pattern of racketeering activity involving multiple predicate acts.	g tracking data via interstate wires. Count IV – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Pattern of racketeering activity involving multiple predicate acts. Count V – FTC Act
Count V – FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair and deceptive trade practices.	ty involving multiple predicate acts. Count V – FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair and deceptive trade practices. Count VI – California Consumer Privac
Count VI – California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150): Failure to provide opt‑out, sale of personal information.	Unfair and deceptive trade practices. Count VI – California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150): Failure to provide opt‑out, sale of personal infor
Count VII – Violation of Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Unauthorized maintenance of records on individuals.	pt‑out, sale of personal information. Count VII – Violation of Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Unauthorized maintenance of records on individuals. Count VIII – B
Count VIII – Bivens Constitutional Tort: Fourth Amendment unreasonable search and seizure; Fifth Amendment due process.	aintenance of records on individuals. Count VIII – Bivens Constitutional Tort: Fourth Amendment unreasonable search and seizure; Fifth Amendment due process. Co
Count IX – Common Law Invasion of Privacy (all four branches).	seizure; Fifth Amendment due process. Count IX – Common Law Invasion of Privacy (all four branches). Count X – Negligence and Negligent Su
Count X – Negligence and Negligent Supervision.	sion of Privacy (all four branches). Count X – Negligence and Negligent Supervision. Damages Sought: Compensatory, statu

137.4 Dollar Figures (56)

$0.01 · $0.02 · $0.10 · $0.36 · $0.60 · $1.20 · $4.70 · $6.00 · $21.60 · $36.00 · $72.00 · $360.00 · $750.00 · $864.00 · $1,000.00 · $1,296.00 · $1,713.00 · $1,728.00 · $5,000.00 · $6,048.00 · $8,640.00 · $10,000.00 · $12,096.00 · $26,280.00 · $31,104.00 · $45,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $52,560.00 · $60,480.00 · $78,840.00 · $157,680.00 · $217,728.00 · $262,800.00 · $315,360.00 · $630,720.00 · $788,400.00 · $946,080.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $1,576,800.00 · $2,838,240.00 · $3,153,600.00 · $5,676,480.00 · $11,352,960.00 · $110,000,000.00 · $220,000,000.00 · $1,000,000,000.00 · $1,100,000,000.00 · $1,102,640,000.00 · $2,756,000,000.00 · $3,000,000,000.00 · $3,541,508,700.00 · $4,000,000,000.00 · $4,722,011,600.00 · $6,600,000,000.00 · $10,000,000,000.00 · $14,166,034,800.00

137.5 Dates (1)

2026-09-07

Section 138 of 261

Section 138 — Forensic Audit Report – sc.gov Homepage

Source File	FORENSIC-0138-scgovaudit-e36f54f9.html
Created	August 2, 2026
Modified	2026-08-02 09:06:53
Size	47,593 bytes
SHA-256	e36f54f9b39ae0d0d16dc7e06dd6c597ccbb63d286bc39036a1ecd7a4f2b88f5

138.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: State of S
defendant	State	affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: State of South Carolina, Governor Henry D. McMaster, Lieutenant Governor Pamela Evette, CrazyEgg, Inc., New Reli

138.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (13)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 2511	Transmission (CrazyEgg) High 1999-2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511, 47 U.S.C. § 605, Cal. Penal Code § 631
47 U.S.C. § 605	zyEgg) High 1999-2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511, 47 U.S.C. § 605, Cal. Penal Code § 631 Line 7: <script
Penal Code § 631	18 U.S.C. § 2511, 47 U.S.C. § 605, Cal. Penal Code § 631 Line 7: <script type="text/javascript"
5 U.S.C. § 552	the Privacy Act of 1974 High 1999-2026 5 U.S.C. § 552a Entire page; collection of PII without
Civ. Code § 1798.100	rivacy Act (CCPA) Medium 2020-2026 Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq. No "Do Not Sell My Personal Inf
18 U.S.C. § 1030	11 Computer Fraud (CFAA) High 1999-2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030 Exceeding authorized access by collecti
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	l Trade Commission Act Medium 1999-2026 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) Unfair and deceptive practices in the c
County Code § 9-1	County (Richland County, SC): Richland County Code § 9-1 (Privacy) – Prohibits unauthorized surv
GDPR Article 6	and punitive. • International (GDPR): GDPR Article 6 – Lawfulness of processing. No lawful b
18 U.S.C. § 3571	azyEgg script). Criminal exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 3571: $1.296e+14 (up to $500,000 per count).
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

138.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (10)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications of users without consent, using tracking scripts to capture keystrokes, mouse movemen	he audited architecture. Counts: Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications of us
Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants exceeded authorized access to users' computers by deploying scripts that collected data beyond what was necessary for go	use movements, and browsing behavior. Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants exceeded authorized access to user
Count III – Violation of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Defendants maintained a system of records without providing adequate notice or obtaining consent, and disclosed PII to third-party vendors.	sary for government service delivery. Count III – Violation of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Defendants maintained a system of records without prov
Count IV – Violation of COPPA (15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506): Defendants failed to obtain verifiable parental consent for the collection of personal information from children under 13.	disclosed PII to third-party vendors. Count IV – Violation of COPPA (15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506): Defendants failed to obtain verifiable parental consent for the co
Count V – Violation of the CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Defendants failed to provide a "Do Not Sell My Personal Information" link and did not adequately disclose the sale of personal data to third parti	l information from children under 13. Count V – Violation of the CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Defendants failed to provide a "Do Not Sell My Personal Infor
Count VI – Violation of the GDPR (EU 2016/679): Defendants processed personal data of EU citizens without a lawful basis and without adequate safeguards.	le of personal data to third parties. Count VI – Violation of the GDPR (EU 2016/679): Defendants processed personal data of EU citizens without a lawful basis a
Count VII – Bivens Claim (Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth Amendments): Defendants, acting under color of state law, conducted warrantless surveillance of users' online activities, violating their right to be free	asis and without adequate safeguards. Count VII – Bivens Claim (Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth Amendments): Defendants, acting under color of state law, conducted
Count VIII – Violation of South Carolina Computer Crime Statute (S.C. Code Ann. § 16-17-430): Defendants accessed and used state computer systems to collect data without authorization.	ee from cruel and unusual punishment. Count VIII – Violation of South Carolina Computer Crime Statute (S.C. Code Ann. § 16-17-430): Defendants accessed and used
Count IX – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive practices by collecting user data without clear disclosure and consent.	o collect data without authorization. Count IX – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive practices by collectin
Count X – Invasion of Privacy (Intrusion Upon Seclusion): Defendants intentionally intruded upon the seclusion of users by deploying tracking scripts that captured their online activities.	without clear disclosure and consent. Count X – Invasion of Privacy (Intrusion Upon Seclusion): Defendants intentionally intruded upon the seclusion of users by

138.4 Dollar Figures (24)

$0.00 · $1.20 · $1.29 · $2.59 · $4.30 · $5.78 · $500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $195,364.00 · $500,000.00 · $1,367,548.00 · $5,947,000.00 · $17,841,000.00 · $35,682,000.00 · $71,364,000.00 · $866,072,600.00 · $1,108,965,000.00 · $1,156,096,800.00 · $1,926,828,000.00 · $5,780,484,000.00

138.5 Dates (1)

2026-08-02

Section 139 of 261

Section 139 — Forensic Audit Report – DeepSeek Chat Page

Source File	FORENSIC-0139-deep-seek-live-audit-44fbc0fb.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-08-01 07:58:34
Size	37,584 bytes
SHA-256	44fbc0fb3e500af09722e945f2361917d9c9350a95b66ead482229ffe118a6bd

139.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) including the user with I
defendant	DeepSeek	uding the user with IP 195.64.229.174 Defendants: DeepSeek (Beijing DeepSeek Artificial Intelligenc

139.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (22)

Citation	Source excerpt
GDPR Art. 5	and geolocation in meta tags High 2026 GDPR Art. 5(1)(a), 6(1); ePrivacy Dir. Art. 5(3); C
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)	rt. 5(3); GDPR Art. 5(1)(a), 6(1); CFAA 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C) Inline script: localStorage.getItem("__
18 U.S.C. § 2511	); GDPR Art. 5(1)(a), 6(1); Wiretap Act 18 U.S.C. § 2511; CCPA § 1798.100 Script tag: src="https
Penal Code § 502	ce. (Active 2026) • State (California Penal Code § 502 – unauthorized computer access): Unauth
Pen. Code § 502(e)(1)	0 per violation + treble damages. (Cal. Pen. Code § 502(e)(1)) • Federal (GDPR via 15 U.S.C. § 45 –
15 U.S.C. § 45	Code § 502(e)(1)) • Federal (GDPR via 15 U.S.C. § 45 – FTC Act): Unfair/deceptive practice –
Civ. Code § 1798.100	l equipment requires consent; CCPA Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 – right to know and opt‑out; penalty $2
County Code § 22	ort, International: • County (Harris County Code § 22 – privacy): Unauthorized transmission o
Penal Code § 33.02	$5,000 per occurrence. • State (Texas Penal Code § 33.02 – breach of computer security): Accessi
GDPR Art. 6	digital activities. • International (GDPR Art. 6(1)): No lawful basis for processing; Ar
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(C)	10,000 per violation. • Federal (CFAA 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(C)): Damage to protected computer via unau
County Code § 4.5	, International: • County (San Diego County Code § 4.5 – data security): Unauthorized transfer
18 U.S.C. § 1343	per violation. • Federal (Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. § 1343): Scheme to defraud by wire – using tel
County Code § 12.40.010	ons) County Ordinances: Los Angeles County Code § 12.40.010 (disclosure of identifying info); Cook
42 U.S.C. § 1983	minal fines); 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act); 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights); 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privac
5 U.S.C. § 552	Act); 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights); 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act). Penalties: CFAA $5,000+
18 U.S.C. § 3571	cking scripts). Criminal exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 3571: up to $500,000 per count = $2,500,000.
47 U.S.C. § 605	0 + 20 yrs Telemetry events (type 5) 47 U.S.C. § 605 (unauthorized publication) $110,000 IP
18 U.S.C. § 1030	interception of communications CFAA 18 U.S.C. § 1030 $5,000 + treble localStorage read (type
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

139.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (9)

Header	Source excerpt
count identifies 5 distinct violation types, each occurring at least once per user visit. With a statutory floor of 1 user per day and a single operational day established by the evidence, the total gross de	oD contractor status. The deterministic count identifies 5 distinct violation types, each occurring at least once per user visit. With a statutory floor of 1 us
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications (user interactions, page loads) without consent via embedded scripts. Each transmissi	(Liang Wenfeng, et al.). Counts: Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications (user
Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)): Unauthorized access to the user's computer (localStorage) to obtain information.	ssion constitutes a separate offense. Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)): Unauthorized access to the user's co
Count III – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Defendants devised a scheme to defraud users by collecting telemetry data under false pretenses, using wire communications to execute the scheme.	(localStorage) to obtain information. Count III – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Defendants devised a scheme to defraud users by collecting telemetry data under
Count IV – Unfair and Deceptive Practices (FTC Act § 5(a)): Defendants failed to disclose data collection practices, violating consumers' reasonable expectation of privacy.	communications to execute the scheme. Count IV – Unfair and Deceptive Practices (FTC Act § 5(a)): Defendants failed to disclose data collection practices, viola
Count V – Violation of California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Collected and sold personal data without notice or opt‑out, affecting California residents.	s' reasonable expectation of privacy. Count V – Violation of California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Collected and sold personal data witho
Count VI – Invasion of Privacy (Intrusion upon Seclusion): Intentionally intruded into plaintiffs' private affairs by deploying tracking scripts.	‑out, affecting California residents. Count VI – Invasion of Privacy (Intrusion upon Seclusion): Intentionally intruded into plaintiffs' private affairs by depl
Count VII – Conversion: Unauthorized dominion over plaintiffs' personal data and local storage contents.	ffairs by deploying tracking scripts. Count VII – Conversion: Unauthorized dominion over plaintiffs' personal data and local storage contents. Count VIII – Bive
Count VIII – Bivens Claim (Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth Amendments): Federal actors (under color of law) subjected plaintiffs to unreasonable search, deprivation of due process, denial of counsel (coerced data	onal data and local storage contents. Count VIII – Bivens Claim (Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth Amendments): Federal actors (under color of law) subjected plainti

139.4 Dollar Figures (42)

$0.00 · $1,000.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $25,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $57,620.00 · $60,120.00 · $75,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $382,522.00 · $500,000.00 · $573,782.00 · $717,228.00 · $812,858.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $1,010,000.00 · $1,060,120.00 · $1,195,380.00 · $1,500,000.00 · $1,695,380.00 · $2,486,390.00 · $2,500,000.00 · $2,695,380.00 · $3,586,140.00 · $5,000,000.00 · $6,060,120.00 · $7,172,280.00 · $8,367,660.00 · $16,953,800.00 · $20,544,560.00 · $25,539,940.00 · $33,776,960.00 · $35,861,400.00 · $108,759,580.00 · $218,275,540.00 · $436,551,080.00

139.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 140 of 261

Section 140 — Forensic Audit Report – Gene Guernsey & Associates (geneguernsey.com)

Source File	FORENSIC-0140-geneguernsey-audit-706cf55a.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-08-04 04:52:36
Size	41,768 bytes
SHA-256	706cf55a0cffad26c63c58267947e54101f82b87222f07ca48d9bd031a5ab854

140.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) – all users of Gene Guern
defendant	Gene Guernsey & Associates	users of Gene Guernsey & Associates. Defendants: Gene Guernsey & Associates, Inc., WordPress Foundation, IDX Broker, LLC. Counts: Count I – Violation of 18 U.S.

140.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (30)

Citation	Source excerpt
47 U.S.C. § 605	e file is materially non‑compliant with 47 U.S.C. § 605, 18 U.S.C. § 1030, GDPR, and 42 U.S.C.
18 U.S.C. § 1030	lly non‑compliant with 47 U.S.C. § 605, 18 U.S.C. § 1030, GDPR, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The determ
42 U.S.C. § 1983	S.C. § 605, 18 U.S.C. § 1030, GDPR, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The deterministic count of violations i
18 U.S.C. § 2511	etry Medium 2005–2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030, 18 U.S.C. § 2511, GDPR Art. 5(1)(a) Script blocks (idx‑o
GDPR Art. 5	026 18 U.S.C. § 1030, 18 U.S.C. § 2511, GDPR Art. 5(1)(a) Script blocks (idx‑omnibar, wp‑ap
Penal Code § 631	Medium 2005–2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511, Cal. Penal Code § 631, 47 U.S.C. § 605 Google Fonts / CDN res
5 U.S.C. § 552	ess, IDX) Medium 2005–2026 Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a), CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100) Coo
Civ. Code § 1798.100	ivacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a), CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100) Cookie usage (no consent banner) 4
15 U.S.C. § 45	nt Omission) Low 2005–2026 FTC Act § 5 (15 U.S.C. § 45), UNGP Principle 11 No cookie consent b
47 U.S.C. § 333	Access) Low 2005–2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030, 47 U.S.C. § 333, UCMJ Art. 134 Browser environment flag
Ord. Code § 4.20.030	ternational: • County (Nueces County Ord. Code § 4.20.030): Unauthorized collection of personal d
Penal Code § 33.02	$5,000 per violation. • State (Texas Penal Code § 33.02): Unauthorized computer access to obtai
Penal Code § 33.03	mprisonment per count. • State (Texas Penal Code § 33.03): Harassment via computer – including u
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)	enalty: $10,000 per count. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)): Unauthorized access to a protected co
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)	t + 10 years imprisonment. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)): Intentional interception of wire, ora
18 U.S.C. § 1343	er count + treble damages. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Wire fraud – use of interstate wires
47 U.S.C. § 605(a)	,000 per count + 20 years. • Federal (47 U.S.C. § 605(a)): Unauthorized publication/use of commu
Penal Code § 33.07	nalty: $1,000 per act. • State (Texas Penal Code § 33.07): Online impersonation – including unau
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A)	10,000 per count + treble. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A)): Transmission of code causing damage t
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	$5,000 per count. • Federal (FTC Act 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair/deceptive practices. Penalty:
County Code § 12.05.010	y, Tort, International: • County (LA County Code § 12.05.010): Unauthorized dissemination of persona
Commerce Code § 521.051	r consumer. • State (Texas Business & Commerce Code § 521.051): Unauthorized use of personal identify
18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7)	lty: $5,000 per violation. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7)): Identity fraud. Penalty: $100,000 per
15 U.S.C. § 6801	per count + 15 years. • Federal (GLBA 15 U.S.C. § 6801): Failure to protect customer informati
GDPR Art. 32	$100,000 per person. • International (GDPR Art. 32): Failure to implement appropriate secu
18 U.S.C. § 1362	Penalty: $5,000 per count. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1362): Damage to communication lines. Penalt
18 U.S.C. § 3571	unts: 0.24/sec. Criminal exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 3571: $1.2e7 (up to $500,000 per count). Civ
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

140.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (12)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA): Unauthorized access to protected computers to obtain and exfiltrate personal data (WordPress/IDX telemetry).	dation, IDX Broker, LLC. Counts: Count I – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA): Unauthorized access to protected computers to obtain and exfiltrate personal da
Count II – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act): Intentional interception of wire, oral, and electronic communications via telemetry hooks.	sonal data (WordPress/IDX telemetry). Count II – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act): Intentional interception of wire, oral, and electronic communicati
Count III – Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605: Unauthorized publication and use of intercepted communications.	c communications via telemetry hooks. Count III – Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605: Unauthorized publication and use of intercepted communications. Count IV – Viola
Count IV – Violation of Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Unauthorized disclosure of personal records (IP, device fingerprints, interaction data).	nd use of intercepted communications. Count IV – Violation of Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Unauthorized disclosure of personal records (IP, device fingerprint
Count V – Violation of CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Failure to secure personal information and improper data collection.	vice fingerprints, interaction data). Count V – Violation of CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Failure to secure personal information and improper data collecti
Count VI – Violation of FTC Act § 5 (15 U.S.C. § 45): Unfair/deceptive practices (dark patterns, coerced consent).	rmation and improper data collection. Count VI – Violation of FTC Act § 5 (15 U.S.C. § 45): Unfair/deceptive practices (dark patterns, coerced consent). Count V
Count VII – Tortious Intrusion upon Seclusion: Unauthorized surveillance and data collection.	ces (dark patterns, coerced consent). Count VII – Tortious Intrusion upon Seclusion: Unauthorized surveillance and data collection. Count VIII – Conversion: Wro
Count VIII – Conversion: Wrongful exercise of dominion over personal data.	zed surveillance and data collection. Count VIII – Conversion: Wrongful exercise of dominion over personal data. Count IX – Bivens Claim (Fourth Amend
Count IX – Bivens Claim (Fourth Amendment): Unreasonable search and seizure of personal data and devices.	rcise of dominion over personal data. Count IX – Bivens Claim (Fourth Amendment): Unreasonable search and seizure of personal data and devices. Count X – Bivens
Count X – Bivens Claim (Fifth Amendment): Self-incrimination via coerced data extraction.	seizure of personal data and devices. Count X – Bivens Claim (Fifth Amendment): Self-incrimination via coerced data extraction. Count XI – Bivens Claim (Sixth A
Count XI – Bivens Claim (Sixth Amendment): Right to counsel – denial of access to counsel during data extraction.	mination via coerced data extraction. Count XI – Bivens Claim (Sixth Amendment): Right to counsel – denial of access to counsel during data extraction. Count XI
Count XII – UCMJ Article 134: Disorders prejudicial to good order and discipline (all crimes).	ss to counsel during data extraction. Count XII – UCMJ Article 134: Disorders prejudicial to good order and discipline (all crimes). Damages Sought: Treble dama

140.4 Dollar Figures (55)

$1.00 · $1.09 · $1.20 · $1.27 · $1.44 · $1.46 · $1.64 · $1.82 · $1.83 · $1.95 · $2.16 · $2.18 · $2.40 · $2.56 · $2.74 · $3.12 · $3.15 · $3.27 · $3.92 · $4.00 · $4.36 · $4.80 · $5.01 · $5.48 · $5.87 · $6.00 · $6.74 · $7.00 · $7.20 · $7.50 · $8.00 · $8.64 · $1,000.00 · $1,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $25,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $75,000.00 · $90,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $500,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $5,400,000.00 · $130,000,000.00 · $910,000,000.00 · $3,960,000,000.00 · $11,900,000,000.00 · $23,800,000,000.00 · $47,600,000,000.00 · $1,090,000,000,000.00

140.5 Dates (1)

2005-03-14

Section 141 of 261

Section 141 — Forensic Audit Report – treasury.gov.ua

Source File	FORENSIC-0141-audit-treasury-ukraine-db5308d2.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-08-08 08:30:57
Size	43,952 bytes
SHA-256	db5308d27a0fe1931072f338c39861560a3e093f163468b91522886e924ad9eb

141.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) – estimated 10 million us
defendant	State Treasury Service	including US citizens and residents. Defendants: State Treasury Service of Ukraine; Tetyana Slyuz; Google LLC; Akamai Tech

141.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (28)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 2511	nalytics without consent High 2016–2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 18 U.S.C. § 1030; 47 U.S.C. § 605; Cal
18 U.S.C. § 1030	onsent High 2016–2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 18 U.S.C. § 1030; 47 U.S.C. § 605; Cal. Civ. Code § 1798
47 U.S.C. § 605	026 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 18 U.S.C. § 1030; 47 U.S.C. § 605; Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100; GDPR Art. 5
Civ. Code § 1798.100	18 U.S.C. § 1030; 47 U.S.C. § 605; Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100; GDPR Art. 5, 6, 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3)
GDPR Art. 5	.S.C. § 605; Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100; GDPR Art. 5, 6, 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3) <script async
GDPR Art. 44	026 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 18 U.S.C. § 1030; GDPR Art. 44–49; FTC Act § 5 <script src="https://ww
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)	oring and fingerprinting High 2016–2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C); 18 Pa.C.S. § 5741; Wiretap Act Embedde
GDPR Art. 7	tion of informed consent High 2016–2026 GDPR Art. 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); CalOPPA; COPPA (15
15 U.S.C. § 6501	7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); CalOPPA; COPPA (15 U.S.C. § 6501) No consent banner or preference centre
Penal Code § 631	arate violation. • State: California Penal Code § 631 (wiretapping) and § 637.2 – $5,000 per
Penal Code § 33.02	son; New York Penal Law § 250.00; Texas Penal Code § 33.02; Illinois 720 ILCS 5/16D‑3 – each track
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	ss; 47 U.S.C. § 605 – $110,000 per use; 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) – $50,120 per violation. • Military
18 U.S.C. § 1343	l: In addition to Wiretap Act and CFAA, 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud) – if service is misreprese
County Code § 22	ort, International: • County: Harris County Code § 22 (privacy) – each beacon is a separate v
County Code § 4.5	, International: • County: San Diego County Code § 4.5 – failure to provide clear opt‑out; eac
Prof. Code § 22575	ation. • State: CalOPPA (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22575) – requires conspicuous privacy policy;
Prof. Code § 17200	is a violation. • State: Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 – unfair competition; each user is a vi
18 U.S.C. § 1362	Federal: FTC Act § 5 – unfair practice; 18 U.S.C. § 1362 – damage to communication lines (if int
GDPR Art. 32	ch user is a claim. • International: GDPR Art. 32 – security of processing; each user is
Penal Code § 502	is a violation. • State: California Penal Code § 502 – unauthorized access; each submission
5 U.S.C. § 552	028, 1037, 1341, 371, 1001, 1589, 1961; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a), 6501–6506, 6801,
18 U.S.C. § 3571	for all counts. Criminal exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 3571: up to $500,000 per count (capped at $1
42 U.S.C. § 1983	+ punitive Constitutional violations 42 U.S.C. § 1983 No cap State actors (if any) State s
Pen. Code § 502	(if any) State statutes (e.g., Cal. Pen. Code § 502) $5,000 per count Unauthorized computer
18 U.S.C. § 1961	s a separate count. Count VII – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Enterprise (defendants) engaged in a
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

141.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (9)

Header	Source excerpt
count is used for tracking events, with higher penalties for specific statutes where applicable.	ger, a composite penalty of $25,000 per count is used for tracking events, with higher penalties for specific statutes where applicable. Violation Type Penalty
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications (tracking data) without consent. Over 500 million separate interceptions (tracking ev	med third‑party vendors. Counts: Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications (trac
Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers (users' devices) via scripts. Over 500 million counts.	rate interceptions (tracking events). Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers (u
Count III – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Deceptive trade practices – failure to disclose data collection and lack of consent.	via scripts. Over 500 million counts. Count III – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Deceptive trade practices – failure to disclose data collection
Count IV – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Failure to provide notice, opt‑out, and deletion rights for California residents.	data collection and lack of consent. Count IV – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Failure to provide notice,
Count V – Violation of the GDPR (Arts. 5, 6, 7, 13–14, 44–49): Unlawful data processing, lack of consent, inadequate transparency, and illegal cross‑border transfers.	tion rights for California residents. Count V – Violation of the GDPR (Arts. 5, 6, 7, 13–14, 44–49): Unlawful data processing, lack of consent, inadequate trans
Count VI – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Use of deceptive practices to induce users to visit the site; each visit is a separate count.	, and illegal cross‑border transfers. Count VI – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Use of deceptive practices to induce users to visit the site; each visit is a se
Count VII – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Enterprise (defendants) engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity (wire fraud, money laundering) through data collection and use.	site; each visit is a separate count. Count VII – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Enterprise (defendants) engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity (wire fraud, mo
Count VIII – Bivens Constitutional Torts: Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search/seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process), Sixth Amendment (right to counsel), Eighth Amendment (cruel/unusual). Each federal actor	ing) through data collection and use. Count VIII – Bivens Constitutional Torts: Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search/seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process), S

141.4 Dollar Figures (37)

$0.00 · $1.00 · $4.00 · $10.00 · $12.00 · $58.30 · $75.89 · $86.02 · $100.00 · $107.52 · $110.00 · $126.49 · $126.50 · $210.00 · $300.00 · $379.47 · $379.48 · $379.50 · $380.00 · $1,000.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $15,000.00 · $25,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $72,620.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $280,000.00 · $290,000.00 · $500,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $126,493,777,600,000.00 · $379,481,332,800,000.00

141.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 142 of 261

Section 142 — Forensic Audit Report – Kitsoft.ua

Source File	FORENSIC-0142-kit-soft-ua-audit-48383bef.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-08-08 07:26:40
Size	36,261 bytes
SHA-256	48383bef823718f7657022b4c32f650aed4d1f7216a302ff9b3ff9e2bce46072

142.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) – estimated 8 million use
defendant	Kitsoft	U residents and California residents. Defendants: Kitsoft (legal entity); CEO/Director; and any of

142.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (23)

Citation	Source excerpt
GDPR Art. 5	oads before user consent High 2018–2026 GDPR Art. 5, 6, 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); 18 U.S.C. §
18 U.S.C. § 2511	GDPR Art. 5, 6, 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); 18 U.S.C. § 2511; Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 <script type
Civ. Code § 1798.100	ivacy Art. 5(3); 18 U.S.C. § 2511; Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 <script type="module" src="https://stat
GDPR Art. 7	vs "all" is too broad Medium 2018–2026 GDPR Art. 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); CCPA Cookie banner
GDPR Art. 6	forms exist elsewhere) Medium 2018–2026 GDPR Art. 6; Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 Not on this
GDPR Art. 44	hout adequate safeguards High 2020–2026 GDPR Art. 44–49; Schrems II Cloudflare beacon sends
GDPR Art. 13	t or retention periods Medium 2018–2026 GDPR Art. 13; ePrivacy Cookie banner does not specif
Penal Code § 502	arate violation. • State: California Penal Code § 502 – unauthorized computer access; Cal. Ci
18 U.S.C. § 1030	erception of electronic communications; 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA) – unauthorized access; 47 U.S.C.
47 U.S.C. § 605	C. § 1030 (CFAA) – unauthorized access; 47 U.S.C. § 605 – unauthorized use; 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) –
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	ss; 47 U.S.C. § 605 – unauthorized use; 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) – deceptive practices. • Military (U
County Code § 4.5	, International: • County: San Diego County Code § 4.5 – data security; each user visit is a v
Civ. Code § 1798.135	visit is a violation. • State: Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.135 – clear and conspicuous opt‑out; not gr
County Code § 22	ook County Ordinance Chapter 30; Harris County Code § 22; Maricopa County Ordinance § 15; San Di
5 U.S.C. § 552	028, 1037, 1341, 371, 1001, 1589, 1961; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a), 6501–6506, 6801,
18 U.S.C. § 3571	for all counts. Criminal exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 3571: up to $500,000 per count (capped at $1
18 U.S.C. § 1343	counts: 850M. Criminal exposure: under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 – up to 20 years per count, but realist
42 U.S.C. § 1983	+ punitive Constitutional violations 42 U.S.C. § 1983 No cap State actors State statutes (
Pen. Code § 502	te actors State statutes (e.g., Cal. Pen. Code § 502) $5,000 per count Unauthorized computer
18 U.S.C. § 1961	s a separate count. Count VII – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Enterprise (Kitsoft) engaged in a pat
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

142.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (8)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications (analytics data) without consent. 16 million separate interceptions (beacon loads).	ta processing decisions. Counts: Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications (anal
Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers (users' devices) via Cloudflare script. 16 million counts.	eparate interceptions (beacon loads). Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers (u
Count III – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Deceptive trade practices – failure to provide granular consent and clear cookie information.	Cloudflare script. 16 million counts. Count III – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Deceptive trade practices – failure to provide granular consent
Count IV – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Failure to provide notice, opt‑out, and deletion rights for 400,000 California consumers.	consent and clear cookie information. Count IV – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Failure to provide notice
Count V – Violation of the GDPR (Arts. 5, 6, 7, 13–14, 44–49): Unlawful data processing, lack of granular consent, inadequate transparency, and illegal cross‑border transfers. 1.6 million EU user counts.	hts for 400,000 California consumers. Count V – Violation of the GDPR (Arts. 5, 6, 7, 13–14, 44–49): Unlawful data processing, lack of granular consent, inadequ
Count VI – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Use of deceptive practices to induce users to visit the site; each visit is a separate count.	ransfers. 1.6 million EU user counts. Count VI – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Use of deceptive practices to induce users to visit the site; each visit is a se
Count VII – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Enterprise (Kitsoft) engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity (wire fraud, money laundering) through data collection and use.	site; each visit is a separate count. Count VII – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Enterprise (Kitsoft) engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity (wire fraud, money
Count VIII – Bivens Constitutional Torts: Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search/seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process), Sixth Amendment (right to counsel), Eighth Amendment (cruel/unusual). Each federal actor	ing) through data collection and use. Count VIII – Bivens Constitutional Torts: Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search/seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process), S

142.4 Dollar Figures (36)

$0.00 · $1.00 · $1.15 · $2.00 · $5.00 · $8.00 · $10.00 · $20.20 · $23.76 · $24.75 · $35.36 · $50.00 · $50.51 · $80.00 · $88.00 · $138.00 · $151.53 · $151.60 · $151.62 · $280.00 · $1,000.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $72,620.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $280,000.00 · $287,500.00 · $500,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $50,508,730,368.00 · $151,526,191,104.00

142.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 143 of 261

Section 143 — Forensic Audit Report – treasury.gov.ua

Source File	FORENSIC-0143-audit-treasury-ukraine-2-d137b234.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-08-08 08:34:01
Size	42,642 bytes
SHA-256	d137b23434c8574e813b0be0ef23d314c7c0c4652000f40bff17790b1ea6dd28

143.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) – estimated 10 million us
defendant	State Treasury Service	including US citizens and residents. Defendants: State Treasury Service of Ukraine, Tetyana Slyuz (Head), Google LLC, Akamai Technologies,

143.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (22)

Citation	Source excerpt
County Code § 12.08	, International: County: Los Angeles County Code § 12.08 prohibits electronic surveillance witho
Penal Code § 631	nic communications. State: California Penal Code § 631 (wiretapping) and § 637.2 (civil remedy
Penal Code § 33.02	ies fines up to $5,000 per count; Texas Penal Code § 33.02 (breach of computer security) and equiv
18 U.S.C. § 2511	rovide additional penalties. Federal: 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act) provides civil damages of
18 U.S.C. § 1030	alties up to $100,000 and imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA) imposes fines of $5,000 per unau
47 U.S.C. § 605	unauthorised access and treble damages. 47 U.S.C. § 605 assesses $110,000 per unauthorised use
15 U.S.C. § 45	sed use of communications. The FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45) deems such practices unfair and decept
18 U.S.C. § 1343	of reCAPTCHA may constitute wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343) if the service is misrepresented as pu
County Code § 22	Tort, International: County: Harris County Code § 22‑15 prohibits collection of personally i
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)	d equivalents in all states. Federal: 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C) – access without authorisation to obtai
18 U.S.C. § 1362	is a count. Also possible violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1362 (communication lines). Military: UCMJ
GDPR Art. 5	user) without consent. International: GDPR Art. 5(1)(b) – purpose limitation – data colle
Professions Code § 22575	itoring. State: California Business & Professions Code § 22575 (CalOPPA) requires a conspicuous privac
15 U.S.C. § 6501	– interception without consent; COPPA (15 U.S.C. § 6501) if children under 13 are affected; $51
GDPR Art. 7	site is safe; damages. International: GDPR Art. 7, 13 – requirement for explicit consent
County Code § 4.5	rt, International: County: San Diego County Code § 4.5 (data security) requires secure transmi
42 U.S.C. § 1983	1362; 47 U.S.C. § 605; 15 U.S.C. § 45; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 5 U.S.C. § 552a. Penalties as detailed
5 U.S.C. § 552	605; 15 U.S.C. § 45; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 5 U.S.C. § 552a. Penalties as detailed. Military UCM
18 U.S.C. § 3571	nal exposure: up to $500,000 per count (18 U.S.C. § 3571) and consecutive imprisonment exceeding
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

143.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (10)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications of plaintiffs without consent, through the deployment of tracking scripts. Each inter	med third‑party vendors. Counts: Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications of pl
Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants exceeded authorised access and obtained information from protected computers without authorisation. Each access is a sep	ount. (Class action, treble damages.) Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants exceeded authorised access and obt
Count III – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45): Unfair and deceptive practices for failing to disclose tracking and obtain consent.	ion. Each access is a separate count. Count III – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45): Unfair and deceptive practices for failing to disclose tracking and
Count IV – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and similar state laws: Failure to provide notice and opt‑out rights.	disclose tracking and obtain consent. Count IV – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and similar state laws: Failure to provide notice and o
Count V – Violation of GDPR (EU) 2016/679: Processing personal data without lawful basis, no consent, inadequate international transfers.	to provide notice and opt‑out rights. Count V – Violation of GDPR (EU) 2016/679: Processing personal data without lawful basis, no consent, inadequate internati
Count VI – Invasion of Privacy (Intrusion upon Seclusion): Defendants intruded on plaintiffs' private affairs.	, inadequate international transfers. Count VI – Invasion of Privacy (Intrusion upon Seclusion): Defendants intruded on plaintiffs' private affairs. Count VII –
Count VII – Negligence: Defendants breached duty of care in protecting users’ data.	ruded on plaintiffs' private affairs. Count VII – Negligence: Defendants breached duty of care in protecting users’ data. Count VIII – Fraud/Misrepresentation:
Count VIII – Fraud/Misrepresentation: Defendants misrepresented the purpose of the scripts.	ty of care in protecting users’ data. Count VIII – Fraud/Misrepresentation: Defendants misrepresented the purpose of the scripts. Count IX – Civil Conspiracy: A
Count IX – Civil Conspiracy: All defendants agreed to the unlawful tracking.	presented the purpose of the scripts. Count IX – Civil Conspiracy: All defendants agreed to the unlawful tracking. Count X – Bivens Constitutional Torts
Count X – Bivens Constitutional Torts: For any federal actors involved, they violated Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment rights.	ants agreed to the unlawful tracking. Count X – Bivens Constitutional Torts: For any federal actors involved, they violated Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Ame

143.4 Dollar Figures (75)

$0.00 · $0.01 · $0.03 · $0.12 · $0.21 · $1.04 · $1.15 · $1.96 · $2.08 · $5.00 · $7.50 · $10.00 · $13.60 · $14.00 · $14.60 · $25.00 · $35.00 · $40.80 · $50.00 · $152.00 · $175.00 · $180.00 · $200.00 · $300.00 · $350.00 · $392.40 · $456.00 · $460.00 · $500.00 · $654.00 · $692.40 · $761.00 · $912.00 · $1,000.00 · $1,260.00 · $1,521.00 · $1,824.00 · $2,000.00 · $2,283.00 · $2,500.00 · $4,563.00 · $4,566.00 · $5,000.00 · $5,478.00 · $7,500.00 · $9,126.00 · $9,132.00 · $10,000.00 · $16,434.00 · $18,152.00 · $18,252.00 · $25,000.00 · $32,868.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $65,736.00 · $90,868.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $126,000.00 · $181,607.00 · $500,000.00 · $654,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $7,500,000.00 · $180,000,000.00 · $654,000,000.00 · $1,260,000,000.00 · $5,478,000,000.00 · $16,434,000,000.00 · $32,868,000,000.00 · $65,736,000,000.00 · $500,000,000,000.00 · $654,000,000,000.00

143.5 Dates (1)

2026-08-08

Section 144 of 261

Section 144 — Forensic Audit Report – Дія. Платформа Центрів

Source File	FORENSIC-0144-ua-data-mining-site-audit1-84791c2c.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-08-08 09:13:47
Size	39,368 bytes
SHA-256	84791c2cbb92462c2ae2b103666e56ca2ef233e0eef8a75b0e13ac4e7b5fc3f9

144.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) — all users of the Дія. П
defendant	Ministry	ssed, or transferred without consent. Defendants: Ministry of Digital Transformation of Ukraine, the Government of Ukraine, and all third-party service provider

144.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (14)

Citation	Source excerpt
GDPR Art. 7	n Personal Data Protection (Art. 6) and GDPR Art. 7. The page loads fonts from its own doma
GDPR Art. 6	ytics Tracking Without Consent Critical GDPR Art. 6, 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); Ukrainian Law N
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	ivacy Art. 5(3); NIST SP 800-53 (SI-7); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) Line 11 (polyfill.io) 3 Missing Cont
18 U.S.C. § 1030	ty Policy (CSP) High 15 U.S.C. § 45(a); 18 U.S.C. § 1030; NIST SP 800-53 No CSP header or meta t
50 U.S.C. § 1702	Data Transfer to Third Parties Critical 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 18 U.S.C. § 1343; GDPR Art. 45-46 poly
18 U.S.C. § 1343	hird Parties Critical 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 18 U.S.C. § 1343; GDPR Art. 45-46 polyfill.io (CDN), Goo
GDPR Art. 45	cal 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 18 U.S.C. § 1343; GDPR Art. 45-46 polyfill.io (CDN), Google Analytics
47 U.S.C. § 301	user consent constitutes a violation of 47 U.S.C. § 301 (unlicensed radio transmission) and 47
47 U.S.C. § 333	301 (unlicensed radio transmission) and 47 U.S.C. § 333 (interference with radio communications
44 U.S.C. § 3541	ederal agencies must comply with FISMA (44 U.S.C. § 3541) and NIST guidance; the absence of CSP
18 U.S.C. § 2713	ional security concerns. The Cloud Act (18 U.S.C. § 2713) compels US-based companies to disclose
18 U.S.C. § 2511	failures) 5 per finding Wiretap Act 18 U.S.C. § 2511 $10,000 + treble damages All users (dat
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

144.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (8)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intercepted wire, oral, and electronic communications (IP addresses, browsing data) without consent. Each data transmission constitutes a	llection and processing. Counts: Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intercepted wire, oral, and electronic communications (IP
Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants accessed Plaintiffs' computers without authorization through the placement of tracking cookies and JavaScript code. Plai	tion, trebled, plus punitive damages. Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants accessed Plaintiffs' computers wit
Count III – Violation of the Federal Wire Fraud Statute (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud Plaintiffs of their privacy rights through deceptive practices. Plaintiffs seek restitution	njunctive relief, and treble damages. Count III – Violation of the Federal Wire Fraud Statute (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud Plai
Count IV – Violation of GDPR (EU) 2016/679 (for EU Class Members): Defendants processed personal data of EU residents without lawful basis, consent, or adequate safeguards. Plaintiffs seek damages of up to €2	on, treble damages, and disgorgement. Count IV – Violation of GDPR (EU) 2016/679 (for EU Class Members): Defendants processed personal data of EU residents with
Count V – Violation of ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC (for EU Class Members): Defendants stored and accessed information on the terminal equipment of EU residents without consent. Plaintiffs seek damages of u	bal turnover, plus injunctive relief. Count V – Violation of ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC (for EU Class Members): Defendants stored and accessed information on
Count VI – Violation of the IEEPA (50 U.S.C. § 1702): Defendants transferred personal data to foreign-owned entities (Google, polyfill.io) without adequate safeguards. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and da	ages of up to €250,000 per violation. Count VI – Violation of the IEEPA (50 U.S.C. § 1702): Defendants transferred personal data to foreign-owned entities (Goog
Count VII – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive practices by failing to implement reasonable security measures (CSP, SRI, CSRF). Plaintiffs seek injunctive	s seek injunctive relief and damages. Count VII – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive practices by failing
Count VIII – Violation of Ukrainian Law on Personal Data Protection (No. 2297-VI): Defendants processed personal data of Ukrainian and other citizens without consent. Plaintiffs seek damages under Ukrainian law	ive relief, restitution, and damages. Count VIII – Violation of Ukrainian Law on Personal Data Protection (No. 2297-VI): Defendants processed personal data of U

144.4 Dollar Figures (27)

$1.36 · $1.42 · $1.58 · $4.28 · $15.00 · $90.00 · $142.70 · $158.55 · $180.00 · $300.00 · $540.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $10,000.00 · $30,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $137,830.00 · $250,600.00 · $270,000.00 · $10,500,000,000.00 · $15,000,000,000.00 · $99,000,000,000.00 · $180,000,000,000.00 · $300,000,000,000.00 · $1,296,000,000,000.00 · $1,620,000,000,000.00

144.5 Dates (1)

2016-07-27

Section 145 of 261

Section 145 — Forensic Audit Report – treasury.gov.ua

Source File	FORENSIC-0145-audit-treasury-ukraine-3-2d4a67f3.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-08-08 08:55:15
Size	42,096 bytes
SHA-256	2d4a67f35fab1cbff85d98fb26657e9b08cc2108464904233450d82fcd4bf40c

145.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	STATES DISTRICT COURT – CIVIL ACTION Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) – estimated 10 million us
defendant	State Treasury Service	including US citizens and residents. Defendants: State Treasury Service of Ukraine, Tetyana Slyuz (Head), Google LLC, Akamai Technologies,

145.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (22)

Citation	Source excerpt
County Code § 12.08	, International: County: Los Angeles County Code § 12.08 prohibits electronic surveillance witho
Penal Code § 631	nic communications. State: California Penal Code § 631 (wiretapping) and § 637.2 (civil remedy
Penal Code § 33.02	ies fines up to $5,000 per count; Texas Penal Code § 33.02 (breach of computer security) and equiv
18 U.S.C. § 2511	rovide additional penalties. Federal: 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act) provides civil damages of
18 U.S.C. § 1030	alties up to $100,000 and imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA) imposes fines of $5,000 per unau
47 U.S.C. § 605	unauthorised access and treble damages. 47 U.S.C. § 605 assesses $110,000 per unauthorised use
15 U.S.C. § 45	sed use of communications. The FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45) deems such practices unfair and decept
18 U.S.C. § 1343	of reCAPTCHA may constitute wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343) if the service is misrepresented as pu
County Code § 22	Tort, International: County: Harris County Code § 22‑15 prohibits collection of personally i
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)	d equivalents in all states. Federal: 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C) – access without authorisation to obtai
18 U.S.C. § 1362	is a count. Also possible violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1362 (communication lines). Military: UCMJ
GDPR Art. 5	user) without consent. International: GDPR Art. 5(1)(b) – purpose limitation – data colle
Professions Code § 22575	itoring. State: California Business & Professions Code § 22575 (CalOPPA) requires a conspicuous privac
15 U.S.C. § 6501	– interception without consent; COPPA (15 U.S.C. § 6501) if children under 13 are affected; $51
GDPR Art. 7	site is safe; damages. International: GDPR Art. 7, 13 – requirement for explicit consent
County Code § 4.5	rt, International: County: San Diego County Code § 4.5 (data security) requires secure transmi
42 U.S.C. § 1983	1362; 47 U.S.C. § 605; 15 U.S.C. § 45; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 5 U.S.C. § 552a. Penalties as detailed
5 U.S.C. § 552	605; 15 U.S.C. § 45; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 5 U.S.C. § 552a. Penalties as detailed. Military UCM
18 U.S.C. § 3571	nal exposure: up to $500,000 per count (18 U.S.C. § 3571) and consecutive imprisonment exceeding
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

145.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (10)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications of plaintiffs without consent, through the deployment of tracking scripts. Each inter	med third‑party vendors. Counts: Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications of pl
Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants exceeded authorised access and obtained information from protected computers without authorisation. Each access is a sep	ount. (Class action, treble damages.) Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants exceeded authorised access and obt
Count III – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45): Unfair and deceptive practices for failing to disclose tracking and obtain consent.	ion. Each access is a separate count. Count III – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45): Unfair and deceptive practices for failing to disclose tracking and
Count IV – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and similar state laws: Failure to provide notice and opt‑out rights.	disclose tracking and obtain consent. Count IV – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and similar state laws: Failure to provide notice and o
Count V – Violation of GDPR (EU) 2016/679: Processing personal data without lawful basis, no consent, inadequate international transfers.	to provide notice and opt‑out rights. Count V – Violation of GDPR (EU) 2016/679: Processing personal data without lawful basis, no consent, inadequate internati
Count VI – Invasion of Privacy (Intrusion upon Seclusion): Defendants intruded on plaintiffs' private affairs.	, inadequate international transfers. Count VI – Invasion of Privacy (Intrusion upon Seclusion): Defendants intruded on plaintiffs' private affairs. Count VII –
Count VII – Negligence: Defendants breached duty of care in protecting users' data.	ruded on plaintiffs' private affairs. Count VII – Negligence: Defendants breached duty of care in protecting users' data. Count VIII – Fraud / Misrepresentatio
Count VIII – Fraud / Misrepresentation: Defendants misrepresented the purpose of the scripts.	ty of care in protecting users' data. Count VIII – Fraud / Misrepresentation: Defendants misrepresented the purpose of the scripts. Count IX – Civil Conspiracy:
Count IX – Civil Conspiracy: All defendants agreed to the unlawful tracking.	presented the purpose of the scripts. Count IX – Civil Conspiracy: All defendants agreed to the unlawful tracking. Count X – Bivens Constitutional Torts
Count X – Bivens Constitutional Torts: For any federal actors involved, they violated Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment rights.	ants agreed to the unlawful tracking. Count X – Bivens Constitutional Torts: For any federal actors involved, they violated Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Ame

145.4 Dollar Figures (74)

$0.00 · $0.01 · $0.03 · $0.12 · $0.21 · $1.04 · $1.15 · $1.96 · $2.08 · $5.00 · $7.50 · $10.00 · $13.60 · $14.00 · $14.60 · $25.00 · $35.00 · $40.80 · $50.00 · $152.00 · $175.00 · $180.00 · $200.00 · $300.00 · $350.00 · $392.40 · $456.00 · $460.00 · $500.00 · $654.00 · $692.40 · $761.00 · $912.00 · $1,000.00 · $1,260.00 · $1,521.00 · $1,824.00 · $2,000.00 · $2,283.00 · $2,500.00 · $4,563.00 · $4,566.00 · $5,000.00 · $5,478.00 · $7,500.00 · $9,126.00 · $9,132.00 · $10,000.00 · $16,434.00 · $18,152.00 · $18,252.00 · $25,000.00 · $32,868.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $65,736.00 · $90,868.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $126,000.00 · $181,607.00 · $500,000.00 · $654,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $7,500,000.00 · $180,000,000.00 · $1,260,000,000.00 · $5,478,000,000.00 · $16,434,000,000.00 · $32,868,000,000.00 · $65,736,000,000.00 · $500,000,000,000.00 · $654,000,000,000.00

145.5 Dates (1)

2026-08-08

Section 146 of 261

Section 146 — Forensic Audit Report – Alibaba Cloud

Source File	FORENSIC-0146-audit-alibaba-cloud-77df6709.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-08-03 10:01:49
Size	43,268 bytes
SHA-256	77df6709fce996a69470b6558a123dbac94f7c5c11f31c9975cf705db33b0d34

146.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) – estimated 100 million u
defendant	Alibaba Cloud	U residents and California residents. Defendants: Alibaba Cloud (Alibaba Group); Daniel Zhang; Jingren Z

146.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (26)

Citation	Source excerpt
15 U.S.C. § 45	, and the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 45). The deterministic per‑count accountin
18 U.S.C. § 2511	UAB, and other trackers High 2009–2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap), 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA), 47
18 U.S.C. § 1030	h 2009–2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap), 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA), 47 U.S.C. § 605, CCPA, GDPR, eP
47 U.S.C. § 605	511 (Wiretap), 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA), 47 U.S.C. § 605, CCPA, GDPR, ePrivacy aplus_int.js , um
GDPR Art. 7	and tracking (GDPR/CCPA) High 2018–2026 GDPR Art. 7, ePrivacy Directive Art. 5(3), CCPA (op
Prof. Code § 17200	dium 2009–2026 FTC Act § 5, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, state consumer protection laws Text: "
GDPR Art. 44	safeguards (Schrems II) High 2020–2026 GDPR Art. 44–49, CJEU Schrems II ruling Data sent to
GDPR Art. 9	without explicit consent High 2020–2026 GDPR Art. 9, CCPA (sensitive personal information),
County Code § 22	Ordinance Chapter 30 – privacy; Harris County Code § 22 – privacy; Maricopa County Ordinance §
Penal Code § 502	arate violation. • State: California Penal Code § 502 (unauthorized computer access), § 631 (
Penal Code § 33.02	156.00–156.55 (computer crimes); Texas Penal Code § 33.02 (breach of computer security); Florida
5 U.S.C. § 552	5 – unauthorized use of communications; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act) – if federal employees u
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	t) – if federal employees use the site; 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act) – unfair/deceptive practices.
GDPR Art. 5	eparate tort claim. • International: GDPR Art. 5(1)(a) (lawfulness, fairness, transparen
County Code § 4.5	, International: • County: San Diego County Code § 4.5 (data security) – failure to provide cl
Professions Code § 17200	tion. • State: California Business & Professions Code § 17200 (unfair competition); Texas Deceptive T
18 U.S.C. § 1341	) (FTC Act) – unfair or deceptive acts; 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (mail fraud) – if prices are used to in
18 U.S.C. § 3571	for all counts. Criminal exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 3571: up to $500,000 per count (capped at $1
18 U.S.C. § 1343	counts: 1.8B. Criminal exposure: under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud) – up to 20 years per count
42 U.S.C. § 1983	(if federal actors use the platform) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 No cap State actors (if any) involved
Pen. Code § 502	involved State statutes (e.g., Cal. Pen. Code § 502) $5,000 per count Unauthorized computer
Civ. Code § 1798.100	e California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Failure to provide notice, op
18 U.S.C. § 1961	a separate count. Count VIII – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Enterprise (Alibaba Cloud) engaged in
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

146.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (10)

Header	Source excerpt
count 0.32 19.2 1,152 27,648 193,536 841,536 2,524,608 5,049,216 10,098,432 171,673,344,000	120 (FTC) + $7,500 (CCPA) = $72,620 per count 0.32 19.2 1,152 27,648 193,536 841,536 2,524,608 5,049,216 10,098,432 171,673,344,000 Consent Violations (GDPR/ePr
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications (user metadata, interactions) without consent. 6.8 billion separate interceptions (tr	d the data exfiltration. Counts: Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications (user
Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers (users’ devices) via third‑party scripts. 6.8 billion counts.	parate interceptions (tracker loads). Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers (u
Count III – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Deceptive trade practices – misleading pricing and failure to disclose data collection practices.	rd‑party scripts. 6.8 billion counts. Count III – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Deceptive trade practices – misleading pricing and failure to di
Count IV – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Failure to provide notice, opt‑out, and deletion rights for 20 million California consumers.	o disclose data collection practices. Count IV – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Failure to provide notice
Count V – Violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (740 ILCS 14): Collection of biometric data (if AI assistant uses voice/face) without informed written consent.	for 20 million California consumers. Count V – Violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (740 ILCS 14): Collection of biometric data (if AI as
Count VI – Violation of the GDPR (Arts. 5, 6, 7, 13–14, 44–49): Unlawful data processing, lack of consent, inadequate transparency, and illegal cross‑border transfers. 30 million EU user counts.	ce) without informed written consent. Count VI – Violation of the GDPR (Arts. 5, 6, 7, 13–14, 44–49): Unlawful data processing, lack of consent, inadequate tran
Count VII – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Use of deceptive pricing to induce purchases; each transaction is a separate count.	transfers. 30 million EU user counts. Count VII – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Use of deceptive pricing to induce purchases; each transaction is a separate co
Count VIII – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Enterprise (Alibaba Cloud) engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity (wire fraud, money laundering) through data collection and sale.	each transaction is a separate count. Count VIII – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Enterprise (Alibaba Cloud) engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity (wire fraud
Count IX – Bivens Constitutional Torts: Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search/seizure – data collection without warrant), Fifth Amendment (due process – lack of procedure for data rights), Sixth Amendment (ri	ng) through data collection and sale. Count IX – Bivens Constitutional Torts: Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search/seizure – data collection without warrant),

146.4 Dollar Figures (33)

$0.00 · $1.00 · $1.82 · $4.00 · $10.00 · $50.00 · $100.00 · $110.00 · $131.03 · $136.03 · $141.75 · $160.00 · $202.50 · $238.24 · $714.72 · $824.72 · $950.00 · $1,000.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $72,620.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $280,000.00 · $287,500.00 · $500,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $238,241,714,560.00 · $714,725,143,680.00

146.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 147 of 261

Section 147 — Forensic Audit Report – Target File (Part 3 of 4)

Source File	FORENSIC-0147-p3of4zendeskaudit-81161dbd.html
Created	July 30, 2026
Modified	2026-07-30 21:18:54
Size	34,869 bytes
SHA-256	81161dbd918e18e5d0f2e6cca6756234571c110de1cdbf9198868c00c38b8c2b

147.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Zendesk, I
defendant	Zendesk	affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Zendesk, Inc.; Google LLC; Segment.io, Inc.; OneTrust

147.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (26)

Citation	Source excerpt
GDPR Art. 6	rial form without explicit consent High GDPR Art. 6(1)(a), Art. 7; CCPA § 1798.100; Cal. Bu
Prof. Code § 17200	), Art. 7; CCPA § 1798.100; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 Form input for "owner.email" (lines 210
GDPR Art. 13	sparency regarding data processing High GDPR Art. 13; CCPA § 1798.100; FTC Act § 5(a) Privac
GDPR Art. 7	learly distinct from trial consent High GDPR Art. 7(4); ePrivacy Directive Art. 5(3); Cal.
Civ. Code § 1798.100	(4); ePrivacy Directive Art. 5(3); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 Checkbox for "optinToMarketing" (line 2
GDPR Art. 32	OptanonConsent) – no Secure flag Medium GDPR Art. 32; Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.81.5 Same as Par
Civ. Code § 1798.81.5	o Secure flag Medium GDPR Art. 32; Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.81.5 Same as Part 1, but persists in this pa
18 U.S.C. § 2511	ics (Segment, GTM) without consent High 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 47 U.S.C. § 605; GDPR Art. 44 (data tr
47 U.S.C. § 605	without consent High 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 47 U.S.C. § 605; GDPR Art. 44 (data transfers) Links to
GDPR Art. 44	High 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 47 U.S.C. § 605; GDPR Art. 44 (data transfers) Links to external scri
County Code § 12.04.010	International: • County: Los Angeles County Code § 12.04.010 (unlawful interception of personal data
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	gent up to $2,500. • Federal: FTC Act 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) – unfair or deceptive acts or practices
18 U.S.C. § 1343	nalty up to $50,120 per violation. Also 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud) if the collection is part
15 U.S.C. § 7701	to opt‑out). • Federal: CAN‑SPAM Act (15 U.S.C. § 7701) – requires affirmative consent for com
County Code § 22	ory Expansion (3×): • County: Harris County Code § 22 (privacy) – penalties. • State: Calif
Penal Code § 631	acy) – penalties. • State: California Penal Code § 631 (wiretapping). • Federal: 18 U.S.C. §
Police Code § 720	(3×): • County: San Francisco County Police Code § 720 (deceptive practices). • State: Cal.
GDPR Art. 5	– misrepresentation. • International: GDPR Art. 5(1)(a) – lawfulness, fairness, transpare
Penal Code § 33.02	York Penal Law §§ 156.00, 250.00; Texas Penal Code § 33.02. Federal U.S.C. Titles: 18 U.S.C. § 25
5 U.S.C. § 552	A), § 7701 (CAN‑SPAM); 47 U.S.C. § 605; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act). Military UCMJ Article
18 U.S.C. § 3571	ty for all counts; criminal fines under 18 U.S.C. § 3571 up to $500,000 per count; total crimina
42 U.S.C. § 1983	+ punitive Constitutional violations 42 U.S.C. § 1983 No cap State actors (if any) State s
15 U.S.C. § 6801	iolation of the Gramm‑Leach‑Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Failure to protect nonpublic personal
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

147.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (9)

Header	Source excerpt
Count Crime Accounting & Temporal Aggregation	t consent. 3. Deterministic Per‑Count Crime Accounting & Temporal Aggregation Methodology: For each distinct violat
Count I – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Unlawful collection of personal information without proper notice and opt‑out mechanisms.	d‑party data processors. Counts: Count I – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Unlawful collection of personal
Count II – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Deceptive practices through inadequate consent and dark patterns.	proper notice and opt‑out mechanisms. Count II – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Deceptive practices through inadequate consent and dark patterns.
Count III – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Unauthorized interception of electronic communications via tracking scripts.	inadequate consent and dark patterns. Count III – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Unauthorized interception of electronic communications via tr
Count IV – Violation of CAN‑SPAM Act (15 U.S.C. § 7701): Failure to obtain affirmative consent for marketing communications.	communications via tracking scripts. Count IV – Violation of CAN‑SPAM Act (15 U.S.C. § 7701): Failure to obtain affirmative consent for marketing communications
Count V – Violation of the Gramm‑Leach‑Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Failure to protect nonpublic personal information.	consent for marketing communications. Count V – Violation of the Gramm‑Leach‑Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Failure to protect nonpublic personal information. C
Count VI – Common Law Fraud and Deceit: Misrepresentation regarding data use.	otect nonpublic personal information. Count VI – Common Law Fraud and Deceit: Misrepresentation regarding data use. Count VII – Invasion of Privacy (Intr
Count VII – Invasion of Privacy (Intrusion Upon Seclusion): Intrusive monitoring of user interactions.	Misrepresentation regarding data use. Count VII – Invasion of Privacy (Intrusion Upon Seclusion): Intrusive monitoring of user interactions. Count VIII – Bivens
Count VIII – Bivens Claim (Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth Amendments): Constitutional violations by federal actors (if any).	sive monitoring of user interactions. Count VIII – Bivens Claim (Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth Amendments): Constitutional violations by federal actors (if any).

147.4 Dollar Figures (47)

$1.00 · $1.10 · $1.20 · $1.66 · $1.72 · $1.88 · $3.24 · $4.71 · $5.00 · $5.18 · $5.65 · $6.48 · $6.80 · $146.00 · $1,000.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $25,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $500,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $49,500,000.00 · $74,250,000.00 · $99,000,000.00 · $346,500,000.00 · $496,188,000.00 · $512,265,600.00 · $519,750,000.00 · $693,000,000.00 · $1,485,000,000.00 · $2,227,500,000.00 · $2,970,000,000.00 · $3,473,316,000.00 · $3,586,069,200.00 · $14,885,640,000.00 · $15,369,168,000.00 · $54,000,000,000.00 · $81,000,000,000.00 · $108,000,000,000.00 · $541,296,000,000.00 · $558,835,200,000.00

147.5 Dates (1)

2026-07-30

Section 148 of 261

Section 148 — Forensic Audit Report – Target File (Part 1 of 4)

Source File	FORENSIC-0148-p1of4zendeskaudit-3d0ba968.html
Created	July 30, 2026
Modified	2026-07-30 21:14:21
Size	36,342 bytes
SHA-256	3d0ba9682fe1b4f895373364f02a04ab7c605e5873e64ba0fc958321592d38ae

148.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Zendesk, I
defendant	Zendesk	affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Zendesk, Inc.; Google LLC (for GTM); Segment.io, Inc.

148.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (28)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 2511	otential violations of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) and the Stored Communications Act (18
18 U.S.C. § 2701	511) and the Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. § 2701) because they intercept electronic comm
47 U.S.C. § 605	ag Manager (GTM) High 18 U.S.C. § 2511, 47 U.S.C. § 605, California Penal Code § 631 Lines 19‑2
Penal Code § 631	.C. § 2511, 47 U.S.C. § 605, California Penal Code § 631 Lines 19‑24 2 Deceptive consent mech
Prof. Code § 17200	cript) High FTC Act § 5(a), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, GDPR Art. 7 Lines 2‑13 3 Third‑part
GDPR Art. 7	§ 5(a), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, GDPR Art. 7 Lines 2‑13 3 Third‑party data exfilt
18 U.S.C. § 1030	t (customer_analytics_integration) High 18 U.S.C. § 1030, GLBA § 6801, California Consumer Priva
GDPR Art. 32	f health data), PCI‑DSS (if financial), GDPR Art. 32 Lines 26‑29 5 Excessive collection o
Civ. Code § 1798.100	of user data via dataLayer Medium Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100, GDPR Art. 5(1)(c) (data minimization)
GDPR Art. 5	Layer Medium Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100, GDPR Art. 5(1)(c) (data minimization) Lines 14‑18
18 U.S.C. § 1362	analytics data (HTTP resources) Medium 18 U.S.C. § 1362 (damage to communication lines), FTC Ac
County Code § 12.04.010	International: • County: Los Angeles County Code § 12.04.010 (prohibition of eavesdropping without c
Penal Code § 631(a)	00 per violation. • State: California Penal Code § 631(a) – "any person who … willfully and wit
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)	$10,000 and imprisonment. • Federal: 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a) – "intentionally intercepts, endeavors
Police Code § 720	(3×): • County: San Francisco County Police Code § 720 (prohibition of deceptive business prac
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	500 per violation. • Federal: FTC Act 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) – unfair or deceptive acts or practices
18 U.S.C. § 1343	120 per violation (2026 adjusted). Also 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud) if the deception induces u
15 U.S.C. § 6801	ized third parties, violating the GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801) for financial institutions and the CCP
GDPR Art. 44	ecial relationship). • International: GDPR Art. 44 (transfer of personal data to third cou
Civil Code § 1798.81.5	es up to $10,000. • State: California Civil Code § 1798.81.5 (reasonable security procedures). • F
County Code § 22	munications) – § 30‑1 (privacy), Harris County Code § 22 (privacy), Maricopa County § 15 (wireta
Penal Code § 33.02	crimes), 250.00 (eavesdropping); Texas Penal Code § 33.02 (breach of computer security). Federa
18 U.S.C. § 3571	65,700,000,000. Criminal exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 3571: up to $500,000 per count (for misdemea
5 U.S.C. § 552	zed access to computers Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) $5,000 Insecure cookie handling (if g
42 U.S.C. § 1983	onal violations (4th, 5th, 6th, 8th) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 No cap State actors (if any) State s
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

148.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (11)

Header	Source excerpt
Count Crime Accounting & Temporal Aggregation	PIs later. 3. Deterministic Per‑Count Crime Accounting & Temporal Aggregation Methodology: For each distinct violat
count 50 transmissions. Over a day with 100,000 page loads, that is 5 million transmissions per day. We extrapolate for monthly and yearly. We also count the deceptive pre‑hiding script as a separate count pe	ansmit data. For a single page load, we count 50 transmissions. Over a day with 100,000 page loads, that is 5 million transmissions per day. We extrapolate for
count 20 years × 65.7B counts = infeasible, but legally each count could be separate; DOJ may aggregate under conspiracy). Criminal fines: $6.57e16.	consecutive): Sum of prison years (each count 20 years × 65.7B counts = infeasible, but legally each count could be separate; DOJ may aggregate under conspiracy
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications of users without consent, using Google Tag Manager and other tracking scripts.	identified in the file. Counts: Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications of use
Count II – Violation of the Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. § 2701): Unauthorized access to stored communications (cookies, session data) without consent.	g Manager and other tracking scripts. Count II – Violation of the Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. § 2701): Unauthorized access to stored communications (co
Count III – Violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Deceptive practices through pre‑hiding script and lack of genuine consent.	okies, session data) without consent. Count III – Violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Deceptive practices through pre‑hiding scri
Count IV – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Collection and sale of personal information without proper notice and opt‑out mechanisms.	g script and lack of genuine consent. Count IV – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Collection and sale of pe
Count V – Violation of the Gramm‑Leach‑Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Failure to protect nonpublic personal information.	proper notice and opt‑out mechanisms. Count V – Violation of the Gramm‑Leach‑Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Failure to protect nonpublic personal information. C
Count VI – Common Law Fraud and Deceit: Misrepresentations regarding data collection and consent.	otect nonpublic personal information. Count VI – Common Law Fraud and Deceit: Misrepresentations regarding data collection and consent. Count VII – Invasion of
Count VII – Invasion of Privacy (Intrusion Upon Seclusion): Intrusive monitoring of user interactions.	egarding data collection and consent. Count VII – Invasion of Privacy (Intrusion Upon Seclusion): Intrusive monitoring of user interactions. Count VIII – Bivens
Count VIII – Bivens Claim (Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth Amendments): Federal actors (if any) violated constitutional rights by participating in surveillance.	sive monitoring of user interactions. Count VIII – Bivens Claim (Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth Amendments): Federal actors (if any) violated constitutional right

148.4 Dollar Figures (53)

$1.00 · $1.09 · $1.10 · $1.21 · $1.25 · $1.37 · $1.47 · $1.50 · $2.73 · $3.42 · $3.75 · $4.11 · $4.92 · $5.47 · $5.48 · $6.57 · $8.21 · $8.22 · $8.75 · $14.70 · $500.00 · $1,000.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $25,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $500,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $100,000,000.00 · $25,000,000,000.00 · $50,000,000,000.00 · $75,000,000,000.00 · $100,000,000,000.00 · $175,000,000,000.00 · $350,000,000,000.00 · $500,000,000,000.00 · $501,200,000,000.00 · $525,000,000,000.00 · $700,000,000,000.00 · $750,000,000,000.00 · $1,500,000,000,000.00 · $2,250,000,000,000.00 · $3,000,000,000,000.00 · $3,500,000,000,000.00 · $3,508,400,000,000.00 · $15,000,000,000,000.00 · $15,036,000,000,000.00

148.5 Dates (1)

2026-07-30

Section 149 of 261

Section 149 — Forensic Audit Report – Email (TDCI Ticket #2503136)

Source File	FORENSIC-0149-emailauditzendesktngovcontractor-f591ff53.html
Created	July 30, 2026
Modified	2026-07-30 21:27:33
Size	32,472 bytes
SHA-256	f591ff53c3a9056cc980489298def8804dad3f9c2658f7f5ba70478180dd648e

149.1 Parties (3)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	Henri Bryant Lanier Sr	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: Henri Bryant Lanier Sr., Esq., Ph.D. (individually and on behalf of Ladco Def
defendant	TN Department	ehalf of Ladco Defense Technologies) Defendants: TN Department of Commerce & Insurance, Thorn Puckett, Zillow Group, Choice Homes, eXp Realty, Alissa Hughes, an
defendant	Thorn Puckett	unts: Count I – Defamation Per Se: Defendant Thorn Puckett/TDCI published false statements implyin

149.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (16)

Citation	Source excerpt
Civ. Code § 44	on law defamation, FTC Act § 5(a), Cal. Civ. Code § 44 Email banner: "The sender's email domai
42 U.S.C. § 1983	channel to facilitate private harm High 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents (constitu
18 U.S.C. § 2511	e scheme 4 Violation of Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) – email contains evidence of unlawful
47 U.S.C. § 605	ful interception High 18 U.S.C. § 2511, 47 U.S.C. § 605 Email references forensic audits that f
18 U.S.C. § 1961	ions by Zillow, Choice Homes 5 RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961) – pattern of racketeering to suppress
18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)	acketeering to suppress complaints High 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), (d) Coordinated effort to disparage an
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	Act (§ 47-18-104). • Federal: FTC Act 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) – unfair or deceptive acts or practices
GDPR Art. 8	business relations. • International: GDPR Art. 8(1) – processing of personal data (reput
18 U.S.C. § 1341	tion of rights under color of law; also 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (mail fraud) if the email is used to de
18 U.S.C. § 242	action for deprivation of rights; also 18 U.S.C. § 242 (deprivation of rights under color of l
GDPR Art. 5	ion upon seclusion). • International: GDPR Art. 5 – unlawful processing of communications
18 U.S.C. § 3571	r employee's acts; criminal fines under 18 U.S.C. § 3571; civil exposure under § 1983 and state
18 U.S.C. § 1964	00 + treble Email transmission RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1964) Treble damages Pattern of racketeering
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

149.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (8)

Header	Source excerpt
Count Crime Accounting & Temporal Aggregation	nications. 3. Deterministic Per‑Count Crime Accounting & Temporal Aggregation Methodology: For this email, we count
Count I – Defamation Per Se: Defendant Thorn Puckett/TDCI published false statements implying Plaintiff's business is unsafe, causing reputational harm.	thers acting in concert. Counts: Count I – Defamation Per Se: Defendant Thorn Puckett/TDCI published false statements implying Plaintiff's business is unsafe, c
Count II – Tortious Interference with Business Relations: Defendants, by CC'ing opposing parties, intentionally interfered with Plaintiff's prospective business relationships.	is unsafe, causing reputational harm. Count II – Tortious Interference with Business Relations: Defendants, by CC'ing opposing parties, intentionally interfered
Count III – Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Defendants, acting under color of law, deprived Plaintiff of rights to due process and equal protection.	s prospective business relationships. Count III – Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Defendants, acting under color of law, deprived Plaintiff of rights to due proc
Count IV – Violation of Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants unlawfully intercepted and used electronic communications.	to due process and equal protection. Count IV – Violation of Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants unlawfully intercepted and used electronic communication
Count V – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), (d)): Defendants engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity to suppress complaints and protect illegal data harvesting.	d and used electronic communications. Count V – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), (d)): Defendants engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity to suppress complaints
Count VI – Consumer Fraud (Tennessee Consumer Protection Act): Defendants failed to properly investigate and process the complaint.	and protect illegal data harvesting. Count VI – Consumer Fraud (Tennessee Consumer Protection Act): Defendants failed to properly investigate and process the co
Count VII – Bivens Claim (Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth Amendments): Federal officials (if any) participated in the scheme.	nvestigate and process the complaint. Count VII – Bivens Claim (Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth Amendments): Federal officials (if any) participated in the scheme.

149.4 Dollar Figures (38)

$1.09 · $1.42 · $1.55 · $1.61 · $1.65 · $1.76 · $3.30 · $4.40 · $5.28 · $5.47 · $11.27 · $48.30 · $500.00 · $5,000.00 · $10,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $70,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $300,000.00 · $350,000.00 · $350,840.00 · $500,000.00 · $550,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $1,500,000.00 · $1,503,600.00 · $3,500,000.00 · $5,000,000.00 · $7,000,000.00 · $10,000,000.00 · $10,950,000.00 · $15,000,000.00 · $30,000,000.00 · $54,750,000.00 · $54,881,400.00 · $547,500,000.00 · $1,095,000,000.00

149.5 Dates (1)

2026-07-30

Section 150 of 261

Section 150 — Forensic Audit Report – Target File (Part 4 of 4)

Source File	FORENSIC-0150-p4of4zendeskaudit-af475399.html
Created	July 30, 2026
Modified	2026-07-30 21:20:55
Size	35,398 bytes
SHA-256	af475399f834946fb242a8e1baba0d4fdd6255f0d7b6cef50c9c8c49a05a99c4

150.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Zendesk, I
defendant	Zendesk	affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Zendesk, Inc.; Google LLC; Segment.io, Inc.; OneTrust

150.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (25)

Citation	Source excerpt
GDPR Art. 7	e granular opt‑out before tracking High GDPR Art. 7, ePrivacy Directive Art. 5(3), CCPA § 1
GDPR Art. 6	(email, phone, company, job role) High GDPR Art. 6(1)(a), CCPA § 1798.100, Cal. Bus. & Pro
Prof. Code § 17200	. 6(1)(a), CCPA § 1798.100, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 __NEXT_DATA__ JSON containing form fiel
15 U.S.C. § 7701	sent High GDPR Art. 7(4), CAN‑SPAM Act (15 U.S.C. § 7701), Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 JSON field
Civ. Code § 1798.100	, CAN‑SPAM Act (15 U.S.C. § 7701), Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 JSON field "optin_lbl" and "optin_lbl_s
GDPR Art. 13	isclose all third‑party tracking Medium GDPR Art. 13, CCPA § 1798.100, FTC Act § 5(a) Footer
GDPR Art. 44	to third parties without consent Medium GDPR Art. 44, 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (if tracking occurs),
18 U.S.C. § 2511	es without consent Medium GDPR Art. 44, 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (if tracking occurs), FTC Act Social me
GDPR Art. 32	re flag on OptanonConsent cookie Medium GDPR Art. 32, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.81.5 Cookie sett
Civ. Code § 1798.81.5	onsent cookie Medium GDPR Art. 32, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.81.5 Cookie settings link, but no Secure fla
County Code § 12.04.010	International: • County: Los Angeles County Code § 12.04.010 – unlawful interception of communicatio
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	,500 per consumer. • Federal: FTC Act 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) – unfair or deceptive acts or practices
18 U.S.C. § 1343	material facts regarding data use; also 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud) if the collection is part
County Code § 22	ory Expansion (3×): • County: Harris County Code § 22 (privacy) – penalties. • State: Cal.
Police Code § 720	(3×): • County: San Francisco County Police Code § 720 (deceptive practices). • State: Cal.
Penal Code § 33.02	York Penal Law §§ 156.00, 250.00; Texas Penal Code § 33.02. Federal U.S.C. Titles: 18 U.S.C. § 25
47 U.S.C. § 605	Act), § 6801 (GLBA), § 7701 (CAN‑SPAM); 47 U.S.C. § 605; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act). Milit
5 U.S.C. § 552	A), § 7701 (CAN‑SPAM); 47 U.S.C. § 605; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act). Military UCMJ Article
GDPR Art. 5	International Treaties & Conventions: GDPR Art. 5, 6, 7, 13, 32, 44; ePrivacy Directive A
18 U.S.C. § 3571	ty for all counts; criminal fines under 18 U.S.C. § 3571 up to $500,000 per count; total crimina
42 U.S.C. § 1983	+ punitive Constitutional violations 42 U.S.C. § 1983 No cap State actors (if any) State s
15 U.S.C. § 6801	iolation of the Gramm‑Leach‑Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Failure to protect nonpublic personal
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

150.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (9)

Header	Source excerpt
Count Crime Accounting & Temporal Aggregation	tracking. 3. Deterministic Per‑Count Crime Accounting & Temporal Aggregation Methodology: For each violation type,
Count I – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Unlawful collection of personal information without proper notice and opt‑out mechanisms.	d‑party data processors. Counts: Count I – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Unlawful collection of personal
Count II – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Deceptive practices through inadequate consent and dark patterns.	proper notice and opt‑out mechanisms. Count II – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Deceptive practices through inadequate consent and dark patterns.
Count III – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Unauthorized interception of electronic communications via tracking scripts.	inadequate consent and dark patterns. Count III – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Unauthorized interception of electronic communications via tr
Count IV – Violation of CAN‑SPAM Act (15 U.S.C. § 7701): Failure to obtain affirmative consent for marketing communications.	communications via tracking scripts. Count IV – Violation of CAN‑SPAM Act (15 U.S.C. § 7701): Failure to obtain affirmative consent for marketing communications
Count V – Violation of the Gramm‑Leach‑Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Failure to protect nonpublic personal information.	consent for marketing communications. Count V – Violation of the Gramm‑Leach‑Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Failure to protect nonpublic personal information. C
Count VI – Common Law Fraud and Deceit: Misrepresentation regarding data use.	otect nonpublic personal information. Count VI – Common Law Fraud and Deceit: Misrepresentation regarding data use. Count VII – Invasion of Privacy (Intr
Count VII – Invasion of Privacy (Intrusion Upon Seclusion): Intrusive monitoring of user interactions.	Misrepresentation regarding data use. Count VII – Invasion of Privacy (Intrusion Upon Seclusion): Intrusive monitoring of user interactions. Count VIII – Bivens
Count VIII – Bivens Claim (Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth Amendments): Constitutional violations by federal actors (if any).	sive monitoring of user interactions. Count VIII – Bivens Claim (Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth Amendments): Constitutional violations by federal actors (if any).

150.4 Dollar Figures (47)

$1.00 · $1.06 · $1.10 · $1.16 · $1.30 · $1.83 · $2.47 · $3.42 · $3.87 · $5.53 · $8.00 · $9.67 · $18.34 · $35.46 · $219.00 · $248.22 · $1,000.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $25,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $500,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $16,500,000.00 · $24,750,000.00 · $115,500,000.00 · $170,755,200.00 · $173,250,000.00 · $495,000,000.00 · $742,500,000.00 · $1,195,286,400.00 · $1,674,750,000.00 · $5,122,656,000.00 · $11,723,250,000.00 · $16,787,000,000.00 · $18,000,000,000.00 · $27,000,000,000.00 · $50,242,500,000.00 · $117,509,000,000.00 · $186,278,400,000.00 · $503,530,000,000.00

150.5 Dates (1)

2026-07-30

Section 151 of 261

Section 151 — Rapporto di Revisione Forense – File Target

Source File	FORENSIC-0151-forensic-audit-easylivingtuscany-dot-com-4-august-2026-it-3442447c.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-08-04 10:56:30
Size	42,852 bytes
SHA-256	3442447ceedb0701a7742580db394b2f9c37428081e40371c590cd653b0c2efa

151.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

151.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (22)

Citation	Source excerpt
GDPR Art. 7	nso informato preventivo Alta 2024–2026 GDPR Art. 7, ePrivacy Art. 5(3), CCPA § 1798.100, 1
18 U.S.C. § 2511	7, ePrivacy Art. 5(3), CCPA § 1798.100, 18 U.S.C. § 2511 Righi 8‑17 (Facebook), 100‑111 (GA), 30
18 U.S.C. § 1030	ne input adeguata) Media 2024–2026 CFAA 18 U.S.C. § 1030, California Privacy Rights Act, GDPR Ar
GDPR Art. 32	§ 1030, California Privacy Rights Act, GDPR Art. 32 Righi 1810‑2109 (modulo popup) 3 Con
GDPR Art. 44	Google Fonts, reCAPTCHA) Alta 2024–2026 GDPR Art. 44‑49, CCPA § 1798.115, GLBA § 6801 Righi
GDPR Art. 5	024–2026 Direttiva ePrivacy 2002/58/EC, GDPR Art. 5(3), FTC Act 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) Righi 150
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	acy 2002/58/EC, GDPR Art. 5(3), FTC Act 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) Righi 1509‑1662 (banner cookie), righi
Civ. Code § 1798.100	• Stato (California): CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.) — mancata notifica e opt-out p
Penal Code § 631	tore per violazione. Inoltre California Penal Code § 631 (intercettazione) — intercettazione di
County Code § 4.5	• Contea (San Diego County): San Diego County Code § 4.5 (sicurezza dei dati) — la mancata imple
Professions Code § 17200	ato (California): California Business & Professions Code § 17200 (pratiche commerciali sleali, illegali
Penal Code § 502	commerciale sleale. Inoltre California Penal Code § 502 (accesso non autorizzato a computer) —
18 U.S.C. § 1343	iolazione + danni tripli. • Federale (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Frode telematica — il modulo fa parte
15 U.S.C. § 6801	+ 20 anni di reclusione. • Federale (15 U.S.C. § 6801): GLBA — Regola di salvaguardia (16 CFR
47 U.S.C. § 605	A; $5.000 per violazione. • Federale (47 U.S.C. § 605): Pubblicazione/utilizzo non autorizzat
Penal Code § 33.02	0 (crimini informatici) — $5.000; Texas Penal Code § 33.02 (violazione della sicurezza informatica
18 U.S.C. § 371	ode telematica) — $1.000.000 + 20 anni; 18 U.S.C. § 371 (cospirazione) — $500.000; 18 U.S.C. §
18 U.S.C. § 3571	U.S.C. § 371 (cospirazione) — $500.000; 18 U.S.C. § 3571 (sanzioni penali) — fino a $500.000 per
42 U.S.C. § 1983	iti costituzionali (IV, V, VI, VIII) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Nessun limite Attori statali (se applic
22 U.S.C. § 2295	onformità con gli standard stabiliti da 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304 e
50 U.S.C. § 1702	tandard stabiliti da 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304 e tutte le leggi fede
10 U.S.C. § 2304	da 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304 e tutte le leggi federali, statali e in

151.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

151.4 Dollar Figures (69)

$1.00 · $1.14 · $1.25 · $1.26 · $1.81 · $2.29 · $2.52 · $2.74 · $3.62 · $4.35 · $4.92 · $5.00 · $5.05 · $5.48 · $6.27 · $6.90 · $7.50 · $7.80 · $9.00 · $9.60 · $9.93 · $10.00 · $10.86 · $10.97 · $12.00 · $13.83 · $15.00 · $20.86 · $23.00 · $23.59 · $25.00 · $27.00 · $30.00 · $30.04 · $43.92 · $48.00 · $50.00 · $50.12 · $51.74 · $69.55 · $72.00 · $72.62 · $75.00 · $96.84 · $100.00 · $110.00 · $115.00 · $138.00 · $148.00 · $160.12 · $190.96 · $200.00 · $210.31 · $261.43 · $302.40 · $347.74 · $400.00 · $414.00 · $421.04 · $500.00 · $523.44 · $572.88 · $576.43 · $600.00 · $907.20 · $914.40 · $1,604.00 · $2,359.00 · $7,077.00

151.5 Dates (1)

2026-08-04

Section 152 of 261

Section 152 — Forensic Audit Report – Target File

Source File	FORENSIC-0152-forensic-audit-easylivingtuscany-dot-com-4-august-2026-en-f7564645.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-08-04 10:46:56
Size	39,556 bytes
SHA-256	f756464514ea96db5c9b8e89480dbf0dc27ca1f849435fdfbcf29c68dda0fed8

152.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Easyliving
defendant	Easyliving Tuscany	affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Easyliving Tuscany (owner/operator), Facebook, Inc., Google

152.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (22)

Citation	Source excerpt
GDPR Art. 7	t prior informed consent High 2024–2026 GDPR Art. 7, ePrivacy Art. 5(3), CCPA § 1798.100, 1
18 U.S.C. § 2511	7, ePrivacy Art. 5(3), CCPA § 1798.100, 18 U.S.C. § 2511 Lines 8‑17 (Facebook), 100‑111 (GA), 30
18 U.S.C. § 1030	input validation) Medium 2024–2026 CFAA 18 U.S.C. § 1030, California Privacy Rights Act, GDPR Ar
GDPR Art. 32	§ 1030, California Privacy Rights Act, GDPR Art. 32 Lines 1810‑2109 (popup form) 3 Third
GDPR Art. 44	Google Fonts, reCAPTCHA) High 2024–2026 GDPR Art. 44‑49, CCPA § 1798.115, GLBA § 6801 Lines
GDPR Art. 5	024–2026 ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC, GDPR Art. 5(3), FTC Act 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) Lines 150
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	ive 2002/58/EC, GDPR Art. 5(3), FTC Act 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) Lines 1509‑1662 (cookie banner), lines
Civ. Code § 1798.100	• State (California): CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.) — failure to provide notice an
Penal Code § 631	consumer per violation. Also California Penal Code § 631 (wiretapping) — interception of electro
County Code § 4.5	• County (San Diego County): San Diego County Code § 4.5 (data security) — failure to implement
Professions Code § 17200	ate (California): California Business & Professions Code § 17200 (unlawful, unfair, fraudulent business
Penal Code § 502	fair business practice. Also California Penal Code § 502 (unauthorized computer access) — insecu
18 U.S.C. § 1343	iolation + treble damages. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Wire Fraud — the form is part of a sc
15 U.S.C. § 6801	t + 20 years imprisonment. • Federal (15 U.S.C. § 6801): GLBA — Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 3
47 U.S.C. § 605	rns; $5,000 per violation. • Federal (47 U.S.C. § 605): Unauthorized publication/use of commu
Penal Code § 33.02	56.00 (computer crimes) — $5,000; Texas Penal Code § 33.02 (breach of computer security) — $5,000;
18 U.S.C. § 371	343 (Wire Fraud) — $1,000,000 + 20 yrs; 18 U.S.C. § 371 (conspiracy) — $500,000; 18 U.S.C. § 35
18 U.S.C. § 3571	8 U.S.C. § 371 (conspiracy) — $500,000; 18 U.S.C. § 3571 (criminal fines) — up to $500,000 per c
42 U.S.C. § 1983	itutional torts (4th, 5th, 6th, 8th) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 No cap State actors (if applicable)
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

152.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (7)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intercepted electronic communications of Plaintiffs without consent by placing tracking pixels and cookies. (Damages: $10,000 per violati	identified in Section 3. Counts: Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intercepted electronic communications of Plaintiffs witho
Count II – Violation of the CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants exceeded authorized access by injecting tracking scripts and failing to secure forms, enabling unauthorised access to Plaintiffs' data. (Damages	ges: $10,000 per violation + treble). Count II – Violation of the CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants exceeded authorized access by injecting tracking scripts a
Count III – Violation of California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Defendants failed to provide notice and opt‑out for sale/sharing of personal information. (Damages: $7,500 per intentional	ages: $5,000 per violation + treble). Count III – Violation of California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Defendants failed to provide notice
Count IV – Violation of FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive acts by misrepresenting their data collection practices. (Damages: $50,120 per violation).	s: $7,500 per intentional violation). Count IV – Violation of FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive acts by misrepresenting th
Count V – Violation of GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Defendants failed to implement a security program to protect financial data collected through forms. (Damages: $100,000 per violation).	es. (Damages: $50,120 per violation). Count V – Violation of GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Defendants failed to implement a security program to protect financial dat
Count VI – Bivens Constitutional Torts (Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth Amendments): Unreasonable search/seizure, deprivation of due process, denial of right to counsel (coerced data extraction), and excessive f	s. (Damages: $100,000 per violation). Count VI – Bivens Constitutional Torts (Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth Amendments): Unreasonable search/seizure, deprivation
Count VII – Common Law Tort Claims: Intrusion upon seclusion, public disclosure of private facts, negligence, and civil conspiracy. (Damages: economic × 3 + punitive).	: actual damages + punitive, no cap). Count VII – Common Law Tort Claims: Intrusion upon seclusion, public disclosure of private facts, negligence, and civil co

152.4 Dollar Figures (72)

$1.08 · $1.09 · $1.14 · $1.25 · $1.26 · $1.50 · $1.81 · $2.10 · $2.29 · $2.30 · $2.35 · $2.52 · $2.74 · $3.00 · $3.02 · $3.62 · $4.21 · $4.80 · $4.92 · $5.05 · $5.48 · $6.95 · $7.20 · $7.79 · $9.00 · $9.07 · $9.14 · $9.68 · $9.93 · $10.00 · $12.00 · $13.83 · $14.80 · $16.03 · $23.57 · $27.00 · $70.71 · $138.00 · $200.00 · $400.00 · $500.00 · $600.00 · $1,000.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $25,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $72,620.00 · $75,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $115,000.00 · $160,120.00 · $200,000.00 · $347,740.00 · $500,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $4,357,200.00 · $6,900,000.00 · $9,607,200.00 · $20,864,400.00 · $261,432,000.00 · $414,000,000.00 · $523,440,000.00 · $576,432,000.00 · $6,274,368,000.00 · $43,920,576,000.00 · $190,960,000,000.00 · $572,880,000,000.00

152.5 Dates (1)

2026-08-04

Section 153 of 261

Section 153 — Forensic Audit Report – IGNET (CIGIE) Homepage

Source File	FORENSIC-0153-audit-council-of-the-inspectors-general-on-integrity-and-eff-5c9b4400.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-30 07:06:52
Size	42,290 bytes
SHA-256	5c9b44004a0cf1bb283841a489105a29bd19575e9345ed5e63843d717f3f2a67

153.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) — all users of the IGNET
defendant	Council	ssed, or transferred without consent. Defendants: Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE), the United States Government (a

153.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (15)

Citation	Source excerpt
5 U.S.C. § 552	8/EC, and the U.S. Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a) which applies to federal agencies. Th
GDPR Art. 6	ytics Tracking Without Consent Critical GDPR Art. 6, 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); Privacy Act 5 U
18 U.S.C. § 2511	cal GDPR Art. 6, 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 Line 106 (fonts.googleapis.com) 3 Mi
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	sing Content Security Policy (CSP) High 15 U.S.C. § 45(a); 18 U.S.C. § 1030; NIST SP 800-53 No CS
18 U.S.C. § 1030	ty Policy (CSP) High 15 U.S.C. § 45(a); 18 U.S.C. § 1030; NIST SP 800-53 No CSP header or meta t
GDPR Art. 7	5 No Cookie Consent Mechanism Critical GDPR Art. 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); Privacy Act 5 U.S.
50 U.S.C. § 1702	Data Transfer to Third Parties Critical 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 18 U.S.C. § 1343; Privacy Act 5 U.S.C.
18 U.S.C. § 1343	hird Parties Critical 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 18 U.S.C. § 1343; Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a Google Ana
47 U.S.C. § 301	user consent constitutes a violation of 47 U.S.C. § 301 (unlicensed radio transmission) and 47
47 U.S.C. § 333	301 (unlicensed radio transmission) and 47 U.S.C. § 333 (interference with radio communications
44 U.S.C. § 3541	ederal agencies must comply with FISMA (44 U.S.C. § 3541) and NIST guidance; the absence of CSP
18 U.S.C. § 2713	ional security concerns. The Cloud Act (18 U.S.C. § 2713) compels US-based companies to disclose
28 U.S.C. § 1346	olation of the Federal Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C. § 1346): The United States is liable for the n
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

153.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (9)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intercepted wire, oral, and electronic communications (IP addresses, browsing data) without consent. Each data transmission constitutes a	llection and processing. Counts: Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intercepted wire, oral, and electronic communications (IP
Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants accessed Plaintiffs' computers without authorization through the placement of tracking cookies and JavaScript code. Plai	tion, trebled, plus punitive damages. Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants accessed Plaintiffs' computers wit
Count III – Violation of the Federal Wire Fraud Statute (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud Plaintiffs of their privacy rights through deceptive practices. Plaintiffs seek restitution	njunctive relief, and treble damages. Count III – Violation of the Federal Wire Fraud Statute (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud Plai
Count IV – Violation of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Defendants collected and disclosed records (IP addresses, browsing history) without consent and without public notice. Plaintiffs seek damage	on, treble damages, and disgorgement. Count IV – Violation of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Defendants collected and disclosed records (IP addresse
Count V – Violation of the Federal Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C. § 1346): The United States is liable for the negligent and intentional acts of its agencies, including the failure to implement reasonable securi	junctive relief, and attorneys' fees. Count V – Violation of the Federal Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C. § 1346): The United States is liable for the negligent and i
Count VI – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive practices by failing to implement reasonable security measures (CSP, SRI, CSRF) and by misrepresenting the p	Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages. Count VI – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive practices by failing t
Count VII – Violation of GDPR (EU) 2016/679 (for EU Class Members): Defendants processed personal data of EU residents without lawful basis, consent, or adequate safeguards. Plaintiffs seek damages of up to €2	ive relief, restitution, and damages. Count VII – Violation of GDPR (EU) 2016/679 (for EU Class Members): Defendants processed personal data of EU residents wit
Count VIII – Violation of ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC (for EU Class Members): Defendants stored and accessed information on the terminal equipment of EU residents without consent. Plaintiffs seek damages of u	bal turnover, plus injunctive relief. Count VIII – Violation of ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC (for EU Class Members): Defendants stored and accessed information
Count IX – Violation of the IEEPA (50 U.S.C. § 1702): Defendants transferred personal data to foreign-owned entities (Google, Pingdom) without adequate safeguards. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and damage	ages of up to €250,000 per violation. Count IX – Violation of the IEEPA (50 U.S.C. § 1702): Defendants transferred personal data to foreign-owned entities (Goog

153.4 Dollar Figures (28)

$3.00 · $9.00 · $15.70 · $17.43 · $18.00 · $30.00 · $54.00 · $150.50 · $156.90 · $174.30 · $470.70 · $5,000.00 · $10,000.00 · $30,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $125,300.00 · $250,600.00 · $270,000.00 · $1,800,000,000.00 · $3,000,000,000.00 · $8,100,000,000.00 · $16,500,000,000.00 · $18,000,000,000.00 · $30,000,000,000.00 · $121,500,000,000.00 · $147,900,000,000.00 · $162,000,000,000.00

153.5 Dates (1)

2016-07-27

Section 154 of 261

Section 154 — Forensic OSINT & Telemetry Registry – Master Audit

Source File	FORENSIC-0154-qaudit1-4c23bbd7.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-08-03 07:19:32
Size	33,755 bytes
SHA-256	4c23bbd7fbff4d93179dafb984ee9393801a7c71617bfb4a94ca2f771d3000b6

154.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

154.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (19)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 1030	below). Primary Applicable Statutes: 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud),
18 U.S.C. § 1343	able Statutes: 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (RICO),
18 U.S.C. § 1961	(CFAA), 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (RICO), GDPR Art. 5, 25, 32; FTC Act §
GDPR Art. 5	(Wire Fraud), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (RICO), GDPR Art. 5, 25, 32; FTC Act § 5; UCMJ Arts. 92, 10
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)	n many jurisdictions. Applicable Law: 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C), GDPR Art. 5(1)(a), 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (P
44 U.S.C. § 3501	.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C), GDPR Art. 5(1)(a), 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (Privacy Act). Count (Lifespan): 312,
47 U.S.C. § 301	th licensed spectrum. Applicable Law: 47 U.S.C. § 301, 18 U.S.C. § 1362, 47 C.F.R. § 15. Co
18 U.S.C. § 1362	rum. Applicable Law: 47 U.S.C. § 301, 18 U.S.C. § 1362, 47 C.F.R. § 15. Count (Lifespan): 10
47 C.F.R. § 15	Law: 47 U.S.C. § 301, 18 U.S.C. § 1362, 47 C.F.R. § 15. Count (Lifespan): 104,162,346
15 U.S.C. § 45	affirmative consent. Applicable Law: 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act), GDPR Art. 7, California Cons
GDPR Art. 7	plicable Law: 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act), GDPR Art. 7, California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA)
15 U.S.C. § 1681	ciliating debt traps. Applicable Law: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 (FCRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Count (Life
42 U.S.C. § 1983	pplicable Law: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 (FCRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Count (Lifespan): 83,329,856 e
18 U.S.C. § 1591	f child welfare data. Applicable Law: 18 U.S.C. § 1591, 42 U.S.C. § 671 (Title IV‑E), 18 U.S.C
42 U.S.C. § 671	ta. Applicable Law: 18 U.S.C. § 1591, 42 U.S.C. § 671 (Title IV‑E), 18 U.S.C. § 1028. Count
18 U.S.C. § 1028	. § 1591, 42 U.S.C. § 671 (Title IV‑E), 18 U.S.C. § 1028. Count (Lifespan): 41,664,928 f
18 U.S.C. § 1503	awful investigations. Applicable Law: 18 U.S.C. § 1503, 18 U.S.C. § 1512. Count (Lifespan):
18 U.S.C. § 1512	ns. Applicable Law: 18 U.S.C. § 1503, 18 U.S.C. § 1512. Count (Lifespan): 208,329,728
18 U.S.C. § 371	pan): 208,329,728 g. Conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371 / RICO) Evidence: Coordinated data sh

154.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

154.4 Dollar Figures (0)

—

154.5 Dates (1)

2026-08-03

Section 155 of 261

Section 155 — Updated Forensic Docket Audit

Source File	FORENSIC-0155-forensic-docket-audit-and-investigative-report-6a2ec278.html
Created	July 28, 2026
Modified	2026-07-28 14:00:05
Size	16,166 bytes
SHA-256	6a2ec2784b4993ad052373338691c8a5891ba7c609900942c332a37f5014a949

155.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

155.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (1)

Citation	Source excerpt
42 U.S.C. § 1983	the court were split into two separate 42 U.S.C. § 1983 / Civil Rights actions: Case 1: 3:25-

155.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

155.4 Dollar Figures (1)

$60.00

155.5 Dates (9)

2001-09-11 · 2001-09-18 · 2025-12-18 · 2025-12-19 · 2026-01-21 · 2026-02-06 · 2026-02-26 · 2026-03-16 · 2026-07-28

Section 156 of 261

Section 156 — Forensic Audit Report – passimpay.io (Index)

Source File	FORENSIC-0156-pasiampayioaudit-9751e35f.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-08-03 17:06:53
Size	42,314 bytes
SHA-256	9751e35fe88ee5898fdaf1cf489bd54e702f1b345f09802f2c1243dbf698bddd

156.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) – all users of PassimPay.
defendant	NILESPAY FINANCE INC	ass Action) – all users of PassimPay. Defendants: NILESPAY FINANCE INC., LinkedIn Corporation, Cloudflare, Inc. Counts: Count I – Violation of 18 U.S.C.

156.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (30)

Citation	Source excerpt
47 U.S.C. § 605	e file is materially non-compliant with 47 U.S.C. § 605, 18 U.S.C. § 1030, GDPR, and 42 U.S.C.
18 U.S.C. § 1030	lly non-compliant with 47 U.S.C. § 605, 18 U.S.C. § 1030, GDPR, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The determ
42 U.S.C. § 1983	S.C. § 605, 18 U.S.C. § 1030, GDPR, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The deterministic count of violations i
18 U.S.C. § 2511	ht Tag High 2023–2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030, 18 U.S.C. § 2511, GDPR Art. 5(1)(a) Script block (lintrk
GDPR Art. 5	026 18 U.S.C. § 1030, 18 U.S.C. § 2511, GDPR Art. 5(1)(a) Script block (lintrk) 2 Wireta
Penal Code § 631	) High 2023–2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511, Cal. Penal Code § 631, 47 U.S.C. § 605 Cloudflare Beacon scri
5 U.S.C. § 552	ntact Form) High 2023–2026 Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a), CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100) Con
Civ. Code § 1798.100	ivacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a), CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100) Contact form fields (email, phone, soc
15 U.S.C. § 45	eception) Medium 2023–2026 FTC Act § 5 (15 U.S.C. § 45), UNGP Principle 11 Cookie banner place
47 U.S.C. § 333	ccess) High 2023–2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030, 47 U.S.C. § 333, UCMJ Art. 134 Preload resources / envi
Penal Code § 502(c)(2)	AD 5,000 per violation. • State (Cal. Penal Code § 502(c)(2)): Unauthorized computer access to obtai
Penal Code § 631(a)	per count (2023–2026). • State (Cal. Penal Code § 631(a)): Wiretapping – interception of electro
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)	enalty: $10,000 per count. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)): Unauthorized access to a protected co
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)	t + 10 years imprisonment. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)): Intentional interception of wire, ora
18 U.S.C. § 1343	er count + treble damages. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Wire fraud – use of interstate wires
47 U.S.C. § 605(a)	,000 per count + 20 years. • Federal (47 U.S.C. § 605(a)): Unauthorized publication/use of commu
Penal Code § 632	enalty: $1,000 per act. • State (Cal. Penal Code § 632): Eavesdropping on confidential communi
Prof. Code § 17200	0 per violation. • State (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200): Unfair competition (including privacy
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A)	10,000 per count + treble. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A)): Transmission of code causing damage t
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	$5,000 per count. • Federal (FTC Act 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair/deceptive practices. Penalty:
County Code § 12.05.010	y, Tort, International: • County (LA County Code § 12.05.010): Unauthorized dissemination of persona
Penal Code § 530.5	violation per consumer. • State (Cal. Penal Code § 530.5): Identity theft – unauthorized use of
18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7)	lty: $5,000 per violation. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7)): Identity fraud. Penalty: $100,000 per
15 U.S.C. § 6801	per count + 15 years. • Federal (GLBA 15 U.S.C. § 6801): Failure to protect customer informati
GDPR Art. 32	$100,000 per person. • International (GDPR Art. 32): Failure to implement appropriate secu
18 U.S.C. § 1362	Penalty: $5,000 per count. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1362): Damage to communication lines. Penalt
18 U.S.C. § 3571	nts: 10.57/sec. Criminal exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 3571: $5.29e8 (up to $500,000 per count). Ci
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

156.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (12)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA): Unauthorized access to protected computers to obtain and exfiltrate personal data (LinkedIn Insight Tag).	ration, Cloudflare, Inc. Counts: Count I – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA): Unauthorized access to protected computers to obtain and exfiltrate personal da
Count II – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act): Intentional interception of wire, oral, and electronic communications via telemetry hooks.	personal data (LinkedIn Insight Tag). Count II – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act): Intentional interception of wire, oral, and electronic communicati
Count III – Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605: Unauthorized publication and use of intercepted communications.	c communications via telemetry hooks. Count III – Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605: Unauthorized publication and use of intercepted communications. Count IV – Viola
Count IV – Violation of Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Unauthorized disclosure of personal records (email, phone, social handles).	nd use of intercepted communications. Count IV – Violation of Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Unauthorized disclosure of personal records (email, phone, social h
Count V – Violation of CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Failure to secure personal information and improper data collection.	cords (email, phone, social handles). Count V – Violation of CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Failure to secure personal information and improper data collecti
Count VI – Violation of FTC Act § 5 (15 U.S.C. § 45): Unfair/deceptive practices (dark patterns, coerced consent).	rmation and improper data collection. Count VI – Violation of FTC Act § 5 (15 U.S.C. § 45): Unfair/deceptive practices (dark patterns, coerced consent). Count V
Count VII – Tortious Intrusion upon Seclusion: Unauthorized surveillance and data collection.	ces (dark patterns, coerced consent). Count VII – Tortious Intrusion upon Seclusion: Unauthorized surveillance and data collection. Count VIII – Conversion: Wro
Count VIII – Conversion: Wrongful exercise of dominion over personal data.	zed surveillance and data collection. Count VIII – Conversion: Wrongful exercise of dominion over personal data. Count IX – Bivens Claim (Fourth Amend
Count IX – Bivens Claim (Fourth Amendment): Unreasonable search and seizure of personal data and devices via WebUSB/WebSerial.	rcise of dominion over personal data. Count IX – Bivens Claim (Fourth Amendment): Unreasonable search and seizure of personal data and devices via WebUSB/WebSer
Count X – Bivens Claim (Fifth Amendment): Self-incrimination via coerced data extraction.	ata and devices via WebUSB/WebSerial. Count X – Bivens Claim (Fifth Amendment): Self-incrimination via coerced data extraction. Count XI – Bivens Claim (Sixth A
Count XI – Bivens Claim (Sixth Amendment): Right to counsel – denial of access to counsel during data extraction.	mination via coerced data extraction. Count XI – Bivens Claim (Sixth Amendment): Right to counsel – denial of access to counsel during data extraction. Count XI
Count XII – UCMJ Article 134: Disorders prejudicial to good order and discipline (all crimes).	ss to counsel during data extraction. Count XII – UCMJ Article 134: Disorders prejudicial to good order and discipline (all crimes). Damages Sought: Treble dama

156.4 Dollar Figures (58)

$1.00 · $1.09 · $1.27 · $1.37 · $1.62 · $1.74 · $1.83 · $1.91 · $2.26 · $2.35 · $2.64 · $2.70 · $2.98 · $3.15 · $3.17 · $3.39 · $3.48 · $3.65 · $3.75 · $4.75 · $4.89 · $5.01 · $5.29 · $5.59 · $5.80 · $6.34 · $6.35 · $7.96 · $8.10 · $8.58 · $8.64 · $9.51 · $9.55 · $11.30 · $1,000.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $25,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $75,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $103,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $500,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $6,200,000.00 · $372,000,000.00 · $8,930,000,000.00 · $62,500,000,000.00 · $272,000,000,000.00 · $816,000,000,000.00 · $1,630,000,000,000.00 · $3,260,000,000,000.00 · $11,300,000,000,000.00

156.5 Dates (1)

2023-02-14

Section 157 of 261

Section 157 — Forensic Audit Report – Richland County Family Court

Source File	FORENSIC-0157-rcscfcaudit1-b5a4c43c.html
Created	August 2, 2026
Modified	2026-08-02 09:19:28
Size	36,084 bytes
SHA-256	b5a4c43cee785bcfdc97c54f3cf15b7e308c03603cc69640bb5eb834b2ca90f4

157.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Richland C
defendant	Richland County	affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Richland County, South Carolina, Sheriff Leon Lott, Clerk of Court Jeanette McBride, New Relic, Inc., Google LLC

157.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (11)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 2511	Transmission (New Relic) High 1999-2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511, 47 U.S.C. § 605, S.C. Code Ann. § 16-1
47 U.S.C. § 605	Relic) High 1999-2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511, 47 U.S.C. § 605, S.C. Code Ann. § 16-17-430 Lines 139-1
5 U.S.C. § 552	the Privacy Act of 1974 High 1999-2026 5 U.S.C. § 552a Entire page; collection of PII without
Civ. Code § 1798.100	rivacy Act (CCPA) Medium 2020-2026 Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq. No "Do Not Sell My Personal Inf
18 U.S.C. § 1030	9 Computer Fraud (CFAA) High 1999-2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030 Exceeding authorized access by collecti
County Code § 9-1	County (Richland County, SC): Richland County Code § 9-1 (Privacy) – Prohibits unauthorized surv
GDPR Article 6	and punitive. • International (GDPR): GDPR Article 6 – Lawfulness of processing. No lawful b
18 U.S.C. § 3571	Relic script). Criminal exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 3571: $1.0512e+14 (up to $500,000 per count)
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

157.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (9)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications of users without consent, using tracking scripts to capture keystrokes, mouse movemen	he audited architecture. Counts: Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications of us
Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants exceeded authorized access to users' computers by deploying scripts that collected data beyond what was necessary for go	use movements, and browsing behavior. Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants exceeded authorized access to user
Count III – Violation of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Defendants maintained a system of records without providing adequate notice or obtaining consent, and disclosed PII to third-party vendors.	sary for government service delivery. Count III – Violation of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Defendants maintained a system of records without prov
Count IV – Violation of COPPA (15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506): Defendants failed to obtain verifiable parental consent for the collection of personal information from children under 13.	disclosed PII to third-party vendors. Count IV – Violation of COPPA (15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506): Defendants failed to obtain verifiable parental consent for the co
Count V – Violation of the CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Defendants failed to provide a "Do Not Sell My Personal Information" link and did not adequately disclose the sale of personal data to third parti	l information from children under 13. Count V – Violation of the CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Defendants failed to provide a "Do Not Sell My Personal Infor
Count VI – Violation of the GDPR (EU 2016/679): Defendants processed personal data of EU citizens without a lawful basis and without adequate safeguards.	le of personal data to third parties. Count VI – Violation of the GDPR (EU 2016/679): Defendants processed personal data of EU citizens without a lawful basis a
Count VII – Bivens Claim (Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth Amendments): Defendants, acting under color of state law, conducted warrantless surveillance of users' online activities, violating their right to be free	asis and without adequate safeguards. Count VII – Bivens Claim (Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth Amendments): Defendants, acting under color of state law, conducted
Count VIII – Violation of South Carolina Computer Crime Statute (S.C. Code Ann. § 16-17-430): Defendants accessed and used state computer systems to collect data without authorization.	ee from cruel and unusual punishment. Count VIII – Violation of South Carolina Computer Crime Statute (S.C. Code Ann. § 16-17-430): Defendants accessed and used
Count IX – Invasion of Privacy (Intrusion Upon Seclusion): Defendants intentionally intruded upon the seclusion of users by deploying tracking scripts that captured their online activities.	o collect data without authorization. Count IX – Invasion of Privacy (Intrusion Upon Seclusion): Defendants intentionally intruded upon the seclusion of users b

157.4 Dollar Figures (23)

$0.00 · $1.00 · $1.05 · $2.10 · $3.50 · $4.80 · $500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $51,744.00 · $162,244.00 · $500,000.00 · $1,135,708.00 · $4,938,000.00 · $14,814,000.00 · $29,628,000.00 · $59,256,000.00 · $719,960,400.00 · $920,475,000.00 · $959,947,200.00 · $1,599,912,000.00 · $4,799,736,000.00

157.5 Dates (1)

2026-08-02

Section 158 of 261

Section 158 — Forensic Audit – 9th Circuit E‑Filer Portal

Source File	FORENSIC-0158-audited-entity-9th-circuit-court-of-appeals-e-filer-portal-u-7b5132cf.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-08-21 10:48:31
Size	55,453 bytes
SHA-256	7b5132cf10b818f1510fcce33358ed49f49291461da5f7416f7b0bd3a3153f99

158.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: United Sta
defendant	United States	affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: United States (Administrative Office of the U.S. Court

158.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (25)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 2511	munications without valid consent under 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act), a breach of the Privacy
5 U.S.C. § 552	), a breach of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a) by improper disclosure of records, an
18 U.S.C. § 1030	ns of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) if the telemetry exceeds authorized ac
Civ. Code § 1798.100	ing/analytics High 2021‑2026 CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100); GDPR Art. 13, 14; ePrivacy Art. 5(3)
GDPR Art. 13	‑2026 CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100); GDPR Art. 13, 14; ePrivacy Art. 5(3) No cookie banne
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)	t explicit authorization High 2021‑2026 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C) Scripts collect information from the us
County Code § 4.5	, International: • County (San Diego County Code § 4.5): Data security – failure to protect pe
Penal Code § 502(c)	00 per violation. • State (California Penal Code § 502(c)): Unauthorized access to computer syste
Penal Code § 631	00 per violation. • State (California Penal Code § 631): Wiretapping – each transmission of te
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)	lty $10,000 per violation. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)): Wiretap Act – intentional interceptio
18 U.S.C. § 1343	alty $5,000 per violation. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1343 – Wire Fraud): Scheme to defraud by wir
GDPR Art. 5	punitive up to 10×. • International – GDPR Art. 5(1)(a), 6(1): Lawfulness, fairness, tran
GDPR Art. 44	es $2,500 per user. • International – GDPR Art. 44: Transfer of personal data to third cou
Professions Code § 17200	ation. • State (California Business & Professions Code § 17200): Unfair competition – deceptive practi
47 U.S.C. § 605	lty $50,120 per violation. • Federal (47 U.S.C. § 605): Unauthorized use of communications –
GDPR Art. 7	– damages per user. • International – GDPR Art. 7, 13: Conditions for consent and informa
Penal Code § 33.02	alty $5,000 per count. • State (Texas Penal Code § 33.02): Breach of computer security – penalty
County Code § 22	2; Cook County Ordinance Ch. 30; Harris County Code § 22; Maricopa County Ordinance § 15; San Di
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	1343; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 47 U.S.C. § 605; 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) – each count triggers multiple sections
18 U.S.C. § 2	Chief Judge under aiding and abetting (18 U.S.C. § 2). Civil and tort exposure: same.
18 U.S.C. § 3571	r its scripts). Criminal exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 3571 (corporate fines up to $500,000 per cou
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	& 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304 & 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 & Title 47, Telecommunications § 230

158.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (18)

158.4 Dollar Figures (52)

$1.20 · $1.91 · $2.41 · $2.86 · $3.62 · $4.24 · $6.17 · $7.25 · $10.95 · $12.73 · $30.00 · $30.87 · $30.90 · $109.50 · $120.00 · $120.45 · $424.00 · $617.58 · $1,000.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $18,299.00 · $23,854.00 · $50,120.00 · $110,000.00 · $263,500.00 · $500,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $1,097,917.00 · $1,431,250.00 · $61,758,000.00 · $65,875,000.00 · $85,875,000.00 · $1,581,000,000.00 · $2,061,000,000.00 · $10,950,000,000.00 · $11,067,000,000.00 · $14,427,000,000.00 · $48,120,000,000.00 · $62,730,000,000.00 · $109,500,000,000.00 · $144,360,000,000.00 · $188,160,000,000.00 · $288,720,000,000.00 · $376,320,000,000.00 · $577,440,000,000.00 · $617,580,000,000.00 · $752,640,000,000.00 · $3,256,761,600,000.00 · $4,244,889,600,000.00

158.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 159 of 261

Section 159 — Brief of Amicus Curiae – 31 Pages (Fully Expanded Forensic Audit Record)

Source File	FORENSIC-0159-aclanier2-7c52b9f6.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-08-21 12:22:00
Size	35,210 bytes
SHA-256	7c52b9f6bef163322d7f3e653a521584789edce1e3b0c155bfa9ee837bfd0554

159.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

159.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (0)

Citation	Source excerpt
no statutes extracted

159.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

159.4 Dollar Figures (0)

—

159.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 160 of 261

Section 160 — FORENSIC AUDIT REPORT – MILSPEC – CORRECTED

Source File	FORENSIC-0160-forensic-audit-report-failings-and-fintech-subversion-covid–97363de3.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-08-23 10:50:45
Size	76,594 bytes
SHA-256	97363de30ef7fd305c09618e3155f6d7ad14ce2d779b92dec2265c5afae0ef74

160.1 Parties (1)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
petitioner	On Petition	. Henri Bryant Lanier Sr., Esq., Ph.D., Petitioners On Petition for Extraordinary Writ of Mandamus Under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, to the United Stat

160.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (1)

Citation	Source excerpt
28 U.S.C. § 1651	of Mandamus Under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, to the United States Court of Appeal

160.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

160.4 Dollar Figures (60)

$0.90 · $1.00 · $1.20 · $1.50 · $1.80 · $2.10 · $2.50 · $2.67 · $3.50 · $4.00 · $4.20 · $4.50 · $5.50 · $6.70 · $6.80 · $7.20 · $10.60 · $14.00 · $18.70 · $25.00 · $33.00 · $34.80 · $35.00 · $37.76 · $40.00 · $41.50 · $44.30 · $45.00 · $50.00 · $51.00 · $54.00 · $55.00 · $60.00 · $61.20 · $63.60 · $65.00 · $65.20 · $69.00 · $70.60 · $74.00 · $94.20 · $120.00 · $127.70 · $220.00 · $274.90 · $289.90 · $321.00 · $402.10 · $403.00 · $447.60 · $884.90 · $950.00 · $1,000.00 · $5,000.00 · $10,000.00 · $15,000.00 · $78,000.00 · $187,000.00 · $320,000.00 · $450,000.00

160.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 161 of 261

Section 161 — Forensic Audit Report – MIL‑2026‑08‑24‑005 (55 Pages)

Source File	FORENSIC-0161-forensic-audit-report-mil-2026-08-24-003-3fb7bc92.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-08-24 09:03:06
Size	54,509 bytes
SHA-256	3fb7bc92f2e0374fb800c67ad823e5b08ca48b799ccb23e971b5412a350d06be

161.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

161.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (0)

Citation	Source excerpt
no statutes extracted

161.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

161.4 Dollar Figures (125)

$1.00 · $1.19 · $1.41 · $2.20 · $2.30 · $3.00 · $3.60 · $3.65 · $4.20 · $4.50 · $4.65 · $7.00 · $11.00 · $13.60 · $13.67 · $14.00 · $14.10 · $18.70 · $27.60 · $31.00 · $34.50 · $37.00 · $37.76 · $38.22 · $40.00 · $41.00 · $41.50 · $50.00 · $56.50 · $58.00 · $60.00 · $63.50 · $69.00 · $90.00 · $98.00 · $100.00 · $102.00 · $107.00 · $117.70 · $134.60 · $150.00 · $172.00 · $198.00 · $220.00 · $225.00 · $289.90 · $422.50 · $435.00 · $520.00 · $556.00 · $615.00 · $800.00 · $884.90 · $950.00 · $2,293.20 · $137,592.00 · $187,000.00 · $300,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $2,670,000.00 · $3,000,000.00 · $3,302,208.00 · $3,325,000.00 · $3,652,000.00 · $4,500,000.00 · $4,657,463.00 · $7,000,000.00 · $10,600,000.00 · $13,270,000.00 · $13,670,921.00 · $14,100,000.00 · $23,115,456.00 · $27,600,000.00 · $31,000,000.00 · $37,000,000.00 · $37,760,000.00 · $40,000,000.00 · $41,000,000.00 · $50,000,000.00 · $56,500,000.00 · $58,000,000.00 · $60,000,000.00 · $69,000,000.00 · $90,000,000.00 · $98,000,000.00 · $100,000,000.00 · $100,519,000.00 · $102,000,000.00 · $107,000,000.00 · $115,152,000.00 · $117,700,000.00 · $134,600,000.00 · $150,000,000.00 · $172,000,000.00 · $172,294,350.00 · $198,000,000.00 · $225,000,000.00 · $289,900,000.00 · $300,000,000.00 · $301,557,000.00 · $422,500,000.00 · $435,000,000.00 · $520,000,000.00 · $556,000,000.00 · $603,114,000.00 · $617,217,463.00 · $884,900,000.00 · $950,000,000.00 · $956,814,400.00 · $1,000,000,000.00 · $1,109,900,000.00 · $1,142,200,000.00 · $1,209,000,000.00 · $1,415,000,000.00 · $1,960,000,000.00 · $2,141,300,000.00 · $2,200,000,000.00 · $2,300,000,000.00 · $2,455,260,000.00 · $3,000,000,000.00 · $7,047,500,000.00 · $10,691,500,000.00 · $26,000,000,000.00 · $26,450,000,000.00 · $43,098,339,463.00

161.5 Dates (3)

2024-06-13 · 2025-11-20 · 2026-08-24

Section 162 of 261

Section 162 — FORENSIC AUDIT REPORT – MILSPEC – CORRECTED

Source File	FORENSIC-0162-forensic-audit-report-failings-and-fintech-subversion-covid–04108e86.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-08-23 08:54:58
Size	87,353 bytes
SHA-256	04108e86cfb62dd466c29f009a36ee1cc66a4e34891e4f744438faf949daa06f

162.1 Parties (1)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
petitioner	On Petition	. Henri Bryant Lanier Sr., Esq., Ph.D., Petitioners On Petition for Extraordinary Writ of Mandamus Under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, to the United Stat

162.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (1)

Citation	Source excerpt
28 U.S.C. § 1651	of Mandamus Under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, to the United States Court of Appeal

162.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

162.4 Dollar Figures (60)

162.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 163 of 261

Section 163 — FINAL FORENSIC REPORT – EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY

Source File	FORENSIC-0163-final-forensic-report-executive-authority-e33f1b35.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-08-21 18:00:58
Size	17,478 bytes
SHA-256	e33f1b35eb9d8683f2650f15d863607ff89c96b49159b60adc789ed08bb2d8ae

163.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

163.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (6)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	UTIVE PRIVILEGE ★ Authorized Via: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a & 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304
50 U.S.C. § 1702	Authorized Via: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a & 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304 & 26 C.F.R. 1.507-2
10 U.S.C. § 2304	22 U.S.C. § 2295a & 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304 & 26 C.F.R. 1.507-2 & 47 U.S.C. § 230
26 C.F.R. 1.507	& 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304 & 26 C.F.R. 1.507-2 & 47 U.S.C. § 230 Original 1 of 1
47 U.S.C. § 230	10 U.S.C. § 2304 & 26 C.F.R. 1.507-2 & 47 U.S.C. § 230 Original 1 of 1 \| ©1939–2026 Lanier
18 U.S.C. § 242	III. Color of Law Violations Analysis (18 U.S.C. § 242) Enforcement Data (2008): 68 federal

163.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

163.4 Dollar Figures (22)

$4.40 · $1,204.00 · $1,392.00 · $1,623.00 · $1,744.00 · $1,847.00 · $1,879.00 · $1,897.00 · $1,916.00 · $2,017.00 · $2,045.00 · $2,134.00 · $2,195.00 · $2,218.00 · $2,366.00 · $2,596.00 · $3,502.00 · $3,761.00 · $3,981.00 · $4,092.00 · $4,134.00 · $4,411.00

163.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 164 of 261

Section 164 — Forensic Audit Report – PACER Registration Wizard

Source File	FORENSIC-0164-audited-entity-pacer-registration-wizard-u-s-federal-judicia-95e5ee00.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-08-21 10:52:34
Size	50,937 bytes
SHA-256	95e5ee00995672de21fe034176949bdac5e9fd4ff5ee48ee3f62a62889cd0c5b

164.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: United Sta
defendant	United States	affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: United States (Administrative Office of the U.S. Court

164.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (25)

Citation	Source excerpt
5 U.S.C. § 552	osure of records under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a), a violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U
18 U.S.C. § 2511	552a), a violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) if the data transmission is considered
GDPR Art. 44	y Act § 552a(b); 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3); GDPR Art. 44; CCPA Lines: <link href="https://gov.co
GDPR Art. 7	2014‑2026 ePrivacy Directive Art. 5(3); GDPR Art. 7, 13; CCPA; FTC Act No cookie banner or
GDPR Art. 13	) High 2014‑2026 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3); GDPR Art. 13, 14 The page does not mention disclosur
Penal Code § 502(c)	00 per violation. • State (California Penal Code § 502(c)): Unauthorized computer access – access
Penal Code § 631	00 per violation. • State (California Penal Code § 631): Wiretapping – each data transmission
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)	alty $5,000 per violation. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)): Wiretap Act – intentional interceptio
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)	00 per violation + treble. • Federal (18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)): CFAA – obtaining information from a p
GDPR Art. 5	,000 per violation. • International – GDPR Art. 5(1)(a), 6(1): Lawfulness – no lawful bas
Professions Code § 17200	ation. • State (California Business & Professions Code § 17200): Unfair competition – deceptive practi
47 U.S.C. § 605	lty $50,120 per violation. • Federal (47 U.S.C. § 605): Unauthorized use of communications –
County Code § 4.5	utory Expansion: • County (San Diego County Code § 4.5): Data security – failure to provide no
County Code § 22	2; Cook County Ordinance Ch. 30; Harris County Code § 22; Maricopa County Ordinance § 15; San Di
Penal Code § 33.02	N.Y. Penal Law §§ 156.00, 250.00; Tex. Penal Code § 33.02; Fla. Stat. §§ 815.01, 934.01; 720 ILCS
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	1030; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 47 U.S.C. § 605; 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) – each count triggers multiple sections
18 U.S.C. § 2	as Director under aiding and abetting (18 U.S.C. § 2). Civil and tort exposure: same.
18 U.S.C. § 3571	(for its CDN). Criminal exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 3571 (corporate fines up to $500,000 per cou
18 U.S.C. § 1343	ount Applies to (violation types) 18 U.S.C. § 1343 $1,000,000 + 20 yrs Wire fraud – all in
18 U.S.C. § 1030	1 $10,000 + treble All interceptions 18 U.S.C. § 1030 $5,000 + treble All access events 5
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	& 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304 & 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 & Title 47, Telecommunications § 230
Civ. Code § 1798.100	without consent. Count V – CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Failure to provide notice and opt‑out

164.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (18)

164.4 Dollar Figures (49)

$1.38 · $2.62 · $2.70 · $4.25 · $4.42 · $7.17 · $9.37 · $13.28 · $28.12 · $57.67 · $69.00 · $69.20 · $576.70 · $600.00 · $634.37 · $937.50 · $1,000.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $18,299.00 · $23,507.00 · $50,120.00 · $110,000.00 · $263,500.00 · $500,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $1,097,917.00 · $1,410,417.00 · $65,875,000.00 · $84,625,000.00 · $138,408,000.00 · $1,581,000,000.00 · $2,031,000,000.00 · $11,067,000,000.00 · $14,217,000,000.00 · $48,120,000,000.00 · $57,670,000,000.00 · $61,807,500,000.00 · $144,360,000,000.00 · $185,422,500,000.00 · $288,720,000,000.00 · $370,845,000,000.00 · $576,700,000,000.00 · $577,440,000,000.00 · $741,690,000,000.00 · $7,298,841,600,000.00 · $9,374,961,600,000.00

164.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 165 of 261

Section 165 — Forensic Audit Report – Zillow Agent Profile

Source File	FORENSIC-0165-zillow-agent-audit-4d106237.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-30 17:52:26
Size	36,447 bytes
SHA-256	4d106237624120523489f48c94195ed9048ecbdff50cd238da8175ed4e3be74c

165.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) – estimated 1 million uni
defendant	Zillow Group	million unique visitors over 3 years. Defendants: Zillow Group, Inc., eXp Realty, LLC, Alissa Hughes, and John Does 1-50 (developers, operators). Counts:

165.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (26)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 2511	irect contravention of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511), the Electronic Communications Privacy
18 U.S.C. § 1961	cketeering activity under the RICO Act (18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq.) due to the coordinated scheme
GDPR Art. 5	onsent High 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap), GDPR Art. 5,6,7; CCPA § 1798.100; ePrivacy Art. 5(3
18 U.S.C. § 1343	s (Google) constituting wire fraud High 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud); CFAA 18 U.S.C. § 1030 Goo
18 U.S.C. § 1030	igh 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud); CFAA 18 U.S.C. § 1030 Google Analytics script sends user data
5 U.S.C. § 552	lation of Privacy Act and FTC Act) High 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	ct) High 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act) No direct privacy notice on p
GDPR Art. 21	nism (CCPA, GDPR) High CCPA § 1798.135; GDPR Art. 21; ePrivacy Art. 5(3) Cookie banner appea
GDPR Art. 32	FTC Medium FTC Act § 5; NIST SP 800‑53; GDPR Art. 32 No CSP, no HSTS, no X‑Frame‑Options hea
GDPR Art. 7	acy Directive) High ePrivacy Art. 5(3); GDPR Art. 7 document.cookie manipulation, sessionSt
Penal Code § 502	0 per occurrence. • State (California Penal Code § 502): Unauthorized access to computer syste
47 U.S.C. § 605	prisonment up to 10 years. • Federal (47 U.S.C. § 605 – Unauthorized Publication/Use of Commu
GDPR Art. 44	n; damages per user. • International (GDPR Art. 44-49): Transfer of personal data to a thi
Professions Code § 17200	user. • State (California Business & Professions Code § 17200): Unfair competition; each visit is a c
GDPR Art. 13	n; damages per user. • International (GDPR Art. 13): Controller must provide information;
County Code § 12.34	International: • County (Los Angeles County Code § 12.34): Requires affirmative consent for data
Commerce Code § 521.052	is a count. • State (Texas Business & Commerce Code § 521.052): Requires reasonable security procedur
County Code § 2.12.040	Citations) County Ordinances: King County Code § 2.12.040 (unauthorized interception); Santa Clar
Penal Code § 33.02	0 (unauthorized use of computer); Texas Penal Code § 33.02 (breach of computer security); Florida
15 U.S.C. § 45	.S.C. § 605 (unauthorized publication), 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act), § 6801 (GLBA); 5 U.S.C. § 55
18 U.S.C. § 3571	counts (8.76M). Criminal exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 3571: up to $500,000 per count × 8.76M = $4.
Civ. Code § 1798.100	e California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Failure to provide notice and
15 U.S.C. § 6801	ing. Count V – Violation of the GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Unauthorized sharing of financial inf
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

165.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (12)

Header	Source excerpt
Count Crime Accounting & Temporal Aggregation	tem usage. 3. Deterministic Per‑Count Crime Accounting & Temporal Aggregation Methodology: For each distinct violat
count 4 events per visitor. Lifespan: 3 years (1095 days).	nd cookie operations. We conservatively count 4 events per visitor. Lifespan: 3 years (1095 days). Violation Type Per‑Count Stat
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications (page visits, interactions) without consent.	(developers, operators). Counts: Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications (page
Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers via scripts and cookies.	isits, interactions) without consent. Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers vi
Count III – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Failure to provide notice and opt‑out, selling personal information without consent.	ed computers via scripts and cookies. Count III – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Failure to provide notic
Count IV – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair and deceptive practices in failing to disclose tracking and data sharing.	personal information without consent. Count IV – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair and deceptive practices in failing to disclose tracking an
Count V – Violation of the GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Unauthorized sharing of financial information (if any payment data collected).	o disclose tracking and data sharing. Count V – Violation of the GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Unauthorized sharing of financial information (if any payment data col
Count VI – Violation of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Government contractors (if any) mishandling personal data.	tion (if any payment data collected). Count VI – Violation of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Government contractors (if any) mishandling personal data. Coun
Count VII – Bivens Claim (403 U.S. 388): Fourth Amendment unreasonable search and seizure; Fifth Amendment due process; Sixth Amendment right to counsel (coerced data extraction); Eighth Amendment excessive su	s (if any) mishandling personal data. Count VII – Bivens Claim (403 U.S. 388): Fourth Amendment unreasonable search and seizure; Fifth Amendment due process; Si
Count VIII – Common Law Tort Claims: Intrusion upon seclusion, public disclosure of private facts, negligence, trespass to chattels, conversion, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.	hth Amendment excessive surveillance. Count VIII – Common Law Tort Claims: Intrusion upon seclusion, public disclosure of private facts, negligence, trespass to
Count IX – Violation of ePrivacy Directive (2002/58/EC) and GDPR: Processing without lawful basis and lack of consent, applicable to EU citizens.	nal infliction of emotional distress. Count IX – Violation of ePrivacy Directive (2002/58/EC) and GDPR: Processing without lawful basis and lack of consent, app
Count X – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Enterprise engaged in pattern of racketeering activity (fraud, wire fraud, money laundering) through systematic data theft.	f consent, applicable to EU citizens. Count X – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Enterprise engaged in pattern of racketeering activity (fraud, wire fraud, money launde

165.4 Dollar Figures (57)

$1.00 · $1.23 · $1.28 · $1.50 · $4.38 · $4.52 · $5.00 · $7.03 · $10.95 · $12.00 · $26.00 · $66.00 · $80.00 · $100.00 · $200.00 · $220.00 · $300.00 · $550.00 · $650.00 · $1,000.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $250,000.00 · $280,000.00 · $500,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $7,500,000.00 · $40,000,000.00 · $50,120,000.00 · $52,500,000.00 · $228,127,500.00 · $280,000,000.00 · $350,840,000.00 · $1,000,000,000.00 · $1,216,670,000.00 · $1,377,620,000.00 · $1,524,475,000.00 · $1,960,000,000.00 · $7,000,000,000.00 · $8,212,500,000.00 · $8,516,760,000.00 · $9,643,340,000.00 · $30,417,000,000.00 · $41,887,032,500.00 · $43,800,000,000.00 · $54,881,400,000.00 · $306,600,000,000.00 · $1,000,000,000,000.00 · $1,095,000,000,000.00 · $1,236,000,000,000.00 · $1,289,000,000,000.00 · $1,508,493,900,000.00 · $4,525,481,700,000.00

165.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 166 of 261

Section 166 — Forensic Audit Report – United States District Court for the District of South Carolina

Source File	FORENSIC-0166-sc-fed-court-audit-74f97a14.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-08-02 11:47:50
Size	37,713 bytes
SHA-256	74f97a14c3f9d2b1140139f3b4e9979a89d3d26c8bdbf1c99c1554ac99761365

166.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: United Sta
defendant	United States District Court	affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: United States District Court for the District of South Carolina (as an agency), the Clerk of Court, the

166.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (14)

Citation	Source excerpt
5 U.S.C. § 552	to comply with the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a) as applied to federal agencies, as we
18 U.S.C. § 2511	acy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a), Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511), CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030), FTC Act (15
18 U.S.C. § 1030	, Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511), CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030), FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45) Google Ana
15 U.S.C. § 45	511), CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030), FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45) Google Analytics snippet: ga('create
44 U.S.C. § 3501	2–2026 Privacy Act, E‑Government Act (44 U.S.C. § 3501 note), OMB Privacy Guidance Script: <
Civ. Code § 1798.100	Information" notice violates CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.). • Military (UCMJ): Not dire
44 U.S.C. § 3101	No PIA is evident. Federal Records Act, 44 U.S.C. § 3101 – requires proper management of records
Penal Code § 502	wiretapping statutes (e.g., California Penal Code § 502, New York Penal Law § 156.00, etc.) – t
41 U.S.C. § 3501	); 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (E‑Government Act); 41 U.S.C. § 3501 (FISMA). Military UCMJ Articles: Not
18 U.S.C. § 3571	: 9,131 counts. Criminal exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 3571: up to $500,000 per count (corporate fi
22 U.S.C. § 2295	This report is authorized under 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	is authorized under 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and 26 C.F.R. § 1.50
10 U.S.C. § 2304	er 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and 26 C.F.R. § 1.507‑2. Original Rele
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and 26 C.F.R. § 1.507‑2. Original Release 1 of 1. ©1939‑2026

166.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (6)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Defendants failed to provide public notice of their system of records, failed to obtain consent for disclosure to third parties (Google), and failed	strator, and Google LLC. Counts: Count I – Violation of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Defendants failed to provide public notice of their system of records
Count II – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications of plaintiffs without consent through the use of Google Analytics and AWStats trackin	iled to maintain adequate safeguards. Count II – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications
Count III – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants accessed plaintiffs' computers without authorization by injecting tracking scripts that collect data beyond what is nece	alytics and AWStats tracking scripts. Count III – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants accessed plaintiffs' computers wi
Count IV – Violation of the E‑Government Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. § 3501 note): Defendants failed to conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment and to post a privacy policy, as required.	sary for legitimate court operations. Count IV – Violation of the E‑Government Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. § 3501 note): Defendants failed to conduct a Privacy Impac
Count V – Bivens Claim (Fourth and Fifth Amendments): Defendants, acting under color of federal law, violated plaintiffs' right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures (Fourth) and deprived them o	o post a privacy policy, as required. Count V – Bivens Claim (Fourth and Fifth Amendments): Defendants, acting under color of federal law, violated plaintiffs'
Count VI – Negligence and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: Defendants' failure to protect personal data caused emotional distress and financial harm.	al data) without due process (Fifth). Count VI – Negligence and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: Defendants' failure to protect personal data cause

166.4 Dollar Figures (38)

$0.00 · $1.00 · $1.80 · $4.50 · $5.50 · $9.00 · $9.10 · $9.13 · $10.00 · $18.26 · $18.30 · $22.50 · $27.39 · $27.40 · $30.00 · $45.00 · $54.80 · $82.18 · $90.00 · $150.00 · $200.00 · $5,000.00 · $10,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $500,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $3,500,000.00 · $7,000,000.00 · $15,220,000.00 · $30,440,000.00 · $45,660,000.00 · $91,320,000.00 · $182,620,000.00 · $182,640,000.00 · $365,280,000.00 · $4,565,500,000.00 · $5,478,600,000.00 · $9,131,000,000.00

166.5 Dates (1)

2026-08-03

Section 167 of 261

Section 167 — Forensic Audit Report – ignet.gov Homepage

Source File	FORENSIC-0167-ignet-gov-audit-14e394f0.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-30 07:46:52
Size	39,842 bytes
SHA-256	14e394f0ff611a20201db3ba3b2bc88921e1414eaf476d92ba1639a6554ce0e2

167.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) represented by Henri Brya
defendant	CIGIE	Defense Technologies (as assigned). Defendants: CIGIE (Council of the Inspectors General on In

167.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (26)

Citation	Source excerpt
5 U.S.C. § 552	ta Collection via Google Analytics High 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 47 U.S.C. § 605; GDPR Art. 6, 7; ePri
47 U.S.C. § 605	Google Analytics High 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 47 U.S.C. § 605; GDPR Art. 6, 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3) Scr
GDPR Art. 6	High 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 47 U.S.C. § 605; GDPR Art. 6, 7; ePrivacy Art. 5(3) Script block: <s
18 U.S.C. § 1030	ia Pingdom RUM High Same as above; also 18 U.S.C. § 1030; 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) Script: <script src=
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	h Same as above; also 18 U.S.C. § 1030; 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) Script: <script src="//rum-static.pingd
40 U.S.C. § 11331	of-Life Software (Drupal 7) High FISMA (40 U.S.C. § 11331); NIST SP 800-53; 18 U.S.C. § 1361 Meta
18 U.S.C. § 1361	MA (40 U.S.C. § 11331); NIST SP 800-53; 18 U.S.C. § 1361 Meta generator: <meta name="Generator"
GDPR Art. 7	iency – No Explicit Consent Banner High GDPR Art. 7; ePrivacy Directive; 5 U.S.C. § 552a No
GDPR Art. 44	-Party Font Hosts (Google Fonts) Medium GDPR Art. 44; CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100) Exter
Civ. Code § 1798.100	Fonts) Medium GDPR Art. 44; CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100) External stylesheet: https://fonts.goo
42 U.S.C. § 12181	y Violations (ADA & Section 508) Medium 42 U.S.C. § 12181; 29 U.S.C. § 794d; WCAG 2.1 Images with
29 U.S.C. § 794	Section 508) Medium 42 U.S.C. § 12181; 29 U.S.C. § 794d; WCAG 2.1 Images with empty alt text (
18 U.S.C. § 2511	otection of private communications. • 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act): The real-time collection
10 U.S.C. § 2304	felony depending on damage amount. • 10 U.S.C. § 2304 (for federal contracts) and 26 CFR 1.50
Civ. Code § 1798.135	ersonal Information" link violates Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.135. Line Reference: No banner; footer
18 U.S.C. § 241	formation technology is accessible. • 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Conspiracy against rights): Denying ac
Columbia Code § 22-3151	County Ordinances: (e.g., District of Columbia Code § 22-3151 (Computer Crime) – applies to unauthori
Penal Code § 502	C law.) State Penal Codes: California Penal Code § 502 (Unauthorized access to computer system
Penal Code § 33.02	(Unauthorized use of a computer); Texas Penal Code § 33.02 (Breach of computer security). Each tra
18 U.S.C. § 3571	and several). Criminal exposure: Under 18 U.S.C. § 3571, fines up to $250,000 per count (but ca
GDPR Art. 83	of notice / unauthorized collection GDPR Art. 83 €250,000 or 4% global turnover – we use
15 U.S.C. § 45	instance of inaccessibility FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45) $50,120 per violation (2026 adjusted)
18 U.S.C. § 371	parties). Count X – Civil Conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371) and RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Coordinat
18 U.S.C. § 1961	Conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371) and RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Coordination among defendants to syst
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f

167.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (12)

Header	Source excerpt
Count Crime Accounting & Temporal Aggregation	le slides. 3. Deterministic Per‑Count Crime Accounting & Temporal Aggregation Methodology: For each distinct violat
count 5,475,000 5,000 $50,000,000 35,000 $350,000,000 152,200 $1,522,000,000 $54,750,000,000	gdom RUM Tracking $10,000 (Wiretap) per count 5,475,000 5,000 $50,000,000 35,000 $350,000,000 152,200 $1,522,000,000 $54,750,000,000 End-of-Life Software (per d
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Unlawful interception of electronic communications (user interactions) via Google Analytics and Pingdom scripts without consent, affecting millions	lopment and maintenance. Counts: Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Unlawful interception of electronic communications (user interaction
Count II – Violation of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Maintaining a system of records (IP, device, usage data) without proper notice and without allowing access/amendment.	ach transmission is a separate count. Count II – Violation of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Maintaining a system of records (IP, device, usage data) withou
Count III – Violation of GDPR (Art. 6, 7) and ePrivacy Directive: Processing personal data of EU residents without legal basis and without consent.	nd without allowing access/amendment. Count III – Violation of GDPR (Art. 6, 7) and ePrivacy Directive: Processing personal data of EU residents without legal b
Count IV – Violation of CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Failure to provide notice and opt-out for California residents.	hout legal basis and without consent. Count IV – Violation of CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Failure to provide notice and opt-out for California res
Count V – Violation of FISMA and NIST Standards: Failure to maintain secure software (Drupal 7 EOL) leading to vulnerability of federal systems.	and opt-out for California residents. Count V – Violation of FISMA and NIST Standards: Failure to maintain secure software (Drupal 7 EOL) leading to vulnerabili
Count VI – Violation of FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair and deceptive practices by collecting data without disclosure.	to vulnerability of federal systems. Count VI – Violation of FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair and deceptive practices by collecting data without disclosure.
Count VII – Violation of ADA and Section 508: Discrimination against individuals with disabilities by providing inaccessible content.	y collecting data without disclosure. Count VII – Violation of ADA and Section 508: Discrimination against individuals with disabilities by providing inaccessib
Count VIII – Violation of CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Exceeding authorized access (by executing scripts that transmit data without consent).	es by providing inaccessible content. Count VIII – Violation of CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Exceeding authorized access (by executing scripts that transmit data wi
Count IX – Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605: Unauthorized publication or use of communications (data transmitted to third parties).	that transmit data without consent). Count IX – Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605: Unauthorized publication or use of communications (data transmitted to third parti
Count X – Civil Conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371) and RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Coordination among defendants to systematically violate privacy laws as part of a pattern of racketeering activity (fraud by wire).	(data transmitted to third parties). Count X – Civil Conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371) and RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Coordination among defendants to systematically v

167.4 Dollar Figures (46)

$1.31 · $1.50 · $2.30 · $27.00 · $62.40 · $397.90 · $450.70 · $1,000.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $30,000.00 · $35,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $75,000.00 · $152,200.00 · $250,000.00 · $275,000.00 · $500,000.00 · $5,000,000.00 · $5,475,000.00 · $25,000,000.00 · $35,000,000.00 · $37,500,000.00 · $50,000,000.00 · $152,200,000.00 · $175,000,000.00 · $262,500,000.00 · $350,000,000.00 · $375,000,000.00 · $567,500,000.00 · $761,000,000.00 · $1,141,500,000.00 · $1,522,000,000.00 · $2,625,000,000.00 · $3,972,500,000.00 · $5,475,000,000.00 · $11,415,000,000.00 · $17,314,652,200.00 · $27,375,000,000.00 · $41,062,500,000.00 · $54,750,000,000.00 · $410,625,000,000.00 · $450,713,717,293.00 · $623,687,475,000.00

167.5 Dates (2)

2023-11-01 · 2026-07-30

Section 168 of 261

Section 168 — Forensic Audit Report – ZenCreator.pro

Source File	FORENSIC-0168-audit-zencreator-02406dd5.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-08-03 09:53:44
Size	47,453 bytes
SHA-256	02406dd55c5534ba427fd1db6588e9d3750e2b634a2421dc108657ca65987e7b

168.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) – estimated 500,000 users
defendant	ZenCreator	s, including minors and EU residents. Defendants: ZenCreator, LLC (Delaware); Dimeris Ltd. (Cyprus); John/

168.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (30)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 2511	Featurebase, Trustpilot) High 2024–2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap), 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA), 47
18 U.S.C. § 1030	h 2024–2026 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap), 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA), 47 U.S.C. § 605, CCPA, GDPR, eP
47 U.S.C. § 605	511 (Wiretap), 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA), 47 U.S.C. § 605, CCPA, GDPR, ePrivacy HTML <script> tag
18 U.S.C. § 1028	S.C. §§ 2251–2260 (child exploitation), 18 U.S.C. § 1028 (identity fraud), 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wir
18 U.S.C. § 1343	on), 18 U.S.C. § 1028 (identity fraud), 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud), state impersonation laws
Civ. Code § 1798.100	n Privacy Act (740 ILCS 14), CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100), GDPR Art. 9 Face Swap, Lipsync, AI In
GDPR Art. 9	14), CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100), GDPR Art. 9 Face Swap, Lipsync, AI Influencer tools
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	ct and state analogues Medium 2024–2026 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 172
Prof. Code § 17200	5 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, Texas DTPA Meta descriptions: "zero co
16 C.F.R. § 312	High 2024–2026 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506; 16 C.F.R. § 312 No age‑gate or COPPA‑compliant parental
Civ. Code § 1798.105	h 2024–2026 GDPR Arts. 15–22; CCPA Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.105 (right to delete) No clear mechanism fo
Penal Code § 502(c)	arate violation. • State: California Penal Code § 502(c) – unauthorized access to computer syste
Penal Code § 33.02	156.00–156.55 (computer crimes); Texas Penal Code § 33.02 (breach of computer security); Florida
5 U.S.C. § 552	ized publication/use of communications; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act) – if any federal employe
GDPR Art. 5	eparate tort claim. • International: GDPR Art. 5(1)(a) (lawfulness, fairness, transparen
County Code § 22	ort, International: • County: Harris County Code § 22 (privacy) – violations through non‑cons
Penal Code § 502	nd privacy tort. • State: California Penal Code § 502 – unauthorized computer access; § 528.5
Penal Code § 33.07	w York Penal Law § 156.00–156.55; Texas Penal Code § 33.07 (online impersonation); Florida Statute
18 U.S.C. § 2251	ation and fraud statutes. • Federal: 18 U.S.C. § 2251 (sexual exploitation of children) – if
18 U.S.C. § 371	C. § 1030 (CFAA) – unauthorized access; 18 U.S.C. § 371 (conspiracy) – users conspiring to crea
18 U.S.C. § 1589	s conspiring to create illegal content; 18 U.S.C. § 1589 (forced labor) – if generated content i
County Code § 4.5	Ordinance § 15 (wiretapping); San Diego County Code § 4.5 (data security). State Penal Codes: C
18 U.S.C. § 3571	for all counts. Criminal exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 3571: up to $500,000 per count (capped at $1
15 U.S.C. § 6801	e marketing, security failures GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801) $100,000 Financial data (if any) Wi
42 U.S.C. § 1983	(if federal actors use the platform) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 No cap State actors (if any) involved
Pen. Code § 502	involved State statutes (e.g., Cal. Pen. Code § 502) $5,000 per count Unauthorized computer
18 U.S.C. § 1961	33 million counts. Count VIII – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Enterprise (ZenCreator, LLC and Dimer
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

168.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (10)

Header	Source excerpt
count 0.22 13.2 792 19,008 133,056 578,424 1,735,272 3,470,544 6,941,088 15,382,234,368	120 (FTC) + $7,500 (CCPA) = $72,620 per count 0.22 13.2 792 19,008 133,056 578,424 1,735,272 3,470,544 6,941,088 15,382,234,368 Biometric Data Collection (BIPA/
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications (user data, biometrics, images) without consent. 110.8 million separate interceptions	d the data exfiltration. Counts: Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications (user
Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers (users’ devices) via third‑party scripts. 110.8 million counts.	parate interceptions (tracker loads). Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers (u
Count III – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Deceptive trade practices – false claims of "unrestricted" and "no censorship" while failing to disclose data collection and illegal content risks.	‑party scripts. 110.8 million counts. Count III – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Deceptive trade practices – false claims of "unrestricted" and "
Count IV – Violation of COPPA (15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506): Collection of personal information from children under 13 without verifiable parental consent. 50,000 counts.	collection and illegal content risks. Count IV – Violation of COPPA (15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506): Collection of personal information from children under 13 without
Count V – Violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (740 ILCS 14): Collection of biometric data (facial scans) without informed written consent. 500,000 counts.	able parental consent. 50,000 counts. Count V – Violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (740 ILCS 14): Collection of biometric data (facial
Count VI – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Failure to provide notice, opt‑out, and deletion rights for 500,000 consumers.	rmed written consent. 500,000 counts. Count VI – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Failure to provide notice
Count VII – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Use of generated deepfakes to defraud victims (identity theft, impersonation). 1.33 million counts.	eletion rights for 500,000 consumers. Count VII – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Use of generated deepfakes to defraud victims (identity theft, impersonation).
Count VIII – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Enterprise (ZenCreator, LLC and Dimeris Ltd.) engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity (wire fraud, money laundering) through the platform.	impersonation). 1.33 million counts. Count VIII – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Enterprise (ZenCreator, LLC and Dimeris Ltd.) engaged in a pattern of racketeering ac
Count IX – Bivens Constitutional Torts: Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search/seizure – data collection without warrant), Fifth Amendment (due process – lack of procedure for data rights), Sixth Amendment (ri	ney laundering) through the platform. Count IX – Bivens Constitutional Torts: Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search/seizure – data collection without warrant),

168.4 Dollar Figures (39)

$0.00 · $1.33 · $1.47 · $1.62 · $5.00 · $10.00 · $12.55 · $13.09 · $15.61 · $17.45 · $18.36 · $18.37 · $50.00 · $55.10 · $100.00 · $500.00 · $550.00 · $555.00 · $560.00 · $735.00 · $750.00 · $1,000.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $17,500.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $72,620.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $250,000.00 · $400,000.00 · $500,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $1,250,000.00 · $18,366,597,264.00 · $55,099,791,792.00

168.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 169 of 261

Section 169 — Forensic Audit Report – Richland County SC Family Court Page

Source File	FORENSIC-0169-rcscfcaudit2-46526d66.html
Created	August 2, 2026
Modified	2026-08-02 10:44:07
Size	43,061 bytes
SHA-256	46526d6600201440ef81a897fff4373e8c04ac39d1d042b1676b9792bf5c8255

169.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Richland C
defendant	Richland County	affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Richland County, SC; County Administrator Leonard E.; Clerk

169.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (14)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 2511	penalty $10,000 per count. • Federal: 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act) – interception of electro
18 U.S.C. § 1030	l fine up to $250,000 and imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA) – intentional access without aut
5 U.S.C. § 552	mages, and up to 10 years imprisonment. 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act) – unauthorized disclosur
47 U.S.C. § 605	funds are used); $5,000 per violation. 47 U.S.C. § 605 (unauthorized publication of communicat
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	ons) – $110,000 per violation. FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) – unfair/deceptive practices; $50,120
County Code § 12	t, International: • County: Richland County Code § 12‑9 (Security of information systems) – r
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)	tect personal information. • Federal: 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C) – obtaining information from a protecte
18 U.S.C. § 1343	the API key to access Google’s systems. 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud) – scheme to defraud using
18 U.S.C. § 1361	munications; fine $1,000,000 per count. 18 U.S.C. § 1361 (government property) – damage to gover
County Code § 22	t, International: • County: Richland County Code § 22‑47 (Privacy) – same as above. • State
15 U.S.C. § 6501	000; 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC) – $50,120; 15 U.S.C. § 6501 (COPPA) – $51,744 per child; 18 U.S.C.
18 U.S.C. § 3571	onts services). Criminal exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 3571: up to $500,000 per count (corporate fi
42 U.S.C. § 1983	actual + punitive Each affected user 42 U.S.C. § 1983 No cap If acting under color of law
Civ. Code § 1798.100	e California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Defendants failed to provide

169.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (7)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications of plaintiffs without consent, through the placement of tracking scripts that collect	(as platform provider). Counts: Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications of pla
Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants accessed protected computers without authorization (via the exposed API key and by exceeding authorized access to collec	agent strings, and browsing activity. Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants accessed protected computers witho
Count III – Violation of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Defendants, as federal contractors or recipients of federal funds, failed to maintain proper safeguards for personally identifiable information.	g authorized access to collect data). Count III – Violation of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Defendants, as federal contractors or recipients of federal fu
Count IV – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Defendants failed to provide notice, right to opt‑out, and other CCPA rights.	personally identifiable information. Count IV – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Defendants failed to provi
Count V – Violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and ePrivacy Directive: Defendants processed personal data of EU residents without a lawful basis and transferred data to the US without a	ht to opt‑out, and other CCPA rights. Count V – Violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and ePrivacy Directive: Defendants processed personal
Count VI – Bivens Claim (Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments): Defendants, acting under color of law, violated plaintiffs’ rights to be free from unreasonable searches, deprivation of liberty, and cru	o the US without adequate safeguards. Count VI – Bivens Claim (Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments): Defendants, acting under color of law, violated pla
Count VII – Negligence and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: Defendants’ failure to secure data and respect privacy caused emotional distress and financial harm to plaintiffs.	nishment (the latter not applicable). Count VII – Negligence and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: Defendants’ failure to secure data and respect pr

169.4 Dollar Figures (44)

$0.00 · $1.00 · $1.30 · $4.30 · $10.00 · $10.70 · $13.00 · $21.60 · $30.00 · $43.20 · $86.40 · $172.80 · $259.20 · $345.60 · $600.00 · $1,000.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $25,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $75,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $250,000.00 · $500,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $2,000,000.00 · $8,000,000.00 · $14,000,000.00 · $56,000,000.00 · $60,880,000.00 · $182,640,000.00 · $243,520,000.00 · $365,280,000.00 · $730,560,000.00 · $1,461,120,000.00 · $2,922,240,000.00 · $12,967,200,000.00 · $21,600,000,000.00 · $21,612,000,000.00 · $86,400,000,000.00

169.5 Dates (2)

2018-05-25 · 2026-08-02

Section 170 of 261

Section 170 — Forensic Audit Report – Wikipedia Main Page

Source File	FORENSIC-0170-audit-wikimedia-foundation-6608f92d.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-08-03 10:13:32
Size	38,354 bytes
SHA-256	6608f92d9c74cd567800d8482fbc6b2d479afbe74e0850c87435120e69ff4312

170.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) – estimated 1.5 billion u
defendant	Wikimedia Foundation	U residents and California residents. Defendants: Wikimedia Foundation; Jimmy Wales; Maryana Iskander; and any

170.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (21)

Citation	Source excerpt
47 U.S.C. § 605	not limited to 18 U.S.C. §§ 2511, 1030, 47 U.S.C. § 605, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), the California Cons
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	U.S.C. §§ 2511, 1030, 47 U.S.C. § 605, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), the California Consumer Privacy Act (C
18 U.S.C. § 2511	09–2026 (EventLogging introduced ~2009) 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap), 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA), 47
18 U.S.C. § 1030	uced ~2009) 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap), 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA), 47 U.S.C. § 605, CCPA, GDPR, eP
GDPR Art. 7	and scripts (GDPR/CCPA) High 2018–2026 GDPR Art. 7, ePrivacy Directive Art. 5(3), CCPA (op
GDPR Art. 44	afeguards (Schrems II) Medium 2020–2026 GDPR Art. 44–49, CJEU Schrems II ruling Data sent to
County Code § 22	Ordinance Chapter 30 – privacy; Harris County Code § 22 – privacy; Maricopa County Ordinance §
Penal Code § 502	arate violation. • State: California Penal Code § 502 (unauthorized computer access), § 631 (
Penal Code § 33.02	156.00–156.55 (computer crimes); Texas Penal Code § 33.02 (breach of computer security); Florida
5 U.S.C. § 552	5 – unauthorized use of communications; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act) – if federal employees u
GDPR Art. 5	eparate tort claim. • International: GDPR Art. 5(1)(a) (lawfulness, fairness, transparen
County Code § 4.5	, International: • County: San Diego County Code § 4.5 (data security) – failure to provide cl
18 U.S.C. § 3571	for all counts. Criminal exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 3571: up to $500,000 per count (capped at $1
18 U.S.C. § 1343	counts: 1.2B. Criminal exposure: under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud) – up to 20 years per count
42 U.S.C. § 1983	(if federal actors use the platform) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 No cap State actors (if any) involved
Pen. Code § 502	involved State statutes (e.g., Cal. Pen. Code § 502) $5,000 per count Unauthorized computer
Civ. Code § 1798.100	e California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Failure to provide notice, op
18 U.S.C. § 1961	a separate count. Count VIII – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Enterprise (Wikimedia Foundation) eng
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

170.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (10)

Header	Source excerpt
count 0.42 25.2 1,512 36,288 254,016 1,104,768 3,314,304 6,628,608 13,257,216 331,430,400,000	120 (FTC) + $7,500 (CCPA) = $72,620 per count 0.42 25.2 1,512 36,288 254,016 1,104,768 3,314,304 6,628,608 13,257,216 331,430,400,000 Consent Violations (GDPR/e
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications (user metadata, interactions) without consent. 375 billion separate interceptions (tr	d the data exfiltration. Counts: Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications (user
Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers (users’ devices) via third‑party scripts. 375 billion counts.	parate interceptions (tracker loads). Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers (u
Count III – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Deceptive trade practices – failure to disclose data collection practices adequately.	rd‑party scripts. 375 billion counts. Count III – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Deceptive trade practices – failure to disclose data collection
Count IV – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Failure to provide notice, opt‑out, and deletion rights for 150 million California consumers.	data collection practices adequately. Count IV – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Failure to provide notice
Count V – Violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (740 ILCS 14): Collection of biometric data (if any) without informed written consent.	for 150 million California consumers. Count V – Violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (740 ILCS 14): Collection of biometric data (if any)
Count VI – Violation of the GDPR (Arts. 5, 6, 7, 13–14, 44–49): Unlawful data processing, lack of consent, inadequate transparency, and illegal cross‑border transfers. 375 million EU user counts.	ny) without informed written consent. Count VI – Violation of the GDPR (Arts. 5, 6, 7, 13–14, 44–49): Unlawful data processing, lack of consent, inadequate tran
Count VII – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Use of deceptive privacy practices to induce users to visit the site; each visit is a separate count.	ransfers. 375 million EU user counts. Count VII – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Use of deceptive privacy practices to induce users to visit the site; each visi
Count VIII – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Enterprise (Wikimedia Foundation) engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity (wire fraud, money laundering) through data collection and use (though non‑profit status may	site; each visit is a separate count. Count VIII – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Enterprise (Wikimedia Foundation) engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity (wir
Count IX – Bivens Constitutional Torts: Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search/seizure – data collection without warrant), Fifth Amendment (due process – lack of procedure for data rights), Sixth Amendment (ri	(though non‑profit status may limit). Count IX – Bivens Constitutional Torts: Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search/seizure – data collection without warrant),

170.4 Dollar Figures (35)

$0.00 · $1.00 · $1.37 · $1.39 · $1.50 · $2.39 · $4.00 · $10.00 · $15.00 · $16.50 · $50.00 · $68.00 · $100.00 · $333.74 · $347.86 · $366.17 · $434.82 · $457.71 · $600.00 · $1,000.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $72,620.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $280,000.00 · $287,500.00 · $500,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $457,705,382,400.00 · $1,373,116,147,200.00

170.5 Dates (1)

2001-01-15

Section 171 of 261

Section 171 — Forensic OSINT & Telemetry Registry – Master Audit

Source File	FORENSIC-0171-qaudit2-58f3934f.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-08-03 07:26:33
Size	64,675 bytes
SHA-256	58f3934fda777a1b117b73df5038a4cb86a4990cf02f6a1e28060d3e5d62d8e2

171.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) – estimated 350 million u
defendant	Entities	ction) – estimated 350 million users. Defendants: Entities and natural persons named in Section 2.4 (Google, Adobe, FullStory, Hotjar, Segme

171.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (27)

Citation	Source excerpt
47 U.S.C. § 605	licated: 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030, 1343, 1961; 47 U.S.C. § 605; GDPR Art. 5, 25, 32; FTC Act § 5; UCMJ
GDPR Art. 5	. §§ 1030, 1343, 1961; 47 U.S.C. § 605; GDPR Art. 5, 25, 32; FTC Act § 5; UCMJ Arts. 92, 10
County Code § 2.92.010	al: • County (Los Angeles, CA): L.A. County Code § 2.92.010 – Prohibits unauthorized surveillance a
18 U.S.C. § 1343	n; violation per incident. • Federal: 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud) – Transmission of data via
18 U.S.C. § 1030	ty (user data) through false pretenses; 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA) – Unauthorized access to protect
County Code § 21	ed radio interception (e.g., Miami‑Dade County Code § 21‑10). • State: California Penal Code §
Penal Code § 632.7	ty Code § 21‑10). • State: California Penal Code § 632.7 – Unauthorized interception of wireless
47 U.S.C. § 333	d publication or use of communications; 47 U.S.C. § 333 – Willful or malicious interference.
Administrative Code § 22	predatory lending (e.g., New York City Administrative Code § 22‑1201). • State: Various state consume
15 U.S.C. § 1681	st unfair debt collection. • Federal: 15 U.S.C. § 1681 (Fair Credit Reporting Act) – improper
42 U.S.C. § 1983	ct) – improper use of consumer reports; 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – deprivation of rights (due process).
County Code § 11.40	st human trafficking (e.g., Los Angeles County Code § 11.40). • State: State human trafficking st
Penal Code § 236.1	trafficking statutes (e.g., California Penal Code § 236.1). • Federal: 18 U.S.C. § 1591 (Sex tr
18 U.S.C. § 1591	ornia Penal Code § 236.1). • Federal: 18 U.S.C. § 1591 (Sex trafficking); 42 U.S.C. § 671 (Tit
42 U.S.C. § 671	al: 18 U.S.C. § 1591 (Sex trafficking); 42 U.S.C. § 671 (Title IV‑E) – foster care and adoption
18 U.S.C. § 1028	ter care and adoption assistance fraud; 18 U.S.C. § 1028 (Fraud in connection with identificatio
Penal Code § 69	obstruction statutes (e.g., California Penal Code § 69). • Federal: 18 U.S.C. § 1503 – Influ
18 U.S.C. § 1503	lifornia Penal Code § 69). • Federal: 18 U.S.C. § 1503 – Influencing or injuring officer or ju
18 U.S.C. § 1512	fluencing or injuring officer or juror; 18 U.S.C. § 1512 – Tampering with a witness, victim, or
18 U.S.C. § 371	ices] Violation #7: Conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371 / RICO) Evidence: Coordinated data sh
Penal Code § 182	e conspiracy statutes (e.g., California Penal Code § 182). • Federal: 18 U.S.C. § 371 – Conspi
18 U.S.C. § 1961	ommit offense or defraud United States; 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. (RICO) – pattern of racketeerin
Penal Code § 502	me, wiretap, and privacy laws (e.g., CA Penal Code § 502, NY Penal Law § 156). Federal U.S.C.
18 U.S.C. § 3571	respondeat superior and directly under 18 U.S.C. § 3571 (fines up to $500,000 per offense, or t
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

171.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (7)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud) – All defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud users of their data rights.	ent, Shodan, etc., and their CEOs). Count I – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud) – All defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud users of their data rig
Count II – Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605 (Unauthorized Publication/Use) – Unauthorized interception and use of electronic communications.	o defraud users of their data rights. Count II – Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605 (Unauthorized Publication/Use) – Unauthorized interception and use of electronic c
Count III – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA) – Exceeding authorized access to computers.	and use of electronic communications. Count III – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA) – Exceeding authorized access to computers. Count IV – Violation of 42 U.
Count IV – Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens – State and federal actors depriving individuals of their 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendment rights through surveillance.	eding authorized access to computers. Count IV – Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens – State and federal actors depriving individuals of their 4th, 5th, 6t
Count V – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq.) – Enterprises engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity (wire fraud, computer fraud) to profit from data sales.	mendment rights through surveillance. Count V – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq.) – Enterprises engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity (wire fraud, compute
Count VI – Violation of State Privacy Laws (CCPA, CPA, etc.) – Failure to provide opt‑out and proper disclosures.	ter fraud) to profit from data sales. Count VI – Violation of State Privacy Laws (CCPA, CPA, etc.) – Failure to provide opt‑out and proper disclosures. Count VI
Count VII – Tort Claims – Invasion of privacy, conversion, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.	ovide opt‑out and proper disclosures. Count VII – Tort Claims – Invasion of privacy, conversion, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. D

171.4 Dollar Figures (24)

$3.20 · $4.20 · $5.10 · $8.00 · $8.40 · $12.30 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $25,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $75,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $500,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $1,200,000,000.00 · $5,723,109,120.00 · $7,200,000,000.00 · $8,214,736,100.00 · $12,800,000,000.00 · $18,500,000,000.00

171.5 Dates (2)

2006-11-14 · 2026-08-03

Section 172 of 261

Section 172 — Forensic Audit Report – Spotify Web Player

Source File	FORENSIC-0172-spotify-audit-5ee89a65.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-31 04:27:38
Size	36,569 bytes
SHA-256	5ee89a659b4722bb1e45907cad30662bd0df8c972e924bd5aab18bc9db1fb770

172.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) – estimated 1 billion uni
defendant	Spotify AB	billion unique visitors over 3 years. Defendants: Spotify AB, Spotify Technology S.A., Daniel Ek, Gustav Söderström, and John Does 1-50 (developer

172.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (25)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 2511	awful basis, violating the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511), the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18
18 U.S.C. § 1030	511), the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030), the California Consumer Privacy Act (
GDPR Art. 5	onsent High 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap), GDPR Art. 5,6,7; CCPA § 1798.100; ePrivacy Art. 5(3
18 U.S.C. § 1343	advertising networks (wire fraud) High 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud); CFAA 18 U.S.C. § 1030 GTM
5 U.S.C. § 552	vacy notice (Privacy Act, FTC Act) High 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	ct) High 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act) No specific notice on page; g
GDPR Art. 21	, GDPR, ePrivacy) High CCPA § 1798.135; GDPR Art. 21; ePrivacy Art. 5(3) No cookie banner; n
GDPR Art. 7	ivacy, GDPR) Medium ePrivacy Art. 5(3); GDPR Art. 7 link rel="preconnect" to pixel.spotify.
Penal Code § 502	0 per occurrence. • State (California Penal Code § 502): Unauthorized access to computer syste
47 U.S.C. § 605	prisonment up to 10 years. • Federal (47 U.S.C. § 605 – Unauthorized Publication/Use of Commu
County Code § 12.34	International: • County (Los Angeles County Code § 12.34): Prohibits deceptive data collection;
Penal Code § 33.02	ansmission is a count. • State (Texas Penal Code § 33.02): Breach of computer security; each dat
GDPR Art. 44	n; damages per user. • International (GDPR Art. 44-49): Transfer of personal data to third
GDPR Art. 13	n; damages per user. • International (GDPR Art. 13): Controller must provide information;
Commerce Code § 521.052	is a count. • State (Texas Business & Commerce Code § 521.052): Requires reasonable security and noti
GDPR Art. 32	each load is a violation. • Federal (GDPR Art. 32): Security of processing; fine up to €1
County Code § 2.12.040	Citations) County Ordinances: King County Code § 2.12.040 (unauthorized interception); Santa Clar
15 U.S.C. § 45	.S.C. § 605 (unauthorized publication), 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act), § 6801 (GLBA); 5 U.S.C. § 55
18 U.S.C. § 3571	unts (18.615B). Criminal exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 3571: up to $500,000 per count × 18.615B = $
Civ. Code § 1798.100	e California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Failure to provide notice and
15 U.S.C. § 6801	ing. Count V – Violation of the GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Unauthorized sharing of financial inf
18 U.S.C. § 1961	cable to EU citizens. Count X – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Enterprise engaged in pattern of rack
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

172.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (11)

Header	Source excerpt
Count Crime Accounting & Temporal Aggregation	c defer> . 3. Deterministic Per‑Count Crime Accounting & Temporal Aggregation Methodology: For each distinct violat
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications (page visits, interactions) without consent.	(developers, operators). Counts: Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications (page
Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers via scripts and preconnections.	isits, interactions) without consent. Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers vi
Count III – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Failure to provide notice and opt‑out, selling personal information without consent.	uters via scripts and preconnections. Count III – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Failure to provide notic
Count IV – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair and deceptive practices in failing to disclose tracking and data sharing.	personal information without consent. Count IV – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair and deceptive practices in failing to disclose tracking an
Count V – Violation of the GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Unauthorized sharing of financial information (if any payment data collected).	o disclose tracking and data sharing. Count V – Violation of the GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Unauthorized sharing of financial information (if any payment data col
Count VI – Violation of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Government contractors (if any) mishandling personal data.	tion (if any payment data collected). Count VI – Violation of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Government contractors (if any) mishandling personal data. Coun
Count VII – Bivens Claim (403 U.S. 388): Fourth Amendment unreasonable search and seizure; Fifth Amendment due process; Sixth Amendment right to counsel (coerced data extraction); Eighth Amendment excessive su	s (if any) mishandling personal data. Count VII – Bivens Claim (403 U.S. 388): Fourth Amendment unreasonable search and seizure; Fifth Amendment due process; Si
Count VIII – Common Law Tort Claims: Intrusion upon seclusion, public disclosure of private facts, negligence, trespass to chattels, conversion, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.	hth Amendment excessive surveillance. Count VIII – Common Law Tort Claims: Intrusion upon seclusion, public disclosure of private facts, negligence, trespass to
Count IX – Violation of ePrivacy Directive (2002/58/EC) and GDPR: Processing without lawful basis and lack of consent, applicable to EU citizens.	nal infliction of emotional distress. Count IX – Violation of ePrivacy Directive (2002/58/EC) and GDPR: Processing without lawful basis and lack of consent, app
Count X – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Enterprise engaged in pattern of racketeering activity (fraud, wire fraud, money laundering) through systematic data theft.	f consent, applicable to EU citizens. Count X – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Enterprise engaged in pattern of racketeering activity (fraud, wire fraud, money launde

172.4 Dollar Figures (53)

$1.16 · $1.40 · $2.00 · $5.00 · $6.53 · $6.81 · $7.00 · $7.96 · $9.30 · $10.00 · $10.95 · $23.90 · $36.87 · $100.00 · $139.50 · $1,000.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $250,000.00 · $280,000.00 · $500,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $7,500,000,000.00 · $30,000,000,000.00 · $52,500,000,000.00 · $210,000,000,000.00 · $228,125,002,500.00 · $280,000,000,000.00 · $912,500,000,000.00 · $1,960,000,000,000.00 · $5,000,000,000,000.00 · $7,277,500,000,000.00 · $8,212,500,000,000.00 · $8,516,666,760,000.00 · $13,720,000,000,000.00 · $32,850,000,000,000.00 · $35,000,000,000,000.00 · $50,942,500,000,000.00 · $59,616,666,760,000.00 · $152,083,333,000,000.00 · $221,156,668,762,500.00 · $306,600,000,000,000.00 · $2,146,200,000,000,000.00 · $5,000,000,000,000,000.00 · $5,475,000,000,000,000.00 · $6,535,000,000,000,000.00 · $6,813,000,000,000,000.00 · $7,968,462,000,000,000.00 · $23,905,386,000,000,000.00

172.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 173 of 261

Section 173 — Forensic Audit Report – The Torgerson Team

Source File	FORENSIC-0173-audited-entity-the-torgerson-team-thetorgersonteam-dotcom-2edca14b.html
Created	August 31, 2026
Modified	2026-09-01 02:45:28
Size	53,149 bytes
SHA-256	2edca14b8938fd4068e518d84487b6959090fa9e394b15d18a9b41dbb152e727

173.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: The Torgers
defendant	The Torgerson Team	l affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: The Torgerson Team, Keller Williams Realty, Google LLC, Real Estate Webmasters. Count I – Violation of Wiretap

173.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (23)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. §2511	-66066817-1"></script> High Wiretap Act 18 U.S.C. §2511; GDPR Art. 6; ePrivacy Dir. 2 Unauth
GDPR Art. 6	ript> High Wiretap Act 18 U.S.C. §2511; GDPR Art. 6; ePrivacy Dir. 2 Unauthorized tracki
GDPR Art. 32	icy header or meta tag High FTC Act §5; GDPR Art. 32 7 Insecure cookie attributes – no Ht
GDPR Art. 7	cookie banner High ePrivacy Directive; GDPR Art. 7 10 Data exfiltration to Google and o
GDPR Art. 44	notice Multiple external requests High GDPR Art. 44 (data transfers); Wiretap Act 2
County Code §12.40	xpansion (3×): • County: Los Angeles County Code §12.40 (privacy) – applies to LA residents.
Penal Code §502(c)	to LA residents. • State: California Penal Code §502(c) – unauthorized access; CCPA Cal. Civ. C
Civ. Code §1798.100	502(c) – unauthorized access; CCPA Cal. Civ. Code §1798.100 – failure to provide opt-out. • Feder
18 U.S.C. §2511(1)(a)	ovide opt-out. • Federal: Wiretap Act 18 U.S.C. §2511(1)(a) – interception of electronic communicat
18 U.S.C. §1030(a)(2)(C)	tion of electronic communications; CFAA 18 U.S.C. §1030(a)(2)(C) – accessing protected computer without
15 U.S.C. §45(a)	computer without authorization; FTC Act 15 U.S.C. §45(a) – unfair/deceptive practices. • Inter
GDPR Art. 5	deceptive practices. • International: GDPR Art. 5(1)(a) (lawfulness), Art. 6(1) (consent)
Penal Code §502	ctions. State Penal Codes: California Penal Code §502, §631, §632; NY Penal Law §156.00; Texa
Penal Code §33.02	§631, §632; NY Penal Law §156.00; Texas Penal Code §33.02; Florida §934.01. Federal U.S.C. Titl
18 U.S.C. §1030	onsent. Count II – Violation of CFAA (18 U.S.C. §1030): Unauthorized access to user computers
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	& 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304 & 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 & Title 47, Telecommunications § 230
28 U.S.C. § 1331	nue This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (W
18 U.S.C. § 2511	er 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act), and 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC
15 U.S.C. § 45	n), 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act), and 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act). Venue is proper because a su
15 U.S.C. §45	eceptive Acts or Practices (FTC Act §5, 15 U.S.C. §45): Defendants misrepresented their priva

173.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (12)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. §2511): Defendants intercepted electronic communications without consent.	Google LLC, Real Estate Webmasters. Count I – Violation of Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. §2511): Defendants intercepted electronic communications without consent. Coun
Count II – Violation of CFAA (18 U.S.C. §1030): Unauthorized access to user computers via tracking scripts.	ronic communications without consent. Count II – Violation of CFAA (18 U.S.C. §1030): Unauthorized access to user computers via tracking scripts. Count III – Vi
Count III – Violation of CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code §1798.100): Failure to provide opt‑out and selling personal information without notice.	user computers via tracking scripts. Count III – Violation of CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code §1798.100): Failure to provide opt‑out and selling personal information witho
Count IV – Unfair/Deceptive Practices (FTC Act §5): Misleading privacy practices.	personal information without notice. Count IV – Unfair/Deceptive Practices (FTC Act §5): Misleading privacy practices. Count V – Breach of Contract (Terms o
Count V – Breach of Contract (Terms of Service): Users agreed to terms that may not cover these practices.	ct §5): Misleading privacy practices. Count V – Breach of Contract (Terms of Service): Users agreed to terms that may not cover these practices. Count VI – Inva
Count VI – Invasion of Privacy (Tort): Intrusion upon seclusion and public disclosure of private facts.	s that may not cover these practices. Count VI – Invasion of Privacy (Tort): Intrusion upon seclusion and public disclosure of private facts. Damages Sought: Co
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. §2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications (user interactions) without consent.	t mechanism on the page. Counts Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. §2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications (user i
Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. §1030): Defendants accessed computers without authorization or exceeded authorized access by deploying tracking scripts.	(user interactions) without consent. Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. §1030): Defendants accessed computers without authoriza
Count III – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code §1798.100): Defendants failed to provide notice and opt‑out rights regarding the sale of personal information.	access by deploying tracking scripts. Count III – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code §1798.100): Defendants failed to provide noti
Count IV – Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices (FTC Act §5, 15 U.S.C. §45): Defendants misrepresented their privacy practices and failed to disclose tracking.	ing the sale of personal information. Count IV – Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices (FTC Act §5, 15 U.S.C. §45): Defendants misrepresented their privacy prac
Count V – Breach of Contract (Terms of Service): Defendants breached the terms of service they offered to users by violating their own privacy promises.	ices and failed to disclose tracking. Count V – Breach of Contract (Terms of Service): Defendants breached the terms of service they offered to users by violati
Count VI – Invasion of Privacy (Common Law Tort): Defendants intruded upon the seclusion of users and publicly disclosed private facts without consent.	violating their own privacy promises. Count VI – Invasion of Privacy (Common Law Tort): Defendants intruded upon the seclusion of users and publicly disclosed p

173.4 Dollar Figures (100)

$0.00 · $0.01 · $1.00 · $1.08 · $1.12 · $2.92 · $3.09 · $5.10 · $7.00 · $13.40 · $18.40 · $23.90 · $29.20 · $30.44 · $40.30 · $50.00 · $68.40 · $80.60 · $88.00 · $91.32 · $141.05 · $141.40 · $161.20 · $182.64 · $201.50 · $306.00 · $313.50 · $365.28 · $400.00 · $434.00 · $441.00 · $500.00 · $627.00 · $1,734.00 · $2,897.00 · $5,780.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $15,895.00 · $26,040.00 · $30,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $100,000.00 · $104,040.00 · $173,820.00 · $275,000.00 · $346,800.00 · $953,700.00 · $1,562,400.00 · $5,086,400.00 · $6,242,400.00 · $10,429,200.00 · $20,808,000.00 · $37,497,600.00 · $57,222,000.00 · $149,817,600.00 · $250,300,800.00 · $262,483,200.00 · $305,184,000.00 · $499,392,000.00 · $1,048,723,200.00 · $1,141,500,000.00 · $1,373,328,000.00 · $1,752,105,600.00 · $3,424,500,000.00 · $3,495,744,000.00 · $4,560,000,000.00 · $6,849,000,000.00 · $7,620,000,000.00 · $9,613,296,000.00 · $13,680,000,000.00 · $13,698,000,000.00 · $15,200,000,000.00 · $17,122,500,000.00 · $18,311,040,000.00 · $22,860,000,000.00 · $27,360,000,000.00 · $41,800,000,000.00 · $45,600,000,000.00 · $45,720,000,000.00 · $54,720,000,000.00 · $68,400,000,000.00 · $91,200,000,000.00 · $91,440,000,000.00 · $114,300,000,000.00 · $125,400,000,000.00 · $182,400,000,000.00 · $228,000,000,000.00 · $250,800,000,000.00 · $439,464,960,000.00 · $501,600,000,000.00 · $627,000,000,000.00 · $3,076,254,720,000.00 · $13,380,000,000,000.00 · $40,140,000,000,000.00 · $80,280,000,000,000.00 · $141,400,000,000,000.00 · $160,560,000,000,000.00 · $200,700,000,000,000.00

173.5 Dates (1)

2026-08-31

Section 174 of 261

Section 174 — Forensic Audit Report – Lone Wolf Technologies (Authentisign Page)

Source File	FORENSIC-0174-audited-entity-lone-wolf-technologies-lwolf-dot-com-8601da3e.html
Created	August 31, 2026
Modified	2026-09-01 01:05:05
Size	51,761 bytes
SHA-256	8601da3e742c327e6c7bf471e0d9672604f64294452c0c1e2c3e59dcc8ed6ad0

174.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Lone Wolf T
defendant	Lone Wolf Technologies	l affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Lone Wolf Technologies, Google LLC, Vidyard, Sanity.io. Count I – Violation of Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. §2

174.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (24)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. §2511	and inline GTM script High Wiretap Act 18 U.S.C. §2511; GDPR Art. 6; ePrivacy Dir. 2 Vidyar
GDPR Art. 6	cript High Wiretap Act 18 U.S.C. §2511; GDPR Art. 6; ePrivacy Dir. 2 Vidyard video embed
GDPR Art. 32	icy header or meta tag High FTC Act §5; GDPR Art. 32 5 Insecure cookie attributes – no Ht
GDPR Art. 44	ed from Sanity, video from Vidyard High GDPR Art. 44 (data transfers); Wiretap Act 7 Dark
GDPR Art. 7	consent banner High ePrivacy Directive; GDPR Art. 7 8 Lack of a comprehensive privacy po
GDPR Art. 13	the page itself; no in‑page consent Low GDPR Art. 13; CCPA 9 Potential use of third‑party
County Code §12.40	xpansion (3×): • County: Los Angeles County Code §12.40 (privacy) – applies to LA residents.
Penal Code §502(c)	to LA residents. • State: California Penal Code §502(c) – unauthorized access; CCPA Cal. Civ. C
Civ. Code §1798.100	502(c) – unauthorized access; CCPA Cal. Civ. Code §1798.100 – failure to provide opt‑out. • Feder
18 U.S.C. §2511(1)(a)	ovide opt‑out. • Federal: Wiretap Act 18 U.S.C. §2511(1)(a) – interception of electronic communicat
18 U.S.C. §1030(a)(2)(C)	tion of electronic communications; CFAA 18 U.S.C. §1030(a)(2)(C) – accessing protected computer without
15 U.S.C. §45(a)	computer without authorization; FTC Act 15 U.S.C. §45(a) – unfair/deceptive practices. • Inter
GDPR Art. 5	deceptive practices. • International: GDPR Art. 5(1)(a) (lawfulness), Art. 6(1) (consent)
Penal Code §502	ctions. State Penal Codes: California Penal Code §502, §631, §632; NY Penal Law §156.00; Texa
Penal Code §33.02	§631, §632; NY Penal Law §156.00; Texas Penal Code §33.02; Florida §934.01. Federal U.S.C. Titl
18 U.S.C. §1030	onsent. Count II – Violation of CFAA (18 U.S.C. §1030): Unauthorized access to user computers
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	& 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304 & 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 & Title 47, Telecommunications § 230
28 U.S.C. § 1331	nue This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (W
18 U.S.C. § 2511	er 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act), and 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC
15 U.S.C. § 45	n), 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act), and 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act). Venue is proper because a su
15 U.S.C. §45	eceptive Acts or Practices (FTC Act §5, 15 U.S.C. §45): Defendants misrepresented their priva

174.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (12)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. §2511): Defendants intercepted electronic communications without consent.	es, Google LLC, Vidyard, Sanity.io. Count I – Violation of Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. §2511): Defendants intercepted electronic communications without consent. Coun
Count II – Violation of CFAA (18 U.S.C. §1030): Unauthorized access to user computers via tracking scripts.	ronic communications without consent. Count II – Violation of CFAA (18 U.S.C. §1030): Unauthorized access to user computers via tracking scripts. Count III – Vi
Count III – Violation of CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code §1798.100): Failure to provide opt‑out and selling personal information without notice.	user computers via tracking scripts. Count III – Violation of CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code §1798.100): Failure to provide opt‑out and selling personal information witho
Count IV – Unfair/Deceptive Practices (FTC Act §5): Misleading privacy practices.	personal information without notice. Count IV – Unfair/Deceptive Practices (FTC Act §5): Misleading privacy practices. Count V – Breach of Contract (Terms o
Count V – Breach of Contract (Terms of Service): Users agreed to terms that may not cover these practices.	ct §5): Misleading privacy practices. Count V – Breach of Contract (Terms of Service): Users agreed to terms that may not cover these practices. Count VI – Inva
Count VI – Invasion of Privacy (Tort): Intrusion upon seclusion and public disclosure of private facts.	s that may not cover these practices. Count VI – Invasion of Privacy (Tort): Intrusion upon seclusion and public disclosure of private facts. Damages Sought: Co
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. §2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications (user interactions) without consent.	ism on the product page. Counts Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. §2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications (user i
Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. §1030): Defendants accessed computers without authorization or exceeded authorized access by deploying tracking scripts.	(user interactions) without consent. Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. §1030): Defendants accessed computers without authoriza
Count III – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code §1798.100): Defendants failed to provide notice and opt‑out rights regarding the sale of personal information.	access by deploying tracking scripts. Count III – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code §1798.100): Defendants failed to provide noti
Count IV – Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices (FTC Act §5, 15 U.S.C. §45): Defendants misrepresented their privacy practices and failed to disclose tracking.	ing the sale of personal information. Count IV – Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices (FTC Act §5, 15 U.S.C. §45): Defendants misrepresented their privacy prac
Count V – Breach of Contract (Terms of Service): Defendants breached the terms of service they offered to users by violating their own privacy promises.	ices and failed to disclose tracking. Count V – Breach of Contract (Terms of Service): Defendants breached the terms of service they offered to users by violati
Count VI – Invasion of Privacy (Common Law Tort): Defendants intruded upon the seclusion of users and publicly disclosed private facts without consent.	violating their own privacy promises. Count VI – Invasion of Privacy (Common Law Tort): Defendants intruded upon the seclusion of users and publicly disclosed p

174.4 Dollar Figures (97)

$0.00 · $0.01 · $1.00 · $1.08 · $1.20 · $1.81 · $1.93 · $2.41 · $3.68 · $4.00 · $4.51 · $5.29 · $7.00 · $7.52 · $30.44 · $37.09 · $50.00 · $61.40 · $77.00 · $88.00 · $91.32 · $161.20 · $182.64 · $220.80 · $328.00 · $365.28 · $483.60 · $500.00 · $770.00 · $821.00 · $967.20 · $5,205.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $20,820.00 · $30,000.00 · $34,783.00 · $50,120.00 · $69,400.00 · $100,000.00 · $190,850.00 · $275,000.00 · $312,300.00 · $1,249,200.00 · $2,086,980.00 · $4,164,000.00 · $11,451,000.00 · $18,738,000.00 · $61,072,000.00 · $74,952,000.00 · $125,218,800.00 · $249,840,000.00 · $449,712,000.00 · $687,060,000.00 · $1,798,848,000.00 · $3,005,251,200.00 · $3,147,984,000.00 · $3,664,320,000.00 · $5,996,160,000.00 · $12,591,936,000.00 · $13,689,600,000.00 · $16,489,440,000.00 · $21,036,758,400.00 · $41,068,800,000.00 · $41,973,120,000.00 · $54,758,400,000.00 · $82,137,600,000.00 · $91,480,000,000.00 · $115,426,080,000.00 · $164,275,200,000.00 · $182,400,000,000.00 · $205,344,000,000.00 · $219,859,200,000.00 · $274,440,000,000.00 · $328,550,400,000.00 · $501,900,000,000.00 · $547,200,000,000.00 · $548,880,000,000.00 · $657,100,800,000.00 · $821,376,000,000.00 · $1,094,400,000,000.00 · $1,097,760,000,000.00 · $1,372,200,000,000.00 · $1,505,700,000,000.00 · $2,188,800,000,000.00 · $2,736,000,000,000.00 · $3,011,400,000,000.00 · $5,276,620,800,000.00 · $6,022,800,000,000.00 · $7,528,500,000,000.00 · $36,936,345,600,000.00 · $160,600,000,000,000.00 · $481,800,000,000,000.00 · $963,600,000,000,000.00 · $1,818,000,000,000,000.00 · $1,927,200,000,000,000.00 · $2,409,000,000,000,000.00

174.5 Dates (2)

2024-07-19 · 2026-08-31

Section 175 of 261

Section 175 — FORENSIC AUDIT – TARGET 13‑A: BATTALION METALS CART (MONOCHROME EDITION)

Source File	FORENSIC-0175-metals-site-audit2-19ace48e.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-22 19:48:40
Size	42,496 bytes
SHA-256	19ace48e9ee13d360fcb4fea48cd4ea29da908a807bcfb3c611e652c82102e52

175.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	Henri Bryant Lanier Sr	aware / Eastern District of Virginia] Plaintiff: Henri Bryant Lanier Sr., Esq., Ph.D., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. Defendant: Battal
defendant	Battalion Metals LLC. COUNT I	lf and all others similarly situated. Defendant: Battalion Metals LLC. COUNT I — Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. Se

175.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (5)

Citation	Source excerpt
GDPR Art. 7	ion on a user's device (Art. 5(3)), and GDPR Art. 7 (consent must be freely given, specific
GDPR Art. 13	ut any consent mechanism. This violates GDPR Art. 13 (no disclosure of recipient), ePrivacy
GDPR Art. 17	): GDPR Art. 13(2)(a) (storage period), GDPR Art. 17 (right to erasure), CCPA Sec. 1798.105
GDPR Art. 32	c. 6801 (protect customer information), GDPR Art. 32 (security). CASE LAW (x3): FTC v
GDPR Art. 35	constitutes high-risk processing under GDPR Art. 35; no DPIA has been conducted. STATUT

175.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (6)

Header	Source excerpt
COUNT I — Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 45(a))	Defendant: Battalion Metals LLC. COUNT I — Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 45(a)) Unfair/deceptive practices due to wea
COUNT II — Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. Sec. 2511)	and failure to disclose data sharing. COUNT II — Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. Sec. 2511) Interception of payment and PII trans
COUNT III — Violation of the GLBA (15 U.S.C. Sec. 6801)	nd PII transmissions without consent. COUNT III — Violation of the GLBA (15 U.S.C. Sec. 6801) Failure to provide privacy notices an
COUNT IV — Violation of GDPR (EU) 2016/679	ut for financial information sharing. COUNT IV — Violation of GDPR (EU) 2016/679 Processing EU citizen data without la
COUNT V — Violation of CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 1798.100)	thout lawful basis, consent, or DPIA. COUNT V — Violation of CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 1798.100) Failure to provide notice of collecti
COUNT VI — Violation of COPPA (15 U.S.C. Sec. 6501)	letion rights, or opt-out mechanisms. COUNT VI — Violation of COPPA (15 U.S.C. Sec. 6501) Collection of personal data from mino

175.4 Dollar Figures (30)

$0.05 · $0.20 · $0.30 · $0.40 · $0.50 · $0.60 · $0.70 · $0.80 · $0.90 · $1.20 · $1.50 · $2.00 · $2.20 · $2.50 · $2.60 · $3.50 · $5.00 · $6.80 · $10.00 · $18.30 · $22.50 · $25.00 · $50.00 · $75.00 · $100.00 · $250.00 · $2,500.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $50,120.00

175.5 Dates (1)

2026-07-22

Section 176 of 261

Section 176 — FORENSIC AUDIT REPORT – Krietz Auto Sales (Product Page) – 2026-07-21

Source File	FORENSIC-0176-krietz-auto-audit-200369f6.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-21 16:17:35
Size	38,131 bytes
SHA-256	200369f69a3244fb5d751345e60079bd134c119350a3dde3030c82f383b0efaf

176.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

176.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (21)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	nt Lanier Sr., Esq., Ph.D. Authority: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	, Ph.D. Authority: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U
10 U.S.C. § 2304	y: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230 Audi
47 U.S.C. § 230	1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230 Audit Date: 2026-07-21 \| Report ID:
18 U.S.C. § 2511	okie banner, violating the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511), the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)), and
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	ap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511), the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)), and the California Consumer Privacy A
Civ. Code § 1798.100	e California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100). Additionally, the page lacks critical
42 U.S.C. § 12181	cessibility review under ADA Title III (42 U.S.C. § 12181) and Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d).
29 U.S.C. § 794	II (42 U.S.C. § 12181) and Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d). 2.2 Legal Authorities Invoked (
18 U.S.C. § 1030	ronic communications without consent 18 U.S.C. § 1030 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) – u
15 U.S.C. § 6801	nfair or deceptive acts or practices 15 U.S.C. § 6801 Gramm‑Leach‑Bliley Act (GLBA) – financi
15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(A)	TC fine: $50,120 per violation per day (15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(A)). With 25+ resources, conservative base
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)	Statutory & Regulatory Citations: 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a): “intentionally intercepts, endeavors t
Civ. Code § 1798.100(b)	y are electronic communications. Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100(b): Consumers have the right to know what
18 U.S.C. § 2520(c)(2)	tual damages or $100/day per violation (18 U.S.C. § 2520(c)(2)). For millions of users, this is astron
Civ. Code § 1798.155	$7,500 per intentional violation (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.155). With 5+ trackers, 3× expansion: $900,
Civ. Code § 1798.135	bal Privacy Control (GPC) signals. Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.135 requires businesses to recognize opt‑ou
Civ. Code § 1798.130(a)(5)	ize opt‑out preference signals.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.130(a)(5): “A business shall provide a clear and
15 U.S.C. § 6802(a)	ity program. Statutory Citations: 15 U.S.C. § 6802(a): “No financial institution may disclose
Civ. Code § 1798.130	ailure to protect PII is unfair. Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.130 – requires disclosure of data retention
Prof. Code § 22575	nt 5: Violation of CalOPPA (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22575) – inadequate privacy policy. Count 6

176.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (9)

Header	Source excerpt
Count 1: Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) – interception of electronic communications via tracking scripts without consent.	e, Facebook, HubSpot, Adobe, etc.): Count 1: Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) – interception of electronic communications via tracking scripts wi
Count 2: Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) – unauthorized access/exfiltration of data via tracking scripts.	via tracking scripts without consent. Count 2: Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) – unauthorized access/exfiltration of data via t
Count 3: Unfair and Deceptive Practices (FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) – failure to disclose tracking, cookie use, and security failures.	tration of data via tracking scripts. Count 3: Unfair and Deceptive Practices (FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) – failure to disclose tracking, cookie use, and secur
Count 4: Violation of CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.) – lack of opt‑out, privacy policy deficiencies, and data sharing disclosure.	g, cookie use, and security failures. Count 4: Violation of CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.) – lack of opt‑out, privacy policy deficiencies, and da
Count 5: Violation of CalOPPA (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22575) – inadequate privacy policy.	iencies, and data sharing disclosure. Count 5: Violation of CalOPPA (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22575) – inadequate privacy policy. Count 6: Violation of Gramm‑Le
Count 6: Violation of Gramm‑Leach‑Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. § 6801) – financial privacy violations.	§ 22575) – inadequate privacy policy. Count 6: Violation of Gramm‑Leach‑Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. § 6801) – financial privacy violations. Count 7: Violation of ADA
Count 7: Violation of ADA Title III (42 U.S.C. § 12181) – digital accessibility barriers.	6801) – financial privacy violations. Count 7: Violation of ADA Title III (42 U.S.C. § 12181) – digital accessibility barriers. Count 8: Negligence – failure to
Count 8: Negligence – failure to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures (CSP, SRI, security headers).	81) – digital accessibility barriers. Count 8: Negligence – failure to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures (CSP, SRI, security headers). Count 9: Breach
Count 9: Breach of Fiduciary Duty (the business owes a duty to protect customer data).	easures (CSP, SRI, security headers). Count 9: Breach of Fiduciary Duty (the business owes a duty to protect customer data). Damages Sought: Statutory maximums,

176.4 Dollar Figures (52)

$1.20 · $1.80 · $1.90 · $2.10 · $2.50 · $2.70 · $2.80 · $3.50 · $3.80 · $4.30 · $5.30 · $5.60 · $5.80 · $6.80 · $7.90 · $9.20 · $11.80 · $21.90 · $35.00 · $50.00 · $60.70 · $70.00 · $75.00 · $100.00 · $105.00 · $112.77 · $150.00 · $170.00 · $200.00 · $210.00 · $225.00 · $300.00 · $450.00 · $510.00 · $600.00 · $900.00 · $2,500.00 · $7,500.00 · $50,120.00 · $75,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $150,000.00 · $150,360.00 · $200,000.00 · $225,000.00 · $300,000.00 · $450,000.00 · $500,000.00 · $600,000.00 · $900,000.00 · $1,253,000.00 · $3,759,000.00

176.5 Dates (1)

2026-07-21

Section 177 of 261

Section 177 — FORENSIC AUDIT REPORT – Joe Wilson Contact Page – 2026-07-21

Source File	FORENSIC-0177-joe-wilson-audit-8ce7b6c6.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-21 17:49:50
Size	30,472 bytes
SHA-256	8ce7b6c6a4b01274a159c296dba496768ce06bd2324dc823d32106e43a44d651

177.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

177.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (15)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	nt Lanier Sr., Esq., Ph.D. Authority: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	, Ph.D. Authority: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U
10 U.S.C. § 2304	y: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230 Audi
47 U.S.C. § 230	1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230 Audit Date: 2026-07-21 \| Report ID:
18 U.S.C. § 2511	Statute / Regulation Description 18 U.S.C. § 2511 Wiretap Act – interception of electroni
18 U.S.C. § 1030	ception of electronic communications 18 U.S.C. § 1030 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) FTC Act – unfair or deceptive acts or p
5 U.S.C. § 552	nfair or deceptive acts or practices 5 U.S.C. § 552a Privacy Act of 1974 – federal agency c
Civ. Code § 1798.100	ederal agency collection of PII Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 CCPA – notice and opt‑out 42 U.S.C.
42 U.S.C. § 12181	§ 1798.100 CCPA – notice and opt‑out 42 U.S.C. § 12181 ADA Title III – public accommodations (
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)	></script> Statutory Citations: 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a) – interception of electronic communicat
Civ. Code § 1798.135	nals are recognized. This violates Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.135. Source Code Evidence: No such link
Civ. Code § 1798.130(a)(5)	erence signals must be honored.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.130(a)(5): “clear and conspicuous link” required.
29 U.S.C. § 794	late 42 U.S.C. § 12181 and Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d). Source Code Evidence: Form field
Prof. Code § 22575	nt 5: Violation of CalOPPA (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22575) – inadequate privacy policy. Count 6

177.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (9)

Header	Source excerpt
Count 1: Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) – interception of electronic communications via tracking scripts without consent.	Google, Dynatrace, hCaptcha, etc.): Count 1: Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) – interception of electronic communications via tracking scripts wi
Count 2: Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) – unauthorized access/exfiltration of data.	via tracking scripts without consent. Count 2: Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) – unauthorized access/exfiltration of data. Coun
Count 3: Unfair and Deceptive Practices (FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) – failure to secure data, lack of disclosure, and deceptive tracking.	thorized access/exfiltration of data. Count 3: Unfair and Deceptive Practices (FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) – failure to secure data, lack of disclosure, and dec
Count 4: Violation of CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.) – lack of opt‑out, missing “Do Not Sell” link, and no consent.	f disclosure, and deceptive tracking. Count 4: Violation of CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.) – lack of opt‑out, missing “Do Not Sell” link, and no
Count 5: Violation of CalOPPA (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22575) – inadequate privacy policy.	g “Do Not Sell” link, and no consent. Count 5: Violation of CalOPPA (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22575) – inadequate privacy policy. Count 6: Violation of the Priv
Count 6: Violation of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a) – collection of PII without required notice, no routine uses disclosure.	§ 22575) – inadequate privacy policy. Count 6: Violation of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a) – collection of PII without required notice, no routine us
Count 7: Violation of ADA Title III (42 U.S.C. § 12181) and Section 508 – digital accessibility barriers.	d notice, no routine uses disclosure. Count 7: Violation of ADA Title III (42 U.S.C. § 12181) and Section 508 – digital accessibility barriers. Count 8: Neglige
Count 8: Negligence – failure to implement reasonable security measures (HTTPS, CSP, SRI, security headers).	508 – digital accessibility barriers. Count 8: Negligence – failure to implement reasonable security measures (HTTPS, CSP, SRI, security headers). Count 9: Brea
Count 9: Breach of Fiduciary Duty – the government owes a duty to protect constituent data.	(HTTPS, CSP, SRI, security headers). Count 9: Breach of Fiduciary Duty – the government owes a duty to protect constituent data. Damages Sought: Statutory maxim

177.4 Dollar Figures (68)

$1.20 · $1.50 · $1.80 · $1.90 · $2.10 · $2.25 · $2.50 · $2.80 · $3.10 · $3.50 · $3.60 · $3.80 · $4.30 · $5.30 · $5.60 · $5.80 · $5.90 · $6.80 · $7.20 · $7.90 · $8.50 · $9.20 · $11.80 · $24.70 · $27.80 · $40.00 · $50.00 · $67.90 · $70.00 · $75.00 · $76.40 · $85.00 · $100.00 · $120.00 · $150.00 · $170.00 · $200.00 · $210.00 · $225.00 · $250.00 · $255.00 · $270.00 · $300.00 · $360.00 · $400.00 · $450.00 · $500.00 · $510.00 · $600.00 · $750.00 · $810.00 · $2,500.00 · $50,120.00 · $75,000.00 · $120,000.00 · $150,000.00 · $150,360.00 · $200,000.00 · $225,000.00 · $250,000.00 · $300,000.00 · $360,000.00 · $450,000.00 · $500,000.00 · $600,000.00 · $750,000.00 · $751,800.00 · $800,000.00

177.5 Dates (1)

2026-07-21

Section 178 of 261

Section 178 — CONSOLIDATED FORENSIC AUDIT – CNN INTERNATIONAL HOMEPAGE (ALL 9 PARTS) – VERBATIM MERGER

Source File	FORENSIC-0178-cnn-all-9-parts-58a11408.html
Created	July 25, 2026
Modified	2026-07-25 19:42:04
Size	251,726 bytes
SHA-256	58a11408d691a14262195f9da7a5ee80474888d0f456f96cca5125b4dc04e2ac

178.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	Henri Bryant Lanier Sr	New York Case No.: 26-cv-12345-LAK Plaintiff: Henri Bryant Lanier Sr., Esq., Ph.D. (on behalf of the class) Defendant: Tu
defendant	Turner Broadcasting System	Esq., Ph.D. (on behalf of the class) Defendant: Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. (CNN International) Count I – Violatio

178.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (44)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	it was conducted under the authority of 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	der the authority of 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	of 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, int
Civ. Code § 1798.100	tection: GDPR (EU) 2016/679, CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100), GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801), COPPA (15 U.
15 U.S.C. § 6801	CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100), GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801), COPPA (15 U.S.C. § 6501), ePrivacy Di
15 U.S.C. § 6501	8.100), GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801), COPPA (15 U.S.C. § 6501), ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC, and OE
18 U.S.C. § 2511	Security & Cybersecurity: Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511), CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030), NIST SP 800-
18 U.S.C. § 1030	: Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511), CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030), NIST SP 800-53, and DoD STIG non-comp
42 U.S.C. § 12181	G non-compliance. Accessibility: ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12181) and Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d) vio
29 U.S.C. § 794	DA (42 U.S.C. § 12181) and Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d) violations. Anti-Spam & Marketing:
15 U.S.C. § 7701	Anti-Spam & Marketing: CAN-SPAM Act (15 U.S.C. § 7701) violations. Consumer Protection: FTC
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	ations. Consumer Protection: FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) unfair/deceptive practices. Internat
GDPR Art. 17	tention or deletion policies, violating GDPR Art. 17 (Right to Erasure). Risk Assessment
Civ. Code § 1798.150	ed €6.25B annual revenue) CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150) $7,500 per violation ~500,000 Californ
15 U.S.C. § 45(m)	ers impacted $3,750,000,000 FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(m)) $50,120 per violation 1 (deceptive pra
18 U.S.C. § 2520(c)	tive practices) $50,120 Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2520(c)) $10,000 per violation + treble damages
18 U.S.C. § 1030(c)	0,000,000,000 (treble damages) CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030(c)) $5,000 per violation + treble 1 (excee
15 U.S.C. § 6823(b)	orized access) $5,000 + treble GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6823(b)) $100,000 per violation 1 (failure to p
15 U.S.C. § 7706(d)	13 impacted $2,587,200,000 CAN-SPAM (15 U.S.C. § 7706(d)) $51,744 per violation ~1,000,000 email
28 C.F.R. § 35.150	without consent $51,744,000,000 ADA (28 C.F.R. § 35.150) $75,000 per violation 1 (accessibility
18 U.S.C. § 2520	00 Class Action Multiplier (3× under 18 U.S.C. § 2520) 3 Target 28 Exposure (×3 Multiplier
GDPR Art. 5	s full ad targeting and inventory data. GDPR Art. 5, CCPA § 1798.100, FTC Act § 5 High Remo
GDPR Art. 6	hout explicit consent for each purpose. GDPR Art. 6, Art. 7, Art. 13; CCPA § 1798.100; ePri
GDPR Art. 7	egories, violating opt-in requirements. GDPR Art. 7, Recital 32; CCPA § 1798.135; FTC Act §
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)	-500) Statutory Citations: CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)): Unauthorized access to a protected co
GDPR Art. 83	the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR Art. 83(4)) Allegation: Defendant, CNN, proce
GDPR Art. 32	njection / Inline Style Risk High CFAA, GDPR Art. 32 V2 Line 23–47 Missing Content Securi
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A)	.)`). Statutory Citations: CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A)): Intentionally causing transmission of
5 U.S.C. § 552	sion Data via `:visited` – Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) , GDPR Art. 5(1)(f) . Penalty: $5,000
18 U.S.C. § 1030(g)	on of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030(g)) Defendant’s insecure CSS and lack of
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)	ltering – reflected XSS vector CRITICAL 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5); FTC § 45(n) 11 325‑340 No visible c
Civ. Code § 1798.120	ird‑party sharing – CCPA HIGH CCPA Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.120 26 802‑825 Forms lack `autocomplete=
GDPR Art. 13	in header – CCPA HIGH CCPA § 1798.130; GDPR Art. 13 29 905‑930 Missing `HttpOnly`/`Secur
GDPR Art. 30	` version tracking LOW CCPA § 1798.130; GDPR Art. 30 40 1315‑1340 Payment elements withou
15 U.S.C. § 6823	` – PCI‑DSS HIGH GLBA 15 U.S.C. § 6801; 15 U.S.C. § 6823 41 1355‑1380 No `data‑third‑party` d
Civ. Code § 1798.150(a)	ssing info on user devices. CCPA Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150(a) – Private right of action for data brea
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(C)	ct JS. Statutory Citations (3×): 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(C) – Intentional damage to protected compu
15 U.S.C. § 45(n)	) – Civil action with treble damages. 15 U.S.C. § 45(n) – FTC Act: substantial injury to consum
Civ. Code § 1798.130(a)(5)	A § 1798.120 – Right to opt out. Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.130(a)(5) – Notice at collection. UN Guiding Pr
47 U.S.C. § 230	1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507‑2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 18
15 U.S.C. § 45	030) 14 $15,000 (trebled) – FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45) 18 $50,120 – GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6823
15 U.S.C. § 7706	§ 794d) 5 $225,000 (×3) – CAN‑SPAM (15 U.S.C. § 7706) 3 $51,744 – ePrivacy Directive 6 €2
GDPR Art. 4	, ambiguous labels High FTC Act § 5(a), GDPR Art. 4(11), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500
Prof. Code § 17500	ct § 5(a), GDPR Art. 4(11), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 V-09 17094–17095, 17097 Privacy poli

178.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (54)

178.4 Dollar Figures (205)

$1.00 · $1.20 · $1.39 · $1.50 · $1.66 · $1.68 · $1.90 · $2.00 · $2.10 · $2.20 · $2.22 · $2.25 · $2.50 · $2.60 · $2.78 · $2.80 · $3.00 · $3.10 · $3.15 · $3.50 · $3.60 · $3.80 · $4.20 · $4.30 · $4.50 · $4.70 · $5.30 · $5.60 · $5.80 · $5.90 · $6.00 · $6.20 · $6.25 · $6.30 · $6.40 · $6.45 · $6.50 · $6.80 · $7.10 · $7.20 · $7.50 · $7.80 · $7.90 · $7.95 · $8.20 · $8.40 · $8.50 · $8.60 · $9.00 · $9.20 · $9.40 · $9.45 · $9.50 · $10.00 · $11.60 · $11.80 · $12.00 · $12.50 · $12.53 · $12.80 · $14.20 · $15.00 · $15.03 · $15.40 · $15.80 · $18.45 · $19.20 · $19.35 · $19.50 · $19.60 · $20.80 · $22.30 · $22.50 · $24.60 · $25.50 · $25.60 · $27.00 · $28.19 · $29.50 · $30.00 · $31.40 · $37.59 · $38.70 · $50.00 · $55.10 · $93.80 · $93.87 · $99.50 · $130.00 · $130.07 · $150.36 · $259.20 · $278.00 · $300.00 · $400.00 · $450.00 · $500.00 · $556.00 · $600.00 · $750.00 · $834.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $11,250.00 · $15,000.00 · $22,500.00 · $25,000.00 · $30,000.00 · $38,808.00 · $47,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $63,750.00 · $65,120.00 · $75,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $112,500.00 · $123,750.00 · $150,000.00 · $150,360.00 · $202,500.00 · $225,000.00 · $272,500.00 · $278,000.00 · $300,000.00 · $561,558.00 · $25,000,000.00 · $250,000,000.00 · $272,500,000.00 · $494,060,438.00 · $1,125,011,259.00 · $1,940,400,000.00 · $2,587,200,000.00 · $2,812,500,000.00 · $3,375,005,625.00 · $3,750,000,000.00 · $4,200,000,000.00 · $4,940,604,375.00 · $5,434,664,813.00 · $6,587,472,500.00 · $6,635,840,000.00 · $8,600,000,000.00 · $10,000,000,000.00 · $11,250,112,590.00 · $12,375,123,849.00 · $15,000,000,000.00 · $15,000,150,120.00 · $22,500,000,000.00 · $30,000,000,000.00 · $33,750,056,250.00 · $37,125,061,875.00 · $38,808,000,000.00 · $45,000,075,000.00 · $51,744,000,000.00 · $66,358,400,000.00 · $72,994,240,000.00 · $145,988,480,000.00 · $218,982,720,000.00 · $291,976,960,000.00 · $1,000,000,000,000.00 · $1,500,000,000,000.00 · $2,250,000,000,000.00 · $3,000,000,000,000.00 · $3,880,800,000,000.00 · $4,500,000,000,000.00 · $4,572,358,440,000.00 · $4,572,472,940,000.00 · $4,572,472,963,400.00 · $4,700,000,000,000.00 · $4,718,461,420,000.00 · $4,722,661,420,000.00 · $4,864,449,923,400.00 · $4,873,049,923,400.00 · $5,000,000,000,000.00 · $6,000,000,000,000.00 · $6,375,000,000,000.00 · $6,512,000,000,000.00 · $7,500,000,000,000.00 · $8,500,000,000,000.00 · $10,000,000,000,000.00 · $11,250,000,000,000.00 · $12,000,000,000,000.00 · $18,450,000,000,000.00 · $19,200,000,000,000.00 · $19,500,000,000,000.00 · $20,250,000,000,000.00 · $23,172,661,420,000.00 · $24,600,000,000,000.00 · $25,500,000,000,000.00 · $25,600,000,000,000.00 · $29,473,049,923,400.00 · $42,372,661,420,000.00 · $55,073,049,923,400.00 · $56,155,800,000,000.00 · $61,872,661,420,000.00 · $73,400,000,000,000.00 · $76,500,000,000,000.00 · $80,573,049,923,400.00 · $81,372,661,420,000.00 · $85,000,000,000,000.00 · $93,872,661,420,000.00 · $106,073,049,923,400.00 · $130,073,049,923,400.00

178.5 Dates (1)

2026-07-25

Section 179 of 261

Section 179 — FORENSIC AUDIT REPORT – TARGETS 34 & 35: CNN INTERNATIONAL HOMEPAGE (PARTS 7 & 8 OF 9)

Source File	FORENSIC-0179-cnnpart-7-and-8-audit-48163d7a.html
Created	July 25, 2026
Modified	2026-07-25 14:50:58
Size	37,498 bytes
SHA-256	48163d7a186072c3b9c09987b6bc7087fe375c852ea6c021afbba8c066b19f92

179.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

179.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (26)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	://ladcodefense2.com Audit Authority: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	m Audit Authority: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U
10 U.S.C. § 2304	y: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S
47 U.S.C. § 230	1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.
5 U.S.C. § 552	2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiret
18 U.S.C. § 2511	. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA);
18 U.S.C. § 1030	y Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	(Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal
15 U.S.C. § 6801	30 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA
Civ. Code § 1798.100	FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 2
42 U.S.C. § 12181	Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508);
29 U.S.C. § 794	0 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-S
15 U.S.C. § 7701	(ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-SPAM); 15 U.S.C. § 6501 (COPPA); G
15 U.S.C. § 6501	tion 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-SPAM); 15 U.S.C. § 6501 (COPPA); GDPR (EU) 2016/679; ePrivacy D
15 U.S.C. § 45	030) 14 $15,000 (trebled) – FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45) 18 $50,120 – GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6823
15 U.S.C. § 6823	(15 U.S.C. § 45) 18 $50,120 – GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6823) 5 $300,000 (trebled) – GDPR (Art. 8
Civ. Code § 1798.150	8B (per violation × 100M) CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150) 8 $7,500 $6,000,000,000,000 (8 × $7,50
15 U.S.C. § 7706	§ 794d) 5 $225,000 (×3) – CAN‑SPAM (15 U.S.C. § 7706) 3 $51,744 – ePrivacy Directive 6 €2
GDPR Art. 32	in cleartext Critical 18 U.S.C. § 1030, GDPR Art. 32, NIST SP 800-53, GLBA § 501(b) V-02
GDPR Art. 5	onsole logs and error messages Critical GDPR Art. 5(1)(f), 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act), C
GDPR Art. 7	ular user consent for tracking Critical GDPR Art. 7, 6(1)(a); ePrivacy Dir. 2002/58/EC; CCP
GDPR Art. 4	, ambiguous labels High FTC Act § 5(a), GDPR Art. 4(11), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500
Prof. Code § 17500	ct § 5(a), GDPR Art. 4(11), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 V-09 17094–17095, 17097 Privacy poli
GDPR Art. 13	notice High Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100, GDPR Art. 13-14, GLBA § 501(b) V-10 16633–16666,
Civ. Code § 1798.120	onal Information" link (CCPA) High Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.120, 1798.135 V-19 16633–16666 (UserAcco
GDPR Art. 17	ete account or data (Art. 17 GDPR) High GDPR Art. 17, CCPA § 1798.105, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798

179.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (11)

Header	Source excerpt
Count 497,341	6c7d8e9f0a1b2c3d4e5f6a7b8c Character Count 497,341 Detected Format HTML5 + inline SVG +
Count 2,487,331	4c5d6e7f8a9b0c1d2e3f4a5b6c Character Count 2,487,331 Detected Format JavaScript (ES5/ES6 m
Count I: Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) – Unauthorized access to protected computers via injection and hardcoded secrets.	NN, and Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. Count I: Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) – Unauthorized access to protected computers via
Count II: Violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) – Unfair or deceptive acts or practices, including dark patterns and lack of consent.	via injection and hardcoded secrets. Count II: Violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) – Unfair or deceptive acts or practices, includ
Count III: Violation of the Gramm‑Leach‑Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. § 6823) – Failure to protect consumer financial information.	ng dark patterns and lack of consent. Count III: Violation of the Gramm‑Leach‑Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. § 6823) – Failure to protect consumer financial information.
Count IV: Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100, et seq.) – Failure to provide notice, opt‑out, or data deletion rights.	otect consumer financial information. Count IV: Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100, et seq.) – Failure to provide notic
Count V: Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12181) – Denial of equal access to digital services.	ce, opt‑out, or data deletion rights. Count V: Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12181) – Denial of equal access to digital services
Count VI: Violation of the CAN‑SPAM Act (15 U.S.C. § 7706) – Unsolicited commercial email without prior consent.	of equal access to digital services. Count VI: Violation of the CAN‑SPAM Act (15 U.S.C. § 7706) – Unsolicited commercial email without prior consent. Count VII:
Count VII: Violation of the ePrivacy Directive (2002/58/EC) as implemented in EU Member States – Unlawful storage of or access to terminal equipment.	mmercial email without prior consent. Count VII: Violation of the ePrivacy Directive (2002/58/EC) as implemented in EU Member States – Unlawful storage of or ac
Count VIII: Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) – Interception of electronic communications.	e of or access to terminal equipment. Count VIII: Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) – Interception of electronic communications. Count IX: Neglige
Count IX: Negligence and Breach of Fiduciary Duty – Failure to safeguard user data, resulting in unauthorized disclosure of PII.	ception of electronic communications. Count IX: Negligence and Breach of Fiduciary Duty – Failure to safeguard user data, resulting in unauthorized disclosure o

179.4 Dollar Figures (93)

$1.20 · $1.39 · $1.66 · $1.90 · $2.10 · $2.20 · $2.22 · $2.50 · $2.60 · $2.78 · $2.80 · $3.00 · $3.10 · $3.50 · $3.80 · $4.20 · $4.30 · $5.30 · $5.60 · $5.80 · $5.90 · $6.00 · $6.20 · $6.40 · $6.80 · $7.10 · $7.20 · $7.80 · $7.90 · $8.20 · $8.40 · $8.50 · $9.20 · $9.50 · $11.60 · $11.80 · $12.80 · $14.20 · $15.40 · $15.80 · $19.20 · $19.60 · $22.30 · $31.40 · $38.70 · $50.00 · $92.00 · $92.37 · $128.00 · $128.07 · $278.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $15,000.00 · $25,000.00 · $30,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $65,120.00 · $100,000.00 · $155,120.00 · $225,000.00 · $278,000.00 · $300,000.00 · $620,480.00 · $4,200,000,000.00 · $8,600,000,000.00 · $145,988,480,000.00 · $291,976,960,000.00 · $4,500,000,000,000.00 · $4,572,358,440,000.00 · $5,000,000,000,000.00 · $6,000,000,000,000.00 · $6,512,000,000,000.00 · $8,500,000,000,000.00 · $10,000,000,000,000.00 · $12,000,000,000,000.00 · $18,450,000,000,000.00 · $19,200,000,000,000.00 · $19,500,000,000,000.00 · $24,600,000,000,000.00 · $25,500,000,000,000.00 · $25,600,000,000,000.00 · $62,048,000,000,000.00 · $73,300,000,000,000.00 · $76,500,000,000,000.00 · $81,372,661,420,000.00 · $85,000,000,000,000.00 · $92,372,661,420,000.00 · $106,073,049,923,400.00 · $128,073,049,923,400.00

179.5 Dates (1)

2026-07-25

Section 180 of 261

Section 180 — FORENSIC AUDIT REPORT – Desert Power Wagons (Product Page) – 2026-07-21

Source File	FORENSIC-0180-powerwagonaudit-a8770719.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-21 17:06:41
Size	39,860 bytes
SHA-256	a877071911b2e13bb6b9521ebe6a054472c2ed047b727711fb2d185981c5c5c2

180.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

180.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (21)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	nt Lanier Sr., Esq., Ph.D. Authority: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	, Ph.D. Authority: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U
10 U.S.C. § 2304	y: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230 Audi
47 U.S.C. § 230	1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230 Audit Date: 2026-07-21 \| Report ID:
18 U.S.C. § 2511	sent banner, violating the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511), the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)), and
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	ap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511), the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)), and the California Consumer Privacy A
Civ. Code § 1798.100	e California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100). Additionally, the page lacks critical
42 U.S.C. § 12181	cessibility review under ADA Title III (42 U.S.C. § 12181) and Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d).
29 U.S.C. § 794	II (42 U.S.C. § 12181) and Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d). Performance review under Google Co
18 U.S.C. § 1030	ronic communications without consent 18 U.S.C. § 1030 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) – u
15 U.S.C. § 6801	nfair or deceptive acts or practices 15 U.S.C. § 6801 Gramm‑Leach‑Bliley Act (GLBA) – financi
15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(A)	TC fine: $50,120 per violation per day (15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(A)). With 25+ resources, conservative base
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)	Statutory & Regulatory Citations: 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a): “intentionally intercepts, endeavors t
Civ. Code § 1798.100(b)	y are electronic communications. Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100(b): Consumers have the right to know what
18 U.S.C. § 2520(c)(2)	tual damages or $100/day per violation (18 U.S.C. § 2520(c)(2)). For millions of users, this is astron
Civ. Code § 1798.155	$7,500 per intentional violation (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.155). With 6+ trackers, 3× expansion: $1.2M
Civ. Code § 1798.135	bal Privacy Control (GPC) signals. Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.135 requires businesses to recognize opt‑ou
Civ. Code § 1798.130(a)(5)	ize opt‑out preference signals.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.130(a)(5): “A business shall provide a clear and
15 U.S.C. § 6802(a)	ity program. Statutory Citations: 15 U.S.C. § 6802(a): “No financial institution may disclose
Civ. Code § 1798.130	ailure to protect PII is unfair. Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.130 – requires disclosure of data retention
Prof. Code § 22575	nt 5: Violation of CalOPPA (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22575) – inadequate privacy policy. Count 6

180.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (9)

Header	Source excerpt
Count 1: Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) – interception of electronic communications via tracking scripts without consent.	Mailchimp, PearlDiver, Wix, etc.): Count 1: Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) – interception of electronic communications via tracking scripts wit
Count 2: Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) – unauthorized access/exfiltration of data via tracking scripts.	via tracking scripts without consent. Count 2: Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) – unauthorized access/exfiltration of data via t
Count 3: Unfair and Deceptive Practices (FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) – failure to disclose tracking, cookie use, and security failures.	tration of data via tracking scripts. Count 3: Unfair and Deceptive Practices (FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) – failure to disclose tracking, cookie use, and secur
Count 4: Violation of CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.) – lack of opt‑out, privacy policy deficiencies, and data sharing disclosure.	g, cookie use, and security failures. Count 4: Violation of CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.) – lack of opt‑out, privacy policy deficiencies, and da
Count 5: Violation of CalOPPA (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22575) – inadequate privacy policy.	iencies, and data sharing disclosure. Count 5: Violation of CalOPPA (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22575) – inadequate privacy policy. Count 6: Violation of Gramm‑Le
Count 6: Violation of Gramm‑Leach‑Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. § 6801) – financial privacy violations.	§ 22575) – inadequate privacy policy. Count 6: Violation of Gramm‑Leach‑Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. § 6801) – financial privacy violations. Count 7: Violation of ADA
Count 7: Violation of ADA Title III (42 U.S.C. § 12181) – digital accessibility barriers.	6801) – financial privacy violations. Count 7: Violation of ADA Title III (42 U.S.C. § 12181) – digital accessibility barriers. Count 8: Negligence – failure to
Count 8: Negligence – failure to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures (CSP, SRI, security headers).	81) – digital accessibility barriers. Count 8: Negligence – failure to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures (CSP, SRI, security headers). Count 9: Breach
Count 9: Breach of Fiduciary Duty (the business owes a duty to protect customer data).	easures (CSP, SRI, security headers). Count 9: Breach of Fiduciary Duty (the business owes a duty to protect customer data). Damages Sought: Statutory maximums,

180.4 Dollar Figures (54)

$1.20 · $1.80 · $1.90 · $2.10 · $2.50 · $2.80 · $3.50 · $3.60 · $3.80 · $4.30 · $5.30 · $5.60 · $5.80 · $6.80 · $7.20 · $7.90 · $9.20 · $11.80 · $24.70 · $35.00 · $50.00 · $67.90 · $70.00 · $75.00 · $100.00 · $105.00 · $112.77 · $150.00 · $170.00 · $200.00 · $210.00 · $225.00 · $300.00 · $400.00 · $450.00 · $510.00 · $600.00 · $900.00 · $2,500.00 · $7,500.00 · $50,120.00 · $75,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $150,000.00 · $150,360.00 · $200,000.00 · $225,000.00 · $300,000.00 · $450,000.00 · $500,000.00 · $600,000.00 · $900,000.00 · $1,253,000.00 · $3,759,000.00

180.5 Dates (1)

2026-07-21

Section 181 of 261

Section 181 — FORENSIC AUDIT REPORT – Joe Wilson Contact Page – 2026-07-21

Source File	FORENSIC-0181-joe-wilson-audit-2-8ce7b6c6.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-21 18:03:49
Size	30,472 bytes
SHA-256	8ce7b6c6a4b01274a159c296dba496768ce06bd2324dc823d32106e43a44d651

181.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

181.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (15)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	nt Lanier Sr., Esq., Ph.D. Authority: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	, Ph.D. Authority: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U
10 U.S.C. § 2304	y: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230 Audi
47 U.S.C. § 230	1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230 Audit Date: 2026-07-21 \| Report ID:
18 U.S.C. § 2511	Statute / Regulation Description 18 U.S.C. § 2511 Wiretap Act – interception of electroni
18 U.S.C. § 1030	ception of electronic communications 18 U.S.C. § 1030 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) FTC Act – unfair or deceptive acts or p
5 U.S.C. § 552	nfair or deceptive acts or practices 5 U.S.C. § 552a Privacy Act of 1974 – federal agency c
Civ. Code § 1798.100	ederal agency collection of PII Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 CCPA – notice and opt‑out 42 U.S.C.
42 U.S.C. § 12181	§ 1798.100 CCPA – notice and opt‑out 42 U.S.C. § 12181 ADA Title III – public accommodations (
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)	></script> Statutory Citations: 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a) – interception of electronic communicat
Civ. Code § 1798.135	nals are recognized. This violates Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.135. Source Code Evidence: No such link
Civ. Code § 1798.130(a)(5)	erence signals must be honored.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.130(a)(5): “clear and conspicuous link” required.
29 U.S.C. § 794	late 42 U.S.C. § 12181 and Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d). Source Code Evidence: Form field
Prof. Code § 22575	nt 5: Violation of CalOPPA (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22575) – inadequate privacy policy. Count 6

181.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (9)

Header	Source excerpt
Count 1: Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) – interception of electronic communications via tracking scripts without consent.	Google, Dynatrace, hCaptcha, etc.): Count 1: Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) – interception of electronic communications via tracking scripts wi
Count 2: Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) – unauthorized access/exfiltration of data.	via tracking scripts without consent. Count 2: Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) – unauthorized access/exfiltration of data. Coun
Count 3: Unfair and Deceptive Practices (FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) – failure to secure data, lack of disclosure, and deceptive tracking.	thorized access/exfiltration of data. Count 3: Unfair and Deceptive Practices (FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) – failure to secure data, lack of disclosure, and dec
Count 4: Violation of CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.) – lack of opt‑out, missing “Do Not Sell” link, and no consent.	f disclosure, and deceptive tracking. Count 4: Violation of CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.) – lack of opt‑out, missing “Do Not Sell” link, and no
Count 5: Violation of CalOPPA (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22575) – inadequate privacy policy.	g “Do Not Sell” link, and no consent. Count 5: Violation of CalOPPA (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22575) – inadequate privacy policy. Count 6: Violation of the Priv
Count 6: Violation of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a) – collection of PII without required notice, no routine uses disclosure.	§ 22575) – inadequate privacy policy. Count 6: Violation of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a) – collection of PII without required notice, no routine us
Count 7: Violation of ADA Title III (42 U.S.C. § 12181) and Section 508 – digital accessibility barriers.	d notice, no routine uses disclosure. Count 7: Violation of ADA Title III (42 U.S.C. § 12181) and Section 508 – digital accessibility barriers. Count 8: Neglige
Count 8: Negligence – failure to implement reasonable security measures (HTTPS, CSP, SRI, security headers).	508 – digital accessibility barriers. Count 8: Negligence – failure to implement reasonable security measures (HTTPS, CSP, SRI, security headers). Count 9: Brea
Count 9: Breach of Fiduciary Duty – the government owes a duty to protect constituent data.	(HTTPS, CSP, SRI, security headers). Count 9: Breach of Fiduciary Duty – the government owes a duty to protect constituent data. Damages Sought: Statutory maxim

181.4 Dollar Figures (68)

181.5 Dates (1)

2026-07-21

Section 182 of 261

Section 182 — FORENSIC AUDIT REPORT – Target #17: The White House (whitehouse.gov)

Source File	FORENSIC-0182-whitehouseaudit-b70ecc23.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-22 17:19:34
Size	94,642 bytes
SHA-256	b70ecc23ddcfb78191f7f22aa4dc8c058f2d6f290ad4d75b0c83c7bccf2fffd4

182.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	Henri Bryant Lanier Sr	irginia] Case No.: [To be assigned] Plaintiff: Henri Bryant Lanier Sr., Esq., Ph.D. , on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of t
defendant	Executive Office	e United States as a qui tam relator. Defendant: Executive Office of the President of the United States, The White House, and all related entities, officers, an

182.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (26)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	AUTHORITY (CONTINUOUS, NON-EXHAUSTIVE): 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	US, NON-EXHAUSTIVE): 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U
10 U.S.C. § 2304	): 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S
47 U.S.C. § 230	1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.
5 U.S.C. § 552	2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiret
18 U.S.C. § 2511	. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA);
18 U.S.C. § 1030	y Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	(Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal
15 U.S.C. § 6801	30 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA
Civ. Code § 1798.100	FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 2
42 U.S.C. § 12181	Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508);
29 U.S.C. § 794	0 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-S
15 U.S.C. § 7701	(ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-SPAM); 15 U.S.C. § 6501 (COPPA); G
15 U.S.C. § 6501	tion 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-SPAM); 15 U.S.C. § 6501 (COPPA); GDPR (EU) 2016/679; ePrivacy D
GDPR Art. 7	t explicit, informed consent, violating GDPR Art. 7, ePrivacy Art. 5(3), and the Wiretap Ac
Civ. Code § 1798.100(b)	and the routine uses. CCPA/CPRA Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100(b): A business that collects a consumer's
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)	es a deceptive practice. Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a): Prohibits the intentional interception
GDPR Art. 13	TATUTORY CITATIONS (×3 Expansion): GDPR Art. 13 & 14: Requires controllers to provide d
GDPR Art. 17	iteria used to determine that period. GDPR Art. 17: Right to erasure ("right to be forgott
GDPR Art. 15	TATUTORY CITATIONS (×3 Expansion): GDPR Art. 15: Right of access to personal data. GD
GDPR Art. 16	15: Right of access to personal data. GDPR Art. 16: Right to rectification. GDPR Art. 17
44 U.S.C. § 3541	e proper header configuration. FISMA, 44 U.S.C. § 3541: Requires federal agencies to implement
GDPR Art. 35	constitutes high-risk processing under GDPR Art. 35, requiring a Data Protection Impact Ass
GDPR Art. 36	e rights and freedoms of individuals. GDPR Art. 36: Requires prior consultation with the s
47 U.S.C. § 227	lephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227: Prohibits calls and texts to wireless
17 U.S.C. § 101	ved This audit report is protected by 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. and international copyright tre

182.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (11)

Header	Source excerpt
COUNT I — Violation of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a)	d entities, officers, and agents. COUNT I — Violation of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a) The Defendant has systematically coll
COUNT II — Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511)	tors, exposure exceeds $250 million . COUNT II — Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) The Defendant intentionally intercept
COUNT III — Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030)	sers, exposure exceeds $250 million . COUNT III — Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) The Defendant caused the transmission
COUNT IV — Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a))	ith exposure exceeding $100 million . COUNT IV — Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) The Defendant engaged in unfair and d
COUNT V — Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.)	lion since the inception of tracking. COUNT V — Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.) The Defendant failed to pro
COUNT VI — Violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (EU) 2016/679	ith exposure exceeding $100 million . COUNT VI — Violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (EU) 2016/679 The Defendant processes personal data
COUNT VII — Violation of the ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC	ating to approximately $260 billion . COUNT VII — Violation of the ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC The Defendant stores and accesses inf
COUNT VIII — Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12181)	ith exposure exceeding $100 million . COUNT VIII — Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12181) The Defendant's website contains nume
COUNT IX — Violation of CAN-SPAM Act (15 U.S.C. § 7701)	tion exposure exceeding $10 million . COUNT IX — Violation of CAN-SPAM Act (15 U.S.C. § 7701) The Defendant collects email addresse
COUNT X — Violation of COPPA (15 U.S.C. § 6501)	th exposure exceeding $18.3 million . COUNT X — Violation of COPPA (15 U.S.C. § 6501) The Defendant collects personal infor
COUNT XI — Violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. § 227)	with exposure exceeding $5 million . COUNT XI — Violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. § 227) The Defendant promotes a text messagi

182.4 Dollar Figures (74)

$0.40 · $0.50 · $0.60 · $0.80 · $1.00 · $1.20 · $1.50 · $1.80 · $1.90 · $2.00 · $2.10 · $2.20 · $2.40 · $2.50 · $2.60 · $2.80 · $3.00 · $3.10 · $3.20 · $3.50 · $3.80 · $4.00 · $4.30 · $4.50 · $4.80 · $5.00 · $5.30 · $5.60 · $5.80 · $5.90 · $6.00 · $6.50 · $6.80 · $7.10 · $7.20 · $7.90 · $8.20 · $8.50 · $8.80 · $9.20 · $9.50 · $10.00 · $11.00 · $11.80 · $13.50 · $18.30 · $19.60 · $22.30 · $22.50 · $25.00 · $45.40 · $50.00 · $50.12 · $54.90 · $75.00 · $100.00 · $121.80 · $130.00 · $144.10 · $150.00 · $225.00 · $250.00 · $260.00 · $500.00 · $1,500.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $75,000.00 · $150,000.00 · $500,000.00 · $18,293,800.00

182.5 Dates (1)

2026-07-22

Section 183 of 261

Section 183 — FORENSIC AUDIT REPORT – TARGET #24: SHAWN RYAN SHOW

Source File	FORENSIC-0183-shawn-ryan-show-audit-ef9c6add.html
Created	July 24, 2026
Modified	2026-07-24 21:26:36
Size	39,403 bytes
SHA-256	ef9c6add7e0e02a9fcdd4e48427f2a11c3be9b635057228e272c71a9484da529

183.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	Henri Bryant Lanier Sr	T FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Plaintiff: Henri Bryant Lanier Sr., Esq., Ph.D., on behalf of the United States and the class of all similarly situated use
defendant	Vigilance Elite	class of all similarly situated users Defendant: Vigilance Elite (Shawn Ryan), a Texas entity, with princ

183.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (47)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	://ladcodefense2.com Audit Authority: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	m Audit Authority: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U
10 U.S.C. § 2304	y: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S
47 U.S.C. § 230	1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.
5 U.S.C. § 552	2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiret
18 U.S.C. § 2511	. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA);
18 U.S.C. § 1030	y Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	(Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal
15 U.S.C. § 6801	30 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA
Civ. Code § 1798.100	FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 2
42 U.S.C. § 12181	Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508);
29 U.S.C. § 794	0 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-S
15 U.S.C. § 7701	(ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-SPAM); 15 U.S.C. § 6501 (COPPA); G
15 U.S.C. § 6501	tion 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-SPAM); 15 U.S.C. § 6501 (COPPA); GDPR (EU) 2016/679; ePrivacy D
GDPR Art. 5	legal basis. Statutory Citations: GDPR Art. 5(1)(a): Lawfulness, fairness, and transp
GDPR Art. 6	fairness, and transparency – violated. GDPR Art. 6(1): No valid legal basis for processing
GDPR Art. 7	: No valid legal basis for processing. GDPR Art. 7: Consent not freely given, specific, or
GDPR Art. 13	t freely given, specific, or informed. GDPR Art. 13–14: Information not provided to data su
GDPR Art. 25	rmation not provided to data subjects. GDPR Art. 25: Data protection by design and default
GDPR Art. 83	vice access. Penalty Calculation: GDPR Art. 83(5): Up to €20M or 4% of global annual t
Civ. Code § 1798.100(b)	ignals. Statutory Citations: Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100(b): Right to know what personal informatio
Civ. Code § 1798.120(a)	ersonal information is collected. Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.120(a): Right to opt-out of sale or sharing.
Civ. Code § 1798.130	ht to opt-out of sale or sharing. Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.130: Transparency requirements – not promin
Civ. Code § 1798.135	rements – not prominently placed. Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.135: Global Privacy Control – not honored.
Civ. Code § 1798.185	al Privacy Control – not honored. Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.185: CPRA regulations – dark pattern prohib
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1)	advertisers. Statutory Citations: 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1): Unfair or deceptive acts or practices
15 U.S.C. § 45(n)	eptive acts or practices – prohibited. 15 U.S.C. § 45(n): Unfairness standard – substantial inju
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)	munications. Statutory Citations: 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a): Intentional interception of wire, oral
18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)	electronic communication – prohibited. 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d): Consent exception – requires prior, ex
18 U.S.C. § 2511(4)	on – requires prior, explicit consent. 18 U.S.C. § 2511(4): Criminal penalties and civil remedies.
18 U.S.C. § 2520	Act claims. Penalty Calculation: 18 U.S.C. § 2520: Statutory damages of $100 per day per
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)	under CFAA. Statutory Citations: 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C): Obtaining information from a protected
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(4)	tected computer without authorization. 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(4): Computer fraud – accessing with intent
18 U.S.C. § 1030(c)	ud – accessing with intent to defraud. 18 U.S.C. § 1030(c): Penalties (up to 5–10 years imprisonme
15 U.S.C. § 6801(a)	processing. Statutory Citations: 15 U.S.C. § 6801(a): Duty to protect consumers' non-public
15 U.S.C. § 6802(a)	mers' non-public personal information. 15 U.S.C. § 6802(a): Disclosure of non-public personal info
15 U.S.C. § 6803	prohibited without notice and opt-out. 15 U.S.C. § 6803: Annual privacy notice requirement – no
15 U.S.C. § 6501(a)(1)	tal consent. Statutory Citations: 15 U.S.C. § 6501(a)(1): Operators of websites directed to chil
16 C.F.R. § 312.2	st obtain verifiable parental consent. 16 C.F.R. § 312.2: Definition of "personal information" –
16 C.F.R. § 312.5	s persistent identifiers, geolocation. 16 C.F.R. § 312.5: Parental consent requirements – must b
16 C.F.R. § 312.10	ent requirements – must be verifiable. 16 C.F.R. § 312.10: Prohibition against conditioning parti
15 U.S.C. § 7703(a)	ation of unsolicited commercial email. 15 U.S.C. § 7703(a): Prohibition of false or misleading tra
15 U.S.C. § 7705	r misleading transmission information. 15 U.S.C. § 7705: Enforcement by FTC – penalties up to $
42 U.S.C. § 12182(a)	lternatives. Statutory Citations: 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a): Places of public accommodation – inclu
42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)	lic accommodation – includes websites. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A): Full and equal enjoyment – must provid
28 C.F.R. § 36.201	must provide reasonable modifications. 28 C.F.R. § 36.201(b): Effective communication – websites
GDPR Art. 82	rpreted by ECJ in Planet49 (C-673/17). GDPR Art. 82: Right to compensation for material and

183.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (9)

Header	Source excerpt
COUNT I – VIOLATION OF FTC ACT § 5(a) (15 U.S.C. § 45(a))	e of business at [Address of Record]. COUNT I – VIOLATION OF FTC ACT § 5(a) (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) Defendant engaged in unfair and decep
COUNT II – VIOLATION OF CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.)	ng user data without adequate notice. COUNT II – VIOLATION OF CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.) Defendant failed to provide consumers
COUNT III – VIOLATION OF GDPR (EU) 2016/679	a processing categories and purposes. COUNT III – VIOLATION OF GDPR (EU) 2016/679 Defendant processed personal data of
COUNT IV – VIOLATION OF WIRETAP ACT (18 U.S.C. § 2511)	f data subjects under Articles 12–22. COUNT IV – VIOLATION OF WIRETAP ACT (18 U.S.C. § 2511) Defendant intercepted electronic comm
COUNT V – VIOLATION OF CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030)	use movements, and browsing behavior. COUNT V – VIOLATION OF CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030) Defendant exceeded authorized access
COUNT VI – VIOLATION OF ADA TITLE III (42 U.S.C. § 12181)	y servers without user authorization. COUNT VI – VIOLATION OF ADA TITLE III (42 U.S.C. § 12181) Defendant failed to provide accessibl
COUNT VII – VIOLATION OF COPPA (15 U.S.C. § 6501)	, and inadequate keyboard navigation. COUNT VII – VIOLATION OF COPPA (15 U.S.C. § 6501) Defendant collected personal informat
COUNT VIII – VIOLATION OF CAN-SPAM (15 U.S.C. § 7701)	tent identifiers and behavioral data. COUNT VIII – VIOLATION OF CAN-SPAM (15 U.S.C. § 7701) Defendant sent commercial emails with
COUNT IX – VIOLATION OF ePRIVACY DIRECTIVE (2002/58/EC)	r notice of the right to unsubscribe. COUNT IX – VIOLATION OF ePRIVACY DIRECTIVE (2002/58/EC) Defendant stored and accessed informa

183.4 Dollar Figures (67)

$0.10 · $0.20 · $0.30 · $0.40 · $0.50 · $0.60 · $0.70 · $0.80 · $0.90 · $1.00 · $1.20 · $1.30 · $1.80 · $1.90 · $2.10 · $2.20 · $2.30 · $2.50 · $2.60 · $2.80 · $3.00 · $3.10 · $3.50 · $3.80 · $4.20 · $4.30 · $5.00 · $5.30 · $5.60 · $5.80 · $5.90 · $6.00 · $6.40 · $6.80 · $7.10 · $7.20 · $7.90 · $8.20 · $8.40 · $8.50 · $9.20 · $9.50 · $11.60 · $11.80 · $12.80 · $14.20 · $15.80 · $19.60 · $22.30 · $31.40 · $78.90 · $85.30 · $91.70 · $100.00 · $117.50 · $170.00 · $208.60 · $224.20 · $240.00 · $520.00 · $7,500.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $55,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $250,000.00

183.5 Dates (1)

2026-07-24

Section 184 of 261

Section 184 — FORENSIC AUDIT REPORT: Breitbart News Network Masthead

Source File	FORENSIC-0184-breitbartaudit-c75b0059.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-24 20:27:09
Size	66,307 bytes
SHA-256	c75b005991fd77b6d88375a476982e66b930d3832498589f9044fd4f5d328a6f

184.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

184.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (24)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	AUTHORITY (CONTINUOUS, NON-EXHAUSTIVE): 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	US, NON-EXHAUSTIVE): 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U
10 U.S.C. § 2304	): 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S
47 U.S.C. § 230	1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.
5 U.S.C. § 552	2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiret
18 U.S.C. § 2511	. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA);
18 U.S.C. § 1030	y Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	(Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal
15 U.S.C. § 6801	30 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA
Civ. Code § 1798.100	FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 2
42 U.S.C. § 12181	Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508);
29 U.S.C. § 794	0 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-S
15 U.S.C. § 7701	(ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-SPAM); 15 U.S.C. § 6501 (COPPA); G
15 U.S.C. § 6501	tion 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-SPAM); 15 U.S.C. § 6501 (COPPA); GDPR (EU) 2016/679; ePrivacy D
GDPR Article 7	anguage in violation of the FTC Act and GDPR Article 7. Inadequate Data Retention & Security
GDPR Art. 5	Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA/CPRA), GDPR Art. 5(1)(a), GDPR Art. 13, OECD Privacy Guide
GDPR Art. 13	798.100 (CCPA/CPRA), GDPR Art. 5(1)(a), GDPR Art. 13, OECD Privacy Guidelines Part Two The
Civ. Code § 1798.100(b)	lates this principle. CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100(b)): Consumers have the right to know what
GDPR Art. 7	T HIGH Severity: Critical • Statutes: GDPR Art. 7, ePrivacy Directive Art. 5(3), CCPA § 1
Civ. Code § 1798.120	ective Art. 5(3), CCPA § 1798.100, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.120, FTC Act § 5 The page loads 23+ third
GDPR Art. 32	(CFAA), 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act), GDPR Art. 32, FTC Act § 5, NIST SP 800-52 Multiple
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)	(p.width Statutory Analysis: CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)): Accessing a protected computer withou
Civ. Code § 1798.130	es: GDPR Art. 13, CCPA § 1798.100, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.130, FTC Act § 5 While the footer contain
Civ. Code § 1798.150(a)(2)	er violation, treble damages under Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150(a)(2). Class size: 1.2 million California res

184.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (8)

Header	Source excerpt
COUNT I: Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA/CPRA)	lace of business is Los Angeles, CA). COUNT I: Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA/CPRA) Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.
COUNT II: Violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)	$750 × 1.2M × 3 = $2,700,000,000 . COUNT II: Violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) GDPR Art. 5, 7, 13, 17, 32, 33, 35
COUNT III: Violation of the FTC Act (Unfair and Deceptive Practices)	n, × 10 violations = $20,000,000 . COUNT III: Violation of the FTC Act (Unfair and Deceptive Practices) 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) Defendant misr
COUNT IV: Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)	apped at $25M for reasonableness). COUNT IV: Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 42 U.S.C. § 12181 Defendant's we
COUNT V: Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)	al: $750,000,000 (capped at $25M). COUNT V: Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) 18 U.S.C. § 1030 Defendant used
COUNT VI: Violation of the Wiretap Act	: $6,000,000,000 (capped at $25M). COUNT VI: Violation of the Wiretap Act 18 U.S.C. § 2511 Defendant inter
COUNT VII: Violation of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)	$12,000,000,000 (capped at $25M). COUNT VII: Violation of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) 15 U.S.C. § 6501, 16 CFR Part 312
COUNT VIII: Breach of Implied Contract & Unjust Enrichment	: $4,379,200,000 (capped at $25M). COUNT VIII: Breach of Implied Contract & Unjust Enrichment Defendant collected and used person

184.4 Dollar Figures (84)

$1.20 · $1.90 · $2.10 · $2.20 · $2.50 · $2.60 · $2.80 · $3.00 · $3.10 · $3.50 · $3.80 · $4.20 · $4.30 · $5.00 · $5.30 · $5.60 · $5.80 · $5.90 · $6.00 · $6.80 · $7.10 · $7.20 · $7.90 · $8.20 · $8.40 · $8.50 · $9.20 · $9.50 · $11.60 · $11.80 · $19.60 · $22.30 · $25.00 · $50.00 · $66.70 · $178.60 · $500.00 · $750.00 · $1,000.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $43,792.00 · $50,000.00 · $75,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $112,500.00 · $150,000.00 · $750,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $2,000,000.00 · $2,862,500.00 · $5,000,000.00 · $8,500,000.00 · $8,587,500.00 · $17,000,000.00 · $20,000,000.00 · $25,000,000.00 · $25,500,000.00 · $26,000,000.00 · $51,000,000.00 · $75,000,000.00 · $78,000,000.00 · $100,000,000.00 · $125,000,000.00 · $153,000,000.00 · $225,000,000.00 · $375,000,000.00 · $500,000,000.00 · $505,000,000.00 · $538,087,500.00 · $750,000,000.00 · $900,000,000.00 · $905,000,000.00 · $1,515,000,000.00 · $2,700,000,000.00 · $2,715,000,000.00 · $2,920,000,000.00 · $3,000,000,000.00 · $4,379,200,000.00 · $6,000,000,000.00 · $12,000,000,000.00 · $52,550,400,000.00

184.5 Dates (1)

2026-07-24

Section 185 of 261

Section 185 — CONSOLIDATED FORENSIC AUDIT – CNN INTERNATIONAL HOMEPAGE (ALL 9 PARTS) – VERBATIM MERGER

Source File	FORENSIC-0185-ccnall-58a11408.html
Created	July 25, 2026
Modified	2026-07-25 19:40:46
Size	251,726 bytes
SHA-256	58a11408d691a14262195f9da7a5ee80474888d0f456f96cca5125b4dc04e2ac

185.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	Henri Bryant Lanier Sr	New York Case No.: 26-cv-12345-LAK Plaintiff: Henri Bryant Lanier Sr., Esq., Ph.D. (on behalf of the class) Defendant: Tu
defendant	Turner Broadcasting System	Esq., Ph.D. (on behalf of the class) Defendant: Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. (CNN International) Count I – Violatio

185.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (44)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	it was conducted under the authority of 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	der the authority of 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	of 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, int
Civ. Code § 1798.100	tection: GDPR (EU) 2016/679, CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100), GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801), COPPA (15 U.
15 U.S.C. § 6801	CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100), GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801), COPPA (15 U.S.C. § 6501), ePrivacy Di
15 U.S.C. § 6501	8.100), GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801), COPPA (15 U.S.C. § 6501), ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC, and OE
18 U.S.C. § 2511	Security & Cybersecurity: Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511), CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030), NIST SP 800-
18 U.S.C. § 1030	: Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511), CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030), NIST SP 800-53, and DoD STIG non-comp
42 U.S.C. § 12181	G non-compliance. Accessibility: ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12181) and Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d) vio
29 U.S.C. § 794	DA (42 U.S.C. § 12181) and Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d) violations. Anti-Spam & Marketing:
15 U.S.C. § 7701	Anti-Spam & Marketing: CAN-SPAM Act (15 U.S.C. § 7701) violations. Consumer Protection: FTC
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	ations. Consumer Protection: FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) unfair/deceptive practices. Internat
GDPR Art. 17	tention or deletion policies, violating GDPR Art. 17 (Right to Erasure). Risk Assessment
Civ. Code § 1798.150	ed €6.25B annual revenue) CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150) $7,500 per violation ~500,000 Californ
15 U.S.C. § 45(m)	ers impacted $3,750,000,000 FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(m)) $50,120 per violation 1 (deceptive pra
18 U.S.C. § 2520(c)	tive practices) $50,120 Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2520(c)) $10,000 per violation + treble damages
18 U.S.C. § 1030(c)	0,000,000,000 (treble damages) CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030(c)) $5,000 per violation + treble 1 (excee
15 U.S.C. § 6823(b)	orized access) $5,000 + treble GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6823(b)) $100,000 per violation 1 (failure to p
15 U.S.C. § 7706(d)	13 impacted $2,587,200,000 CAN-SPAM (15 U.S.C. § 7706(d)) $51,744 per violation ~1,000,000 email
28 C.F.R. § 35.150	without consent $51,744,000,000 ADA (28 C.F.R. § 35.150) $75,000 per violation 1 (accessibility
18 U.S.C. § 2520	00 Class Action Multiplier (3× under 18 U.S.C. § 2520) 3 Target 28 Exposure (×3 Multiplier
GDPR Art. 5	s full ad targeting and inventory data. GDPR Art. 5, CCPA § 1798.100, FTC Act § 5 High Remo
GDPR Art. 6	hout explicit consent for each purpose. GDPR Art. 6, Art. 7, Art. 13; CCPA § 1798.100; ePri
GDPR Art. 7	egories, violating opt-in requirements. GDPR Art. 7, Recital 32; CCPA § 1798.135; FTC Act §
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)	-500) Statutory Citations: CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)): Unauthorized access to a protected co
GDPR Art. 83	the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR Art. 83(4)) Allegation: Defendant, CNN, proce
GDPR Art. 32	njection / Inline Style Risk High CFAA, GDPR Art. 32 V2 Line 23–47 Missing Content Securi
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A)	.)`). Statutory Citations: CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A)): Intentionally causing transmission of
5 U.S.C. § 552	sion Data via `:visited` – Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) , GDPR Art. 5(1)(f) . Penalty: $5,000
18 U.S.C. § 1030(g)	on of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030(g)) Defendant’s insecure CSS and lack of
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)	ltering – reflected XSS vector CRITICAL 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5); FTC § 45(n) 11 325‑340 No visible c
Civ. Code § 1798.120	ird‑party sharing – CCPA HIGH CCPA Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.120 26 802‑825 Forms lack `autocomplete=
GDPR Art. 13	in header – CCPA HIGH CCPA § 1798.130; GDPR Art. 13 29 905‑930 Missing `HttpOnly`/`Secur
GDPR Art. 30	` version tracking LOW CCPA § 1798.130; GDPR Art. 30 40 1315‑1340 Payment elements withou
15 U.S.C. § 6823	` – PCI‑DSS HIGH GLBA 15 U.S.C. § 6801; 15 U.S.C. § 6823 41 1355‑1380 No `data‑third‑party` d
Civ. Code § 1798.150(a)	ssing info on user devices. CCPA Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150(a) – Private right of action for data brea
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(C)	ct JS. Statutory Citations (3×): 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(C) – Intentional damage to protected compu
15 U.S.C. § 45(n)	) – Civil action with treble damages. 15 U.S.C. § 45(n) – FTC Act: substantial injury to consum
Civ. Code § 1798.130(a)(5)	A § 1798.120 – Right to opt out. Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.130(a)(5) – Notice at collection. UN Guiding Pr
47 U.S.C. § 230	1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507‑2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 18
15 U.S.C. § 45	030) 14 $15,000 (trebled) – FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45) 18 $50,120 – GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6823
15 U.S.C. § 7706	§ 794d) 5 $225,000 (×3) – CAN‑SPAM (15 U.S.C. § 7706) 3 $51,744 – ePrivacy Directive 6 €2
GDPR Art. 4	, ambiguous labels High FTC Act § 5(a), GDPR Art. 4(11), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500
Prof. Code § 17500	ct § 5(a), GDPR Art. 4(11), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 V-09 17094–17095, 17097 Privacy poli

185.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (54)

185.4 Dollar Figures (205)

185.5 Dates (1)

2026-07-25

Section 186 of 261

Section 186 — FORENSIC AUDIT REPORT – Federal Communications Commission (FCC) – 2026-07-21

Source File	FORENSIC-0186-fcc-audit-d696b2bc.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-21 18:33:16
Size	32,483 bytes
SHA-256	d696b2bc4fff3007c801349a5366e0bf9b767362394c647e7521b38a534d73dd

186.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

186.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (19)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	nt Lanier Sr., Esq., Ph.D. Authority: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	, Ph.D. Authority: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U
10 U.S.C. § 2304	y: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S
47 U.S.C. § 230	1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.
5 U.S.C. § 552	2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiret
18 U.S.C. § 2511	. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA);
18 U.S.C. § 1030	y Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	(Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal
15 U.S.C. § 6801	30 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA
Civ. Code § 1798.100	FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 2
42 U.S.C. § 12181	Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508);
29 U.S.C. § 794	0 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-S
15 U.S.C. § 7701	(ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-SPAM); 15 U.S.C. § 6501 (COPPA); G
15 U.S.C. § 6501	tion 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-SPAM); 15 U.S.C. § 6501 (COPPA); GDPR (EU) 2016/679; ePrivacy D
GDPR Art. 7	ty, integrity, supply‑chain security GDPR Art. 7, Art. 13 Consent and transparency eP
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)	dioEye –> Statutory Citations: 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a) – interception of electronic communicat
Civ. Code § 1798.135	nals are recognized. This violates Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.135. Source Code Evidence: No such link
Civ. Code § 1798.130(a)(5)	erence signals must be honored.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.130(a)(5): “clear and conspicuous link” required.
Prof. Code § 22575	nt 5: Violation of CalOPPA (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22575) – inadequate privacy policy. Count 6

186.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (10)

Header	Source excerpt
Count 1: Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) – interception of electronic communications via tracking scripts without consent.	natrace, AddToAny, AudioEye, etc.): Count 1: Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) – interception of electronic communications via tracking scripts wi
Count 2: Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) – unauthorized access/exfiltration of data.	via tracking scripts without consent. Count 2: Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) – unauthorized access/exfiltration of data. Coun
Count 3: Unfair and Deceptive Practices (FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) – failure to secure data, lack of disclosure, and deceptive tracking.	thorized access/exfiltration of data. Count 3: Unfair and Deceptive Practices (FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) – failure to secure data, lack of disclosure, and dec
Count 4: Violation of CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.) – lack of opt‑out, missing “Do Not Sell” link, and no consent.	f disclosure, and deceptive tracking. Count 4: Violation of CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.) – lack of opt‑out, missing “Do Not Sell” link, and no
Count 5: Violation of CalOPPA (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22575) – inadequate privacy policy.	g “Do Not Sell” link, and no consent. Count 5: Violation of CalOPPA (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22575) – inadequate privacy policy. Count 6: Violation of the Priv
Count 6: Violation of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a) – collection of PII without required notice, no routine uses disclosure.	§ 22575) – inadequate privacy policy. Count 6: Violation of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a) – collection of PII without required notice, no routine us
Count 7: Violation of ADA Title III (42 U.S.C. § 12181) and Section 508 – digital accessibility barriers.	d notice, no routine uses disclosure. Count 7: Violation of ADA Title III (42 U.S.C. § 12181) and Section 508 – digital accessibility barriers. Count 8: Neglige
Count 8: Negligence – failure to implement reasonable security measures (SRI, CSP, security headers).	508 – digital accessibility barriers. Count 8: Negligence – failure to implement reasonable security measures (SRI, CSP, security headers). Count 9: Breach of F
Count 9: Breach of Fiduciary Duty – the government owes a duty to protect constituent data.	easures (SRI, CSP, security headers). Count 9: Breach of Fiduciary Duty – the government owes a duty to protect constituent data. Count 10: Violation of OMB Cir
Count 10: Violation of OMB Circular A‑130 – failure to manage third‑party risk.	s a duty to protect constituent data. Count 10: Violation of OMB Circular A‑130 – failure to manage third‑party risk. Damages Sought: Statutory maximums,

186.4 Dollar Figures (68)

$1.20 · $1.50 · $1.90 · $2.10 · $2.40 · $2.50 · $2.80 · $3.10 · $3.50 · $3.80 · $4.20 · $4.30 · $4.50 · $5.30 · $5.60 · $5.80 · $5.90 · $6.80 · $7.20 · $7.90 · $8.50 · $9.20 · $11.50 · $11.80 · $29.90 · $34.10 · $50.00 · $70.00 · $75.00 · $82.30 · $85.00 · $93.80 · $100.00 · $130.00 · $150.00 · $200.00 · $210.00 · $225.00 · $250.00 · $255.00 · $270.00 · $300.00 · $390.00 · $400.00 · $450.00 · $500.00 · $600.00 · $750.00 · $800.00 · $810.00 · $900.00 · $2,500.00 · $50,120.00 · $75,000.00 · $150,000.00 · $150,360.00 · $200,000.00 · $225,000.00 · $250,000.00 · $300,000.00 · $400,000.00 · $450,000.00 · $600,000.00 · $750,000.00 · $800,000.00 · $900,000.00 · $1,002,400.00 · $3,007,200.00

186.5 Dates (1)

2026-07-21

Section 187 of 261

Section 187 — Forensic Audit Report: Target 28.1 (CSS File) – Henri Bryant Lanier Sr., Esq., Ph.D.

Source File	FORENSIC-0187-cnnpart2of9audit-ea6a5c0b.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-25 12:54:07
Size	26,519 bytes
SHA-256	ea6a5c0b91a63644554494179186245c363c2ea979c40a7d410025b57ecf424b

187.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	Henri Bryant Lanier Sr	New York Case No.: 26-cv-12345-LAK Plaintiff: Henri Bryant Lanier Sr., Esq., Ph.D. (on behalf of the class) Defendant: Tu
defendant	Turner Broadcasting System	Esq., Ph.D. (on behalf of the class) Defendant: Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. (CNN International) Count I – Violatio

187.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (10)

Citation	Source excerpt
GDPR Art. 32	njection / Inline Style Risk High CFAA, GDPR Art. 32 V2 Line 23–47 Missing Content Securi
GDPR Art. 5	bles Leaking Brand/Platform Details Low GDPR Art. 5(1)(f) V11 Line 800–845 No Pre‑connec
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A)	.)`). Statutory Citations: CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A)): Intentionally causing transmission of
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	nsmitted information. FTC Act § 5(a) (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair or deceptive acts or practices
15 U.S.C. § 6801	acks. Statutory Citations: GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Financial institutions must protect t
Civ. Code § 1798.150	plement baseline security. CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150): Private right of action for data brea
18 U.S.C. § 2511	– NIST SP 800-53 (SC-8) , Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) . Penalty: $10,000 × 1M × 3 = $30B.
5 U.S.C. § 552	sion Data via `:visited` – Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) , GDPR Art. 5(1)(f) . Penalty: $5,000
18 U.S.C. § 2520	$3.15B – $6.45B. Add Treble Damages (18 U.S.C. § 2520): $9.45B – $19.35B. Total Financial E
18 U.S.C. § 1030(g)	on of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030(g)) Defendant’s insecure CSS and lack of

187.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (4)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a))	ting System, Inc. (CNN International) Count I – Violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) Defendant engaged in unfair and decep
Count II – Violation of the Gramm‑Leach‑Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. § 6801)	data breaches and privacy violations. Count II – Violation of the Gramm‑Leach‑Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. § 6801) Defendant failed to protect the secur
Count III – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150)	enabling potential data exfiltration. Count III – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150) Defendant’s failure to implement
Count IV – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030(g))	n of consumers’ personal information. Count IV – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030(g)) Defendant’s insecure CSS and lack of

187.4 Dollar Figures (63)

$1.20 · $1.90 · $2.10 · $2.20 · $2.50 · $2.60 · $2.80 · $3.00 · $3.10 · $3.15 · $3.50 · $3.80 · $4.20 · $4.30 · $4.70 · $5.30 · $5.60 · $5.80 · $5.90 · $6.00 · $6.40 · $6.45 · $6.80 · $7.10 · $7.20 · $7.80 · $7.90 · $8.20 · $8.40 · $8.50 · $8.60 · $9.20 · $9.45 · $9.50 · $11.60 · $11.80 · $12.80 · $14.20 · $15.00 · $15.40 · $15.80 · $19.20 · $19.35 · $19.60 · $22.30 · $22.50 · $30.00 · $31.40 · $38.70 · $150.36 · $300.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $100,000.00 · $4,200,000,000.00 · $8,600,000,000.00 · $145,988,480,000.00 · $291,976,960,000.00 · $4,572,358,440,000.00 · $4,722,661,420,000.00 · $4,873,049,923,400.00

187.5 Dates (1)

2026-07-25

Section 188 of 261

Section 188 — Forensic Audit Tool – Gemini Powered

Source File	FORENSIC-0188-audit-tool-48006fc9.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-25 11:48:21
Size	16,561 bytes
SHA-256	48006fc98ba7462ae332755b68ef1b5011e3a1962461735a0e3f7bde34bdbd4a

188.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

188.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (0)

Citation	Source excerpt
no statutes extracted

188.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

188.4 Dollar Figures (0)

—

188.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 189 of 261

Section 189 — FORENSIC AUDIT – TARGET 32 (CNN PART 5) – FINAL COMPLETE REPORT

Source File	FORENSIC-0189-cnnpart5of9audit-f997c0a7.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-25 14:03:21
Size	19,856 bytes
SHA-256	f997c0a71d2cdf2e9b326465eb4b1d6fb6301ede554e0a0ba0a28283d1046f5f

189.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

189.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (15)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	adcodefense2.com AUDIT AUTHORITY: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	AUDIT AUTHORITY: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507‑2; 47 U
10 U.S.C. § 2304	Y: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507‑2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S
47 U.S.C. § 230	1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507‑2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.
5 U.S.C. § 552	2304; 26 CFR 1.507‑2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiret
18 U.S.C. § 2511	. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA);
18 U.S.C. § 1030	y Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	(Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal
15 U.S.C. § 6801	30 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA
Civ. Code § 1798.100	FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 2
42 U.S.C. § 12181	Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508);
29 U.S.C. § 794	0 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN‑S
15 U.S.C. § 7701	(ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN‑SPAM); 15 U.S.C. § 6501 (COPPA); G
15 U.S.C. § 6501	tion 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN‑SPAM); 15 U.S.C. § 6501 (COPPA); GDPR (EU) 2016/679; ePrivacy D
GDPR Art. 32	30, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), 47 U.S.C. § 230, GDPR Art. 32, NIST SP 800‑53 (SI‑7), DoD STIG APSC‑D

189.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (7)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair/deceptive security practices.	ing System, Inc. et al. Counts: Count I – FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair/deceptive security practices. Count II – CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): U
Count II – CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized transmission of code causing damage.	Unfair/deceptive security practices. Count II – CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized transmission of code causing damage. Count III – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. §
Count III – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Interception of communications without consent.	transmission of code causing damage. Count III – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Interception of communications without consent. Count IV – GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 68
Count IV – GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Failure to protect customer information.	on of communications without consent. Count IV – GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Failure to protect customer information. Count V – ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12181): De
Count V – ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12181): Denial of equal access.	lure to protect customer information. Count V – ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12181): Denial of equal access. Count VI – CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 179
Count VI – CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Failure to provide opt‑out.	.C. § 12181): Denial of equal access. Count VI – CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Failure to provide opt‑out. Count VII – GDPR (EU 2016/679): Proce
Count VII – GDPR (EU 2016/679): Processing without lawful basis.	798.100): Failure to provide opt‑out. Count VII – GDPR (EU 2016/679): Processing without lawful basis. Damages Sought: Treble damages on a

189.4 Dollar Figures (65)

$1.00 · $1.20 · $1.90 · $2.10 · $2.20 · $2.25 · $2.50 · $2.60 · $2.80 · $3.00 · $3.10 · $3.50 · $3.80 · $4.20 · $4.30 · $5.30 · $5.60 · $5.80 · $5.90 · $6.00 · $6.40 · $6.80 · $7.10 · $7.20 · $7.50 · $7.80 · $7.90 · $8.20 · $8.40 · $8.50 · $9.20 · $9.50 · $10.00 · $11.60 · $11.80 · $12.53 · $12.80 · $14.20 · $15.40 · $15.80 · $19.20 · $19.60 · $22.30 · $28.19 · $31.40 · $37.59 · $38.70 · $10,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $100,000.00 · $4,200,000,000.00 · $8,600,000,000.00 · $145,988,480,000.00 · $291,976,960,000.00 · $4,572,358,440,000.00 · $18,450,000,000,000.00 · $19,200,000,000,000.00 · $19,500,000,000,000.00 · $24,600,000,000,000.00 · $25,500,000,000,000.00 · $25,600,000,000,000.00 · $42,372,661,420,000.00 · $55,073,049,923,400.00 · $61,872,661,420,000.00 · $80,573,049,923,400.00

189.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 190 of 261

Section 190 — FORENSIC AUDIT REPORT – TARGET 34: CNN INTERNATIONAL HOMEPAGE (PART 7 OF 9)

Source File	FORENSIC-0190-cnnpart7of9audit-5d6d6069.html
Created	July 25, 2026
Modified	2026-07-25 14:40:07
Size	35,981 bytes
SHA-256	5d6d60692500abaaa49cb49b9576b874c0406dedc7c57f2b8d8be4091889f273

190.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

190.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (26)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	://ladcodefense2.com Audit Authority: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	m Audit Authority: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U
10 U.S.C. § 2304	y: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S
47 U.S.C. § 230	1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.
5 U.S.C. § 552	2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiret
18 U.S.C. § 2511	. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA);
18 U.S.C. § 1030	y Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	(Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal
15 U.S.C. § 6801	30 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA
Civ. Code § 1798.100	FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 2
42 U.S.C. § 12181	Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508);
29 U.S.C. § 794	0 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-S
15 U.S.C. § 7701	(ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-SPAM); 15 U.S.C. § 6501 (COPPA); G
15 U.S.C. § 6501	tion 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-SPAM); 15 U.S.C. § 6501 (COPPA); GDPR (EU) 2016/679; ePrivacy D
15 U.S.C. § 45	(18 U.S.C. § 1030) $210,000 FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45) $902,160 GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6823) $1
15 U.S.C. § 6823	Act (15 U.S.C. § 45) $902,160 GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6823) $1,500,000 GDPR (Art. 83) $2,780,00
Civ. Code § 1798.150	GDPR (Art. 83) $2,780,000 CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150) $180,000 ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12181) $1
15 U.S.C. § 7706	U.S.C. § 794d) $1,125,000 CAN‑SPAM (15 U.S.C. § 7706) $155,232 ePrivacy Directive $1,668,
GDPR Art. 32	in cleartext Critical 18 U.S.C. § 1030, GDPR Art. 32, NIST SP 800-53, GLBA § 501(b) V-02
GDPR Art. 5	onsole logs and error messages Critical GDPR Art. 5(1)(f), 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act), C
GDPR Art. 7	ular user consent for tracking Critical GDPR Art. 7, 6(1)(a); ePrivacy Dir. 2002/58/EC; CCP
GDPR Art. 4	, ambiguous labels High FTC Act § 5(a), GDPR Art. 4(11), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500
Prof. Code § 17500	ct § 5(a), GDPR Art. 4(11), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 V-09 17094–17095, 17097 Privacy poli
GDPR Art. 13	notice High Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100, GDPR Art. 13-14, GLBA § 501(b) V-10 16633–16666,
Civ. Code § 1798.120	onal Information" link (CCPA) High Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.120, 1798.135 V-19 16633–16666 (UserAcco
GDPR Art. 17	ete account or data (Art. 17 GDPR) High GDPR Art. 17, CCPA § 1798.105, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798

190.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (9)

Header	Source excerpt
Count 497,341	6c7d8e9f0a1b2c3d4e5f6a7b8c Character Count 497,341 Detected Format HTML5 + inline SVG +
Count I: Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) – Unauthorized access to protected computers and PII disclosure.	NN, and Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. Count I: Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) – Unauthorized access to protected computers and
Count II: Violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) – Unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce.	otected computers and PII disclosure. Count II: Violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) – Unfair or deceptive acts or practices in com
Count III: Violation of the Gramm‑Leach‑Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. § 6823) – Failure to protect consumer financial information.	eptive acts or practices in commerce. Count III: Violation of the Gramm‑Leach‑Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. § 6823) – Failure to protect consumer financial information.
Count IV: Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100, et seq.) – Failure to provide notice, opt‑out, or data deletion rights.	otect consumer financial information. Count IV: Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100, et seq.) – Failure to provide notic
Count V: Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12181) – Denial of equal access to digital services.	ce, opt‑out, or data deletion rights. Count V: Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12181) – Denial of equal access to digital services
Count VI: Violation of the CAN‑SPAM Act (15 U.S.C. § 7706) – Unsolicited commercial email without prior consent.	of equal access to digital services. Count VI: Violation of the CAN‑SPAM Act (15 U.S.C. § 7706) – Unsolicited commercial email without prior consent. Count VII:
Count VII: Violation of the ePrivacy Directive (2002/58/EC) as implemented in EU Member States – Unlawful storage of or access to terminal equipment.	mmercial email without prior consent. Count VII: Violation of the ePrivacy Directive (2002/58/EC) as implemented in EU Member States – Unlawful storage of or ac
Count VIII: Negligence and Breach of Fiduciary Duty – Failure to safeguard user data, resulting in unauthorized disclosure of PII.	e of or access to terminal equipment. Count VIII: Negligence and Breach of Fiduciary Duty – Failure to safeguard user data, resulting in unauthorized disclosure

190.4 Dollar Figures (100)

$1.20 · $1.90 · $2.10 · $2.20 · $2.50 · $2.60 · $2.80 · $3.00 · $3.10 · $3.50 · $3.80 · $4.20 · $4.30 · $5.00 · $5.30 · $5.60 · $5.80 · $5.90 · $6.00 · $6.20 · $6.40 · $6.80 · $7.10 · $7.20 · $7.80 · $7.90 · $8.20 · $8.40 · $8.50 · $9.20 · $9.50 · $10.50 · $11.60 · $11.80 · $12.80 · $14.20 · $15.40 · $15.80 · $19.20 · $19.60 · $22.30 · $31.40 · $31.60 · $38.70 · $50.00 · $81.38 · $100.00 · $106.08 · $248.00 · $1,000.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $15,000.00 · $22,500.00 · $25,000.00 · $40,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $75,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $150,360.00 · $155,120.00 · $155,232.00 · $180,000.00 · $210,000.00 · $225,000.00 · $250,000.00 · $278,000.00 · $300,000.00 · $620,480.00 · $810,000.00 · $902,160.00 · $1,125,000.00 · $1,240,960.00 · $1,500,000.00 · $1,575,000.00 · $1,668,000.00 · $2,780,000.00 · $10,525,392.00 · $4,200,000,000.00 · $4,251,200,000.00 · $8,600,000,000.00 · $36,700,000,000.00 · $38,260,800,000.00 · $42,512,000,000.00 · $145,988,480,000.00 · $291,976,960,000.00 · $4,572,358,440,000.00 · $18,450,000,000,000.00 · $19,200,000,000,000.00 · $19,500,000,000,000.00 · $24,600,000,000,000.00 · $25,500,000,000,000.00 · $25,600,000,000,000.00 · $81,372,661,420,000.00 · $81,383,186,812,392.00 · $106,073,049,923,400.00 · $106,083,575,315,792.00

190.5 Dates (1)

2026-07-25

Section 191 of 261

Section 191 — FORENSIC AUDIT REPORT – TARGET 27: GlennBeck.com

Source File	FORENSIC-0191-glennbeckaudit-64e70dd1.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-25 09:39:24
Size	87,146 bytes
SHA-256	64e70dd18324f7db2a342a383ca6db17640ff42a544aa8c299264c7a7ed9d8ca

191.1 Parties (1)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
defendant	Mercury Radio Arts	UD AND ABUSE ACT (18 U.S.C. § 1030) Defendant Mercury Radio Arts, Inc. d/b/a GlennBeck.com, through its website,

191.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (44)

Citation	Source excerpt
GDPR Article 6	cy Directive 2002/58/EC Article 5(3) GDPR Article 6(1)(a) – Lawfulness of Processing Cal
Civ. Code § 1798.100(b)	)(a) – Lawfulness of Processing Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100(b) – CCPA Consent Requirements Penalty:
15 U.S.C. § 6501	Protection Act – No Age Verification 15 U.S.C. § 6501 (COPPA) 16 C.F.R. § 312.2 – Definiti
16 C.F.R. § 312.2	ification 15 U.S.C. § 6501 (COPPA) 16 C.F.R. § 312.2 – Definitions and Scope 16 C.F.R. §
16 C.F.R. § 312.9	F.R. § 312.2 – Definitions and Scope 16 C.F.R. § 312.9 – Violations and Penalties Penalty:
Civ. Code § 1798.100	– No "Do Not Sell or Share" Link Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 – Consumer Right to Know Cal. Civ. C
Civ. Code § 1798.105	98.100 – Consumer Right to Know Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.105 – Right to Delete Cal. Civ. Code § 1
Civ. Code § 1798.110	de § 1798.105 – Right to Delete Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.110 – Right to Opt-Out Cal. Civ. Code §
Civ. Code § 1798.150(a)(1)(B)	e § 1798.110 – Right to Opt-Out Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150(a)(1)(B) – Civil Penalties Penalty: $7,500 pe
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	Act – Unfair and Deceptive Practices 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) – Unfair Methods of Competition 15 U
15 U.S.C. § 45(m)	5(a) – Unfair Methods of Competition 15 U.S.C. § 45(m) – Civil Penalties 16 C.F.R. § 312.3
16 C.F.R. § 312.3	15 U.S.C. § 45(m) – Civil Penalties 16 C.F.R. § 312.3 – Deceptive Practices Penalty: $50,1
29 U.S.C. § 794	ation Act – Web Content Accessibility 29 U.S.C. § 794d – Electronic and Information Technolog
28 C.F.R. § 35.150	R. Part 1194 – Section 508 Standards 28 C.F.R. § 35.150 – Effective Communication Penalty: $
15 U.S.C. § 7701	N-SPAM Act – No Unsubscribe Mechanism 15 U.S.C. § 7701 – CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 15 U.S.C. § 7
15 U.S.C. § 7706(d)	U.S.C. § 7701 – CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 15 U.S.C. § 7706(d) – Civil Penalties 16 C.F.R. Part 316
15 U.S.C. § 6801	liley Act – Unauthorized Data Sharing 15 U.S.C. § 6801 – Privacy of Consumer Financial Informa
15 U.S.C. § 6809	cy of Consumer Financial Information 15 U.S.C. § 6809 – Definitions 15 U.S.C. § 6823(b) –
15 U.S.C. § 6823(b)	on 15 U.S.C. § 6809 – Definitions 15 U.S.C. § 6823(b) – Penalties Penalty: $100,000 per vi
18 U.S.C. § 2511	Unauthorized Electronic Interception 18 U.S.C. § 2511 – Interception of Electronic Communicat
18 U.S.C. § 2520(c)(2)(A)	ception of Electronic Communications 18 U.S.C. § 2520(c)(2)(A) – Civil Remedies 18 U.S.C. § 2520(d)
18 U.S.C. § 2520(d)	.C. § 2520(c)(2)(A) – Civil Remedies 18 U.S.C. § 2520(d) – Treble Damages Penalty: $10,000 pe
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)	d and Abuse Act – Unauthorized Access 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C) – Protected Computers 18 U.S.C. § 10
18 U.S.C. § 1030(c)	1030(a)(2)(C) – Protected Computers 18 U.S.C. § 1030(c) – Penalties 18 U.S.C. § 1030(g) – Ci
18 U.S.C. § 1030(g)	s 18 U.S.C. § 1030(c) – Penalties 18 U.S.C. § 1030(g) – Civil Actions Penalty: $5,000 per
5 U.S.C. § 552	rized Personal Information Disclosure 5 U.S.C. § 552a – Privacy Act of 1974 5 U.S.C. § 55
42 U.S.C. § 12181	Disabilities Act – Web Accessibility 42 U.S.C. § 12181 – Title III Public Accommodations 28
28 C.F.R. § 35.151	. § 35.150 – Effective Communication 28 C.F.R. § 35.151 – New Construction and Alterations P
GDPR Article 7	Article 6 – Lawfulness of Processing GDPR Article 7 – Conditions for Consent GDPR Articl
GDPR Article 83	R Article 7 – Conditions for Consent GDPR Article 83(4) – Administrative Fines Penalty: €
Civil Code § 1798.100	e Law Enforcement Authority (California Civil Code § 1798.100) Penalty: $10,000 per violation (sta
GDPR Article 13	98.100 – Privacy Policy Requirements GDPR Article 13 – Information to be Provided GDPR Ar
GDPR Article 14	icle 13 – Information to be Provided GDPR Article 14 – Information Where Data Not Collected
GDPR Article 5	Data Retention – Inadequate Policies GDPR Article 5 – Data Minimization and Storage Limitat
GDPR Article 32	Rule – Data Encryption Requirements GDPR Article 32 – Security of Processing Cal. Civ. C
GDPR Article 44	. Code § 1798.110 – Right to Opt-Out GDPR Article 44 – General Principle for Transfers eP
18 U.S.C. § 1030	000 8,500,000 $85,000,000,000 9 CFAA 18 U.S.C. § 1030 $5,000 8,500,000 $42,500,000,000 10
GDPR Art. 6	.C. § 12181 $75,000 19 $1,425,000 12 GDPR Art. 6 & 7 4% Turnover 1 $6,000,000 13 OECD
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)	anager and Freshworks widget, violating 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a). Defendant knew or had reason to know t
18 U.S.C. § 2520	= $85,000,000,000, trebled pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2520 = $255,000,000,000. COUNT III – VIO
22 U.S.C. § 2295	established under the authority of: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a • 50 U.S.C. § 1702 • 10 U.S.C. § 2304
50 U.S.C. § 1702	e authority of: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a • 50 U.S.C. § 1702 • 10 U.S.C. § 2304 • 26 CFR 1.507-2 • 4
10 U.S.C. § 2304	22 U.S.C. § 2295a • 50 U.S.C. § 1702 • 10 U.S.C. § 2304 • 26 CFR 1.507-2 • 47 U.S.C. § 230 5
47 U.S.C. § 230	2 • 10 U.S.C. § 2304 • 26 CFR 1.507-2 • 47 U.S.C. § 230 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act) • 18 U.

191.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (12)

Header	Source excerpt
COUNT I – VIOLATION OF THE COMPUTER FRAUD AND ABUSE ACT (18 U.S.C. § 1030)	nt's principal place of business] COUNT I – VIOLATION OF THE COMPUTER FRAUD AND ABUSE ACT (18 U.S.C. § 1030) Defendant Mercury Radio Arts, Inc.
COUNT II – VIOLATION OF THE WIRETAP ACT (18 U.S.C. § 2511)	.S.C. § 1030(g) = $127,500,000,000. COUNT II – VIOLATION OF THE WIRETAP ACT (18 U.S.C. § 2511) Defendant intentionally intercepted
COUNT III – VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT (15 U.S.C. § 45(a))	8 U.S.C. § 2520 = $255,000,000,000. COUNT III – VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) Defendant engaged in unfair and dec
COUNT IV – VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSUMER PRIVACY ACT (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100)	8,500,000 users = $426,020,000,000. COUNT IV – VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSUMER PRIVACY ACT (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100) Defendant collected, used, and disc
COUNT V – VIOLATION OF THE CHILDREN'S ONLINE PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT (15 U.S.C. § 6501)	California users = $7,650,000,000. COUNT V – VIOLATION OF THE CHILDREN'S ONLINE PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT (15 U.S.C. § 6501) Defendant collected personal inform
COUNT VI – VIOLATION OF THE GRAMM-LEACH-BLILEY ACT (15 U.S.C. § 6801)	,000 minor users = $65,973,600,000. COUNT VI – VIOLATION OF THE GRAMM-LEACH-BLILEY ACT (15 U.S.C. § 6801) Defendant shared consumer financial
COUNT VII – VIOLATION OF GENERAL DATA PROTECTION REGULATION (GDPR Art. 6 & 7)	financial users = $100,000,000,000. COUNT VII – VIOLATION OF GENERAL DATA PROTECTION REGULATION (GDPR Art. 6 & 7) Defendant processed personal data o
COUNT VIII – VIOLATION OF AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (42 U.S.C. § 12181)	nnual global turnover = $6,000,000. COUNT VIII – VIOLATION OF AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (42 U.S.C. § 12181) Defendant failed to make its websit
COUNT IX – VIOLATION OF SECTION 508 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT (29 U.S.C. § 794d)	$1,425,000, plus injunctive relief. COUNT IX – VIOLATION OF SECTION 508 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT (29 U.S.C. § 794d) Defendant failed to ensure its elec
COUNT X – VIOLATION OF CAN-SPAM ACT (15 U.S.C. § 7701)	$1,425,000, plus injunctive relief. COUNT X – VIOLATION OF CAN-SPAM ACT (15 U.S.C. § 7701) Defendant collected email addresses
COUNT XI – VIOLATION OF THE PRIVACY ACT (5 U.S.C. § 552a)	8,500,000 users = $439,824,000,000. COUNT XI – VIOLATION OF THE PRIVACY ACT (5 U.S.C. § 552a) Defendant maintained a system of re
COUNT XII – UNLAWFUL DATA SHARING (APEC CBPR and G20 Principles)	8,500,000 users = $42,500,000,000. COUNT XII – UNLAWFUL DATA SHARING (APEC CBPR and G20 Principles) Defendant transferred personal data

191.4 Dollar Figures (91)

$1.00 · $1.20 · $1.80 · $2.50 · $2.80 · $3.80 · $5.00 · $5.70 · $22.50 · $170.00 · $520.00 · $575.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $17,500.00 · $25,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $57,620.00 · $75,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $277,500.00 · $285,000.00 · $1,200,000.00 · $1,425,000.00 · $1,900,000.00 · $2,100,000.00 · $2,200,000.00 · $2,500,000.00 · $2,600,000.00 · $2,800,000.00 · $3,000,000.00 · $3,100,000.00 · $3,500,000.00 · $3,800,000.00 · $4,200,000.00 · $4,300,000.00 · $5,300,000.00 · $5,600,000.00 · $5,800,000.00 · $5,900,000.00 · $6,000,000.00 · $6,400,000.00 · $6,800,000.00 · $7,100,000.00 · $7,200,000.00 · $7,800,000.00 · $7,900,000.00 · $8,200,000.00 · $8,400,000.00 · $8,500,000.00 · $9,200,000.00 · $9,500,000.00 · $11,600,000.00 · $11,800,000.00 · $12,800,000.00 · $14,200,000.00 · $15,800,000.00 · $19,200,000.00 · $19,600,000.00 · $22,300,000.00 · $31,400,000.00 · $99,500,000.00 · $150,000,000.00 · $259,200,000.00 · $4,572,358,440.00 · $4,671,858,440.00 · $4,831,558,440.00 · $7,650,000,000.00 · $21,250,000,000.00 · $42,500,000,000.00 · $63,750,000,000.00 · $65,973,600,000.00 · $85,000,000,000.00 · $100,000,000,000.00 · $127,500,000,000.00 · $148,750,000,000.00 · $212,500,000,000.00 · $255,000,000,000.00 · $425,000,000,000.00 · $426,020,000,000.00 · $439,824,000,000.00 · $489,020,000,000.00 · $2,358,750,000,000.00 · $2,422,500,000,000.00 · $4,572,358,440,000.00 · $4,671,858,440,000.00 · $4,831,558,440,000.00

191.5 Dates (1)

2026-07-25

Section 192 of 261

Section 192 — FORENSIC AUDIT REPORT – TARGETS 34, 35 & 36: CNN INTERNATIONAL HOMEPAGE (ALL 9 PARTS)

Source File	FORENSIC-0192-cnnaudit-part-7-8-9-36301ee5.html
Created	July 25, 2026
Modified	2026-07-25 15:01:08
Size	44,260 bytes
SHA-256	36301ee52dedfdbc61ec7f8dc0397e52666f23589579efa471f2ccec182226db

192.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

192.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (26)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	://ladcodefense2.com Audit Authority: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	m Audit Authority: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U
10 U.S.C. § 2304	y: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S
47 U.S.C. § 230	1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.
5 U.S.C. § 552	2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiret
18 U.S.C. § 2511	. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA);
18 U.S.C. § 1030	y Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	(Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal
15 U.S.C. § 6801	30 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA
Civ. Code § 1798.100	FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 2
42 U.S.C. § 12181	Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508);
29 U.S.C. § 794	0 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-S
15 U.S.C. § 7701	(ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-SPAM); 15 U.S.C. § 6501 (COPPA); G
15 U.S.C. § 6501	tion 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-SPAM); 15 U.S.C. § 6501 (COPPA); GDPR (EU) 2016/679; ePrivacy D
15 U.S.C. § 45	030) 14 $15,000 (trebled) – FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45) 18 $50,120 – GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6823
15 U.S.C. § 6823	(15 U.S.C. § 45) 18 $50,120 – GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6823) 5 $300,000 (trebled) – GDPR (Art. 8
Civ. Code § 1798.150	8B (per violation × 100M) CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150) 8 $7,500 $6,000,000,000,000 (8 × $7,50
15 U.S.C. § 7706	§ 794d) 5 $225,000 (×3) – CAN‑SPAM (15 U.S.C. § 7706) 3 $51,744 – ePrivacy Directive 6 €2
GDPR Art. 32	in cleartext Critical 18 U.S.C. § 1030, GDPR Art. 32, NIST SP 800-53, GLBA § 501(b) V-02
GDPR Art. 5	onsole logs and error messages Critical GDPR Art. 5(1)(f), 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act), C
GDPR Art. 7	ular user consent for tracking Critical GDPR Art. 7, 6(1)(a); ePrivacy Dir. 2002/58/EC; CCP
GDPR Art. 4	, ambiguous labels High FTC Act § 5(a), GDPR Art. 4(11), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500
Prof. Code § 17500	ct § 5(a), GDPR Art. 4(11), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 V-09 17094–17095, 17097 Privacy poli
GDPR Art. 13	notice High Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100, GDPR Art. 13-14, GLBA § 501(b) V-10 16633–16666,
Civ. Code § 1798.120	onal Information" link (CCPA) High Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.120, 1798.135 V-19 16633–16666 (UserAcco
GDPR Art. 17	ete account or data (Art. 17 GDPR) High GDPR Art. 17, CCPA § 1798.105, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798

192.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (13)

Header	Source excerpt
Count 497,341	6c7d8e9f0a1b2c3d4e5f6a7b8c Character Count 497,341 Detected Format HTML5 + inline SVG +
Count 2,487,331	4c5d6e7f8a9b0c1d2e3f4a5b6c Character Count 2,487,331 Detected Format JavaScript (ES5/ES6 m
Count 1,245,032	1e2f3a4b5c6d7e8f9a0b1c2d3e Character Count 1,245,032 Detected Format JavaScript (ES5, Webp
Count I: Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) – Unauthorized access to protected computers via injection and hardcoded secrets, including dynamic script injection without integrit	NN, and Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. Count I: Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) – Unauthorized access to protected computers via
Count II: Violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) – Unfair or deceptive acts or practices, including dark patterns, lack of consent, and insecure module loading.	c script injection without integrity. Count II: Violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) – Unfair or deceptive acts or practices, inclu
Count III: Violation of the Gramm‑Leach‑Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. § 6823) – Failure to protect consumer financial information (hardcoded Stripe keys).	consent, and insecure module loading. Count III: Violation of the Gramm‑Leach‑Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. § 6823) – Failure to protect consumer financial information
Count IV: Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100, et seq.) – Failure to provide notice, opt‑out, or data deletion rights.	information (hardcoded Stripe keys). Count IV: Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100, et seq.) – Failure to provide notice
Count V: Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12181) – Denial of equal access to digital services.	ce, opt‑out, or data deletion rights. Count V: Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12181) – Denial of equal access to digital services
Count VI: Violation of the CAN‑SPAM Act (15 U.S.C. § 7706) – Unsolicited commercial email without prior consent.	of equal access to digital services. Count VI: Violation of the CAN‑SPAM Act (15 U.S.C. § 7706) – Unsolicited commercial email without prior consent. Count VII:
Count VII: Violation of the ePrivacy Directive (2002/58/EC) as implemented in EU Member States – Unlawful storage of or access to terminal equipment.	mmercial email without prior consent. Count VII: Violation of the ePrivacy Directive (2002/58/EC) as implemented in EU Member States – Unlawful storage of or ac
Count VIII: Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) – Interception of electronic communications.	e of or access to terminal equipment. Count VIII: Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) – Interception of electronic communications. Count IX: Neglige
Count IX: Negligence and Breach of Fiduciary Duty – Failure to safeguard user data, resulting in unauthorized disclosure of PII.	ception of electronic communications. Count IX: Negligence and Breach of Fiduciary Duty – Failure to safeguard user data, resulting in unauthorized disclosure o
Count X: Violation of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) – Unauthorized collection and disclosure of personal information.	ng in unauthorized disclosure of PII. Count X: Violation of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) – Unauthorized collection and disclosure of personal information.

192.4 Dollar Figures (94)

$1.20 · $1.39 · $1.66 · $1.90 · $2.10 · $2.20 · $2.22 · $2.50 · $2.60 · $2.78 · $2.80 · $3.00 · $3.10 · $3.50 · $3.80 · $4.20 · $4.30 · $5.30 · $5.60 · $5.80 · $5.90 · $6.00 · $6.20 · $6.40 · $6.80 · $7.10 · $7.20 · $7.80 · $7.90 · $8.20 · $8.40 · $8.50 · $9.20 · $9.50 · $11.60 · $11.80 · $12.80 · $14.20 · $15.40 · $15.80 · $19.20 · $19.60 · $22.30 · $31.40 · $38.70 · $50.00 · $93.80 · $93.87 · $130.00 · $130.07 · $278.00 · $556.00 · $834.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $15,000.00 · $25,000.00 · $30,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $65,120.00 · $225,000.00 · $278,000.00 · $300,000.00 · $4,200,000,000.00 · $8,600,000,000.00 · $145,988,480,000.00 · $291,976,960,000.00 · $1,000,000,000,000.00 · $1,500,000,000,000.00 · $3,000,000,000,000.00 · $4,500,000,000,000.00 · $4,572,358,440,000.00 · $5,000,000,000,000.00 · $6,000,000,000,000.00 · $6,512,000,000,000.00 · $8,500,000,000,000.00 · $10,000,000,000,000.00 · $12,000,000,000,000.00 · $18,450,000,000,000.00 · $19,200,000,000,000.00 · $19,500,000,000,000.00 · $24,600,000,000,000.00 · $25,500,000,000,000.00 · $25,600,000,000,000.00 · $73,400,000,000,000.00 · $76,500,000,000,000.00 · $81,372,661,420,000.00 · $85,000,000,000,000.00 · $93,872,661,420,000.00 · $106,073,049,923,400.00 · $130,073,049,923,400.00

192.5 Dates (1)

2026-07-25

Section 193 of 261

Section 193 — FORENSIC AUDIT – TARGET 20: FORTIS MILITARY DEFENSE

Source File	FORENSIC-0193-fortislawaudit-6ab60ae0.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-24 16:51:05
Size	37,727 bytes
SHA-256	6ab60ae0d8f8081e0ac9d6d2b611545294ebd392fb8d8e5ca39f8a246ca047fb

193.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

193.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (4)

Citation	Source excerpt
GDPR Art. 7	ion on a user's device (Art. 5(3)), and GDPR Art. 7 (consent must be freely given, specific
GDPR Art. 13	(x3): ePrivacy Art. 5(3), GDPR Art. 7, GDPR Art. 13(1)(e) (disclosure of recipients), Priva
GDPR Art. 17	): GDPR Art. 13(2)(a) (storage period), GDPR Art. 17 (right to erasure), CCPA Sec. 1798.105
GDPR Art. 35	constitutes high-risk processing under GDPR Art. 35; no DPIA has been conducted or disclose

193.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

193.4 Dollar Figures (22)

$0.05 · $0.20 · $0.40 · $0.50 · $0.60 · $0.80 · $1.00 · $1.20 · $1.50 · $2.20 · $3.00 · $5.00 · $8.50 · $18.30 · $22.50 · $25.00 · $75.00 · $100.00 · $2,500.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $50,120.00

193.5 Dates (1)

2026-07-24

Section 194 of 261

Section 194 — FORENSIC AUDIT REPORT – Federal Communications Commission (FCC) – 2026-07-21

Source File	FORENSIC-0194-fcc-audit2-49d01908.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-21 18:51:00
Size	38,823 bytes
SHA-256	49d0190802e78bf3300285c12b1a0f6360e1153f14ac3adf8afda87c330d9221

194.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

194.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (20)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	nt Lanier Sr., Esq., Ph.D. Authority: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	, Ph.D. Authority: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U
10 U.S.C. § 2304	y: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S
47 U.S.C. § 230	1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.
5 U.S.C. § 552	2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiret
18 U.S.C. § 2511	. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA);
18 U.S.C. § 1030	y Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	(Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal
15 U.S.C. § 6801	30 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA
Civ. Code § 1798.100	FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 2
42 U.S.C. § 12181	Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508);
29 U.S.C. § 794	0 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-S
15 U.S.C. § 7701	(ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-SPAM); 15 U.S.C. § 6501 (COPPA); G
15 U.S.C. § 6501	tion 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-SPAM); 15 U.S.C. § 6501 (COPPA); GDPR (EU) 2016/679; ePrivacy D
GDPR Art. 7	ty, integrity, supply‑chain security GDPR Art. 7, Art. 13 Consent and transparency eP
GDPR Art. 32	International Law Implications: GDPR Art. 32 – security of processing; lack of SRI u
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)	></script> Statutory Citations: 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a) – interception of electronic communicat
Civ. Code § 1798.135	nals are recognized. This violates Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.135. Source Code Evidence: No such link
Civ. Code § 1798.130(a)(5)	erence signals must be honored.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.130(a)(5): “clear and conspicuous link” required.
Prof. Code § 22575	nt 5: Violation of CalOPPA (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22575) – inadequate privacy policy. Count 6

194.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (10)

Header	Source excerpt
Count 1: Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) – interception of electronic communications via tracking scripts without consent.	natrace, AddToAny, AudioEye, etc.): Count 1: Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) – interception of electronic communications via tracking scripts wi
Count 2: Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) – unauthorized access/exfiltration of data.	via tracking scripts without consent. Count 2: Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) – unauthorized access/exfiltration of data. Coun
Count 3: Unfair and Deceptive Practices (FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) – failure to secure data, lack of disclosure, and deceptive tracking.	thorized access/exfiltration of data. Count 3: Unfair and Deceptive Practices (FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) – failure to secure data, lack of disclosure, and dec
Count 4: Violation of CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.) – lack of opt‑out, missing “Do Not Sell” link, and no consent.	f disclosure, and deceptive tracking. Count 4: Violation of CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.) – lack of opt‑out, missing “Do Not Sell” link, and no
Count 5: Violation of CalOPPA (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22575) – inadequate privacy policy.	g “Do Not Sell” link, and no consent. Count 5: Violation of CalOPPA (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22575) – inadequate privacy policy. Count 6: Violation of the Priv
Count 6: Violation of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a) – collection of PII without required notice, no routine uses disclosure.	§ 22575) – inadequate privacy policy. Count 6: Violation of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a) – collection of PII without required notice, no routine us
Count 7: Violation of ADA Title III (42 U.S.C. § 12181) and Section 508 – digital accessibility barriers.	d notice, no routine uses disclosure. Count 7: Violation of ADA Title III (42 U.S.C. § 12181) and Section 508 – digital accessibility barriers. Count 8: Neglige
Count 8: Negligence – failure to implement reasonable security measures (SRI, CSP, security headers).	508 – digital accessibility barriers. Count 8: Negligence – failure to implement reasonable security measures (SRI, CSP, security headers). Count 9: Breach of F
Count 9: Breach of Fiduciary Duty – the government owes a duty to protect constituent data.	easures (SRI, CSP, security headers). Count 9: Breach of Fiduciary Duty – the government owes a duty to protect constituent data. Count 10: Violation of OMB Cir
Count 10: Violation of OMB Circular A‑130 – failure to manage third‑party risk.	s a duty to protect constituent data. Count 10: Violation of OMB Circular A‑130 – failure to manage third‑party risk. Damages Sought: Statutory maximums,

194.4 Dollar Figures (59)

$1.20 · $1.50 · $1.90 · $2.10 · $2.40 · $2.50 · $2.80 · $3.10 · $3.50 · $3.80 · $4.20 · $4.30 · $4.50 · $5.30 · $5.60 · $5.80 · $5.90 · $6.80 · $7.20 · $7.90 · $8.50 · $9.20 · $11.50 · $11.80 · $29.90 · $34.10 · $55.00 · $82.30 · $93.00 · $93.80 · $100.00 · $150.00 · $200.00 · $225.00 · $250.00 · $300.00 · $365.00 · $400.00 · $450.00 · $600.00 · $700.00 · $750.00 · $800.00 · $900.00 · $2,500.00 · $50,120.00 · $75,000.00 · $150,000.00 · $200,000.00 · $225,000.00 · $250,000.00 · $300,000.00 · $400,000.00 · $450,000.00 · $600,000.00 · $750,000.00 · $800,000.00 · $900,000.00 · $1,002,400.00

194.5 Dates (1)

2026-07-21

Section 195 of 261

Section 195 — FORENSIC AUDIT REPORT: Target 28 – CNN International Homepage (chunk_aa.txt)

Source File	FORENSIC-0195-cnnpart1of9audit-4faf2f61.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-25 12:25:45
Size	43,180 bytes
SHA-256	4faf2f61fd54bc89bb94a675d9cd15715507f40791acd32b13fd93cf81a67f5b

195.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

195.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (26)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	it was conducted under the authority of 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	der the authority of 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	of 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, int
Civ. Code § 1798.100	tection: GDPR (EU) 2016/679, CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100), GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801), COPPA (15 U.
15 U.S.C. § 6801	CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100), GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801), COPPA (15 U.S.C. § 6501), ePrivacy Di
15 U.S.C. § 6501	8.100), GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801), COPPA (15 U.S.C. § 6501), ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC, and OE
18 U.S.C. § 2511	Security & Cybersecurity: Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511), CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030), NIST SP 800-
18 U.S.C. § 1030	: Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511), CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030), NIST SP 800-53, and DoD STIG non-comp
42 U.S.C. § 12181	G non-compliance. Accessibility: ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12181) and Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d) vio
29 U.S.C. § 794	DA (42 U.S.C. § 12181) and Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d) violations. Anti-Spam & Marketing:
15 U.S.C. § 7701	Anti-Spam & Marketing: CAN-SPAM Act (15 U.S.C. § 7701) violations. Consumer Protection: FTC
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	ations. Consumer Protection: FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) unfair/deceptive practices. Internat
GDPR Art. 17	tention or deletion policies, violating GDPR Art. 17 (Right to Erasure). Risk Assessmen
Civ. Code § 1798.150	ed €6.25B annual revenue) CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150) $7,500 per violation ~500,000 Californ
15 U.S.C. § 45(m)	ers impacted $3,750,000,000 FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(m)) $50,120 per violation 1 (deceptive pra
18 U.S.C. § 2520(c)	tive practices) $50,120 Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2520(c)) $10,000 per violation + treble damages
18 U.S.C. § 1030(c)	0,000,000,000 (treble damages) CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030(c)) $5,000 per violation + treble 1 (excee
15 U.S.C. § 6823(b)	orized access) $5,000 + treble GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6823(b)) $100,000 per violation 1 (failure to p
15 U.S.C. § 7706(d)	13 impacted $2,587,200,000 CAN-SPAM (15 U.S.C. § 7706(d)) $51,744 per violation ~1,000,000 email
28 C.F.R. § 35.150	without consent $51,744,000,000 ADA (28 C.F.R. § 35.150) $75,000 per violation 1 (accessibility
18 U.S.C. § 2520	00 Class Action Multiplier (3× under 18 U.S.C. § 2520) 3 Target 28 Exposure (×3 Multiplier
GDPR Art. 5	full ad targeting and inventory data. GDPR Art. 5, CCPA § 1798.100, FTC Act § 5 High
GDPR Art. 6	ut explicit consent for each purpose. GDPR Art. 6, Art. 7, Art. 13; CCPA § 1798.100; ePri
GDPR Art. 7	ories, violating opt-in requirements. GDPR Art. 7, Recital 32; CCPA § 1798.135; FTC Act §
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)	-500) Statutory Citations: CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)): Unauthorized access to a protected co
GDPR Art. 83	the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR Art. 83(4)) Allegation: Defendant, CNN, proce

195.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (7)

Header	Source excerpt
COUNT I: Violations of the Federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511)	iolations identified in this audit. COUNT I: Violations of the Federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) Allegation: Defendant, CNN, knowingly
COUNT II: Violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030)	hak , 631 F.3d 266 (6th Cir. 2010). COUNT II: Violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) Allegation: Defendant, CNN, knowingly
COUNT III: Violations of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR Art. 83(4))	sal , 676 F.3d 854 (9th Cir. 2012). COUNT III: Violations of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR Art. 83(4)) Allegation: Defendant, CNN, processed
COUNT IV: Violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150)	ntralen , Case C-673/17 (ECJ 2019). COUNT IV: Violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150) Allegation: Defendant, CNN, collecte
COUNT V: Violations of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (15 U.S.C. § 6501)	No. 1:24-cv-12345 (N.D. Cal. 2024). COUNT V: Violations of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (15 U.S.C. § 6501) Allegation: Defendant, CNN, knowingly
COUNT VI: Violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12181)	, No. 1:19-cv-02184 (D.D.C. 2019). COUNT VI: Violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12181) Allegation: Defendant, CNN, failed to
COUNT VII: Violations of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a))	zza , 913 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2019). COUNT VII: Violations of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) Allegation: Defendant, CNN, engaged i

195.4 Dollar Figures (93)

$1.20 · $1.90 · $2.10 · $2.20 · $2.50 · $2.60 · $2.80 · $3.00 · $3.10 · $3.50 · $3.80 · $4.20 · $4.30 · $5.30 · $5.60 · $5.80 · $5.90 · $6.00 · $6.25 · $6.40 · $6.80 · $7.10 · $7.20 · $7.80 · $7.90 · $8.20 · $8.40 · $8.50 · $9.20 · $9.50 · $11.60 · $11.80 · $12.80 · $14.20 · $15.40 · $15.80 · $19.20 · $19.60 · $22.30 · $31.40 · $38.70 · $99.50 · $259.20 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $11,250.00 · $25,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $75,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $112,500.00 · $123,750.00 · $150,000.00 · $272,500.00 · $25,000,000.00 · $250,000,000.00 · $272,500,000.00 · $494,060,438.00 · $1,125,011,259.00 · $1,940,400,000.00 · $2,587,200,000.00 · $2,812,500,000.00 · $3,375,005,625.00 · $3,750,000,000.00 · $4,940,604,375.00 · $5,434,664,813.00 · $6,587,472,500.00 · $6,635,840,000.00 · $10,000,000,000.00 · $11,250,112,590.00 · $12,375,123,849.00 · $15,000,000,000.00 · $15,000,150,120.00 · $22,500,000,000.00 · $30,000,000,000.00 · $33,750,056,250.00 · $37,125,061,875.00 · $38,808,000,000.00 · $45,000,075,000.00 · $51,744,000,000.00 · $66,358,400,000.00 · $72,994,240,000.00 · $145,988,480,000.00 · $218,982,720,000.00 · $291,976,960,000.00 · $4,572,358,440,000.00 · $4,572,472,940,000.00 · $4,572,472,963,400.00 · $4,718,461,420,000.00 · $4,864,449,923,400.00

195.5 Dates (1)

2026-07-25

Section 196 of 261

Section 196 — FORENSIC AUDIT REPORT – NCDOJ.GOV (Consumer Complaint Page) – 2026-07-21

Source File	FORENSIC-0196-ncdojaudit-35cf71ac.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-21 14:30:26
Size	40,966 bytes
SHA-256	35cf71acdb4d9bbd48e628cf162b87188fa4823496cb8a19420873f1cb070a52

196.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

196.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (25)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	nt Lanier Sr., Esq., Ph.D. Authority: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	, Ph.D. Authority: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U
10 U.S.C. § 2304	y: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230 Audi
47 U.S.C. § 230	1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230 Audit Date: 2026-07-21 \| Report ID:
18 U.S.C. § 2511	ese failures implicate the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511), the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)), the
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	ap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511), the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)), the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18
18 U.S.C. § 1030	(a)), the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030), the California Consumer Privacy Act (
Civ. Code § 1798.100	e California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100), the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C.
15 U.S.C. § 6801	1798.100), the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. § 6801), and North Carolina’s Identity Theft P
Gen. Stat. § 75	a’s Identity Theft Protection Act (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75‑60), among others. Cumulative estimat
42 U.S.C. § 12181	cessibility review under ADA Title III (42 U.S.C. § 12181) and Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d).
29 U.S.C. § 794	II (42 U.S.C. § 12181) and Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d). 2.2 Legal Authorities Invoked (
47 U.S.C. § 227	vacy Act (CCPA) – notice and opt-out 47 U.S.C. § 227 TCPA – consent for automated calls (not
15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(A)	TC fine: $50,120 per violation per day (15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(A)). With 12+ resources, conservative base
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)	Statutory & Regulatory Citations: 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a): “intentionally intercepts, endeavors t
Civ. Code § 1798.100(b)	y are electronic communications. Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100(b): Consumers have the right to know what
18 U.S.C. § 2520(c)(2)	tual damages or $100/day per violation (18 U.S.C. § 2520(c)(2)). For millions of users, this is astron
Civ. Code § 1798.155	$7,500 per intentional violation (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.155). With 7 trackers, 3× expansion: $1.8M
15 U.S.C. § 6802(a)	</script> Statutory Citations: 15 U.S.C. § 6802(a) – GLBA: “No financial institution may d
Prof. Code § 22575	dy). This violates CalOPPA (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22575) which requires a privacy policy for we
Prof. Code § 22575(a)	Statutory Citations: Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22575(a): “An operator of a commercial website …
Civ. Code § 1798.130(a)(5)	uously post its privacy policy.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.130(a)(5): “A business shall provide a clear and
16 C.F.R. § 314.3	ion process. Statutory Citations: 16 C.F.R. § 314.3(b): “Develop, implement, and maintain a
Civ. Code § 1798.135	ignals. Statutory Citations: Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.135: “Requires businesses to recognize opt-
Civ. Code § 1798.130	rivacy rights. This violates CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.130) and NC Identity Theft Protection Act.

196.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (10)

Header	Source excerpt
Count 1: Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) – interception of electronic communications via tracking scripts without consent.	h Carolina, and associated vendors: Count 1: Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) – interception of electronic communications via tracking scripts wi
Count 2: Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) – unauthorized access/exfiltration of data via third-party iframe.	via tracking scripts without consent. Count 2: Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) – unauthorized access/exfiltration of data via t
Count 3: Unfair and Deceptive Practices (FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) – failure to disclose tracking, data sharing, and security failures.	ation of data via third-party iframe. Count 3: Unfair and Deceptive Practices (FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) – failure to disclose tracking, data sharing, and sec
Count 4: Violation of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. § 6801) – financial privacy violations.	data sharing, and security failures. Count 4: Violation of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. § 6801) – financial privacy violations. Count 5: Violation of C
Count 5: Violation of CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.) – lack of opt-out, privacy policy, and data sharing disclosure.	6801) – financial privacy violations. Count 5: Violation of CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.) – lack of opt-out, privacy policy, and data sharing di
Count 6: Violation of CalOPPA (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22575) – no privacy policy.	policy, and data sharing disclosure. Count 6: Violation of CalOPPA (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22575) – no privacy policy. Count 7: Violation of ADA Title III (
Count 7: Violation of ADA Title III (42 U.S.C. § 12181) – digital accessibility barriers.	f. Code § 22575) – no privacy policy. Count 7: Violation of ADA Title III (42 U.S.C. § 12181) – digital accessibility barriers. Count 8: Violation of N.C. Ident
Count 8: Violation of N.C. Identity Theft Protection Act (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75‑60) – failure to safeguard personal information.	81) – digital accessibility barriers. Count 8: Violation of N.C. Identity Theft Protection Act (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75‑60) – failure to safeguard personal informa
Count 9: Breach of Fiduciary Duty (the DOJ owes a duty to protect complainants).	re to safeguard personal information. Count 9: Breach of Fiduciary Duty (the DOJ owes a duty to protect complainants). Count 10: Negligence – failure to imp
Count 10: Negligence – failure to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures.	owes a duty to protect complainants). Count 10: Negligence – failure to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures. Damages Sought: Statutory maximums,

196.4 Dollar Figures (55)

$1.20 · $1.50 · $1.70 · $1.80 · $2.10 · $2.80 · $3.50 · $3.80 · $4.30 · $5.10 · $5.20 · $5.60 · $7.90 · $9.20 · $11.80 · $15.40 · $35.00 · $42.80 · $50.00 · $54.10 · $70.00 · $75.00 · $100.00 · $105.00 · $130.00 · $150.00 · $170.00 · $200.00 · $210.00 · $225.00 · $300.00 · $390.00 · $400.00 · $450.00 · $500.00 · $510.00 · $600.00 · $900.00 · $2,500.00 · $7,500.00 · $50,120.00 · $75,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $150,000.00 · $150,360.00 · $200,000.00 · $225,000.00 · $300,000.00 · $400,000.00 · $450,000.00 · $500,000.00 · $600,000.00 · $601,440.00 · $900,000.00 · $1,804,320.00

196.5 Dates (1)

2026-07-21

Section 197 of 261

Section 197 — FORENSIC AUDIT REPORT: Fox News Network Homepage

Source File	FORENSIC-0197-foxnewsaudit-c2746595.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-24 20:41:05
Size	41,602 bytes
SHA-256	c2746595ed286af212afe72a08c056cea6ac294c69ce13c24476ed5310c204ff

197.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

197.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (21)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	er@ladcodefense2.com AUDIT AUTHORITY: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	m AUDIT AUTHORITY: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U
10 U.S.C. § 2304	Y: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S
47 U.S.C. § 230	1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 18
5 U.S.C. § 552	2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 18 U.S.C. § 1030; 1
18 U.S.C. § 2511	07-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 18 U.S.C. § 1030; 15 U.S.C. § 45(a); 1
18 U.S.C. § 1030	230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 18 U.S.C. § 1030; 15 U.S.C. § 45(a); 15 U.S.C. § 6801; C
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	2a; 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 18 U.S.C. § 1030; 15 U.S.C. § 45(a); 15 U.S.C. § 6801; Cal. Civ. Code § 179
15 U.S.C. § 6801	1; 18 U.S.C. § 1030; 15 U.S.C. § 45(a); 15 U.S.C. § 6801; Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100; 42 U.S.C. §
Civ. Code § 1798.100	U.S.C. § 45(a); 15 U.S.C. § 6801; Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100; 42 U.S.C. § 12181; 29 U.S.C. § 794d; 1
42 U.S.C. § 12181	S.C. § 6801; Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100; 42 U.S.C. § 12181; 29 U.S.C. § 794d; 15 U.S.C. § 7701; 15
29 U.S.C. § 794	iv. Code § 1798.100; 42 U.S.C. § 12181; 29 U.S.C. § 794d; 15 U.S.C. § 7701; 15 U.S.C. § 6501; G
15 U.S.C. § 7701	0; 42 U.S.C. § 12181; 29 U.S.C. § 794d; 15 U.S.C. § 7701; 15 U.S.C. § 6501; GDPR (EU) 2016/679;
15 U.S.C. § 6501	81; 29 U.S.C. § 794d; 15 U.S.C. § 7701; 15 U.S.C. § 6501; GDPR (EU) 2016/679; ePrivacy Directive
GDPR Art. 7	CRITICAL Severity: Critical • Statutes: GDPR Art. 7, ePrivacy Directive Art. 5(3), CCPA § 1
Civ. Code § 1798.120	Directive Art. 5(3), FTC Act § 5, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.120 The consent mechanism uses dark patte
GDPR Art. 32	(CFAA), 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act), GDPR Art. 32, ePrivacy Directive Art. 5(3) The pag
GDPR Art. 5	Y MEDIUM Severity: Medium • Statutes: GDPR Art. 5(1)(e), GDPR Art. 13, CCPA § 1798.100, e
GDPR Art. 13	: Medium • Statutes: GDPR Art. 5(1)(e), GDPR Art. 13, CCPA § 1798.100, ePrivacy Directive Ar
Civ. Code § 1798.130	es: GDPR Art. 13, CCPA § 1798.100, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.130, FTC Act § 5 While the footer contain
GDPR Art. 15	N MEDIUM Severity: Medium • Statutes: GDPR Art. 15-22, CCPA § 1798.100, Cal. Civ. Code § 1

197.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (8)

Header	Source excerpt
COUNT I: Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA/CPRA)	l place of business is New York, NY). COUNT I: Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA/CPRA) Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.
COUNT II: Violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)	$750 × 1.5M × 3 = $3,375,000,000 COUNT II: Violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) GDPR Art. 5, 7, 13, 17, 32, 33, 35
COUNT III: Violation of the FTC Act (Unfair and Deceptive Practices)	of global turnover = $580,000,000 COUNT III: Violation of the FTC Act (Unfair and Deceptive Practices) 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) Defendant misr
COUNT IV: Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)	$197,064,000,000 (capped at $25M) COUNT IV: Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 42 U.S.C. § 12181 Defendant's we
COUNT V: Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)	= $2,250,000,000 (capped at $25M) COUNT V: Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) 18 U.S.C. § 1030 Defendant used
COUNT VI: Violation of the Wiretap Act	= $22,500,000,000 (capped at $25M) COUNT VI: Violation of the Wiretap Act 18 U.S.C. § 2511 Defendant inter
COUNT VII: Violation of COPPA	= $45,000,000,000 (capped at $25M) COUNT VII: Violation of COPPA 15 U.S.C. § 6501, 16 CFR Part 312
COUNT VIII: Breach of Implied Contract & Unjust Enrichment	= $19,706,400,000 (capped at $25M) COUNT VIII: Breach of Implied Contract & Unjust Enrichment Defendant was unjustly enriched by

197.4 Dollar Figures (68)

$1.20 · $1.50 · $1.90 · $2.10 · $2.20 · $2.50 · $2.60 · $2.80 · $3.00 · $3.10 · $3.50 · $3.80 · $4.20 · $4.30 · $5.30 · $5.60 · $5.80 · $5.90 · $6.00 · $6.80 · $7.10 · $7.20 · $7.90 · $8.20 · $8.40 · $8.50 · $9.20 · $9.50 · $10.00 · $11.60 · $11.80 · $14.20 · $14.50 · $15.00 · $19.60 · $22.30 · $25.00 · $72.50 · $192.80 · $750.00 · $1,000.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $10,000.00 · $43,792.00 · $50,000.00 · $75,000.00 · $10,800,000.00 · $25,000,000.00 · $75,000,000.00 · $150,000,000.00 · $225,000,000.00 · $290,000,000.00 · $500,000,000.00 · $580,000,000.00 · $900,000,000.00 · $2,250,000,000.00 · $3,375,000,000.00 · $3,750,000,000.00 · $4,305,000,000.00 · $6,568,800,000.00 · $7,500,000,000.00 · $15,000,000,000.00 · $19,706,400,000.00 · $22,500,000,000.00 · $45,000,000,000.00 · $65,688,000,000.00 · $197,064,000,000.00

197.5 Dates (1)

2026-07-24

Section 198 of 261

Section 198 — Forensic Audit – Target 33 (CNN Part 6 of 9)

Source File	FORENSIC-0198-cnnpart6of9audit-df81b257.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-25 14:22:53
Size	19,416 bytes
SHA-256	df81b257a06bf56f2ce2251cc23d6ba1840b52dbd63b0472b175b03e36053c5e

198.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

198.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (16)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	adcodefense2.com AUDIT AUTHORITY: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	AUDIT AUTHORITY: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507‑2; 47 U
10 U.S.C. § 2304	Y: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507‑2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S
47 U.S.C. § 230	1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507‑2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.
5 U.S.C. § 552	2304; 26 CFR 1.507‑2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiret
18 U.S.C. § 2511	. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA);
18 U.S.C. § 1030	y Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	(Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal
15 U.S.C. § 6801	30 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA
Civ. Code § 1798.100	FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 2
42 U.S.C. § 12181	Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508);
29 U.S.C. § 794	0 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN‑S
15 U.S.C. § 7701	(ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN‑SPAM); 15 U.S.C. § 6501 (COPPA); G
15 U.S.C. § 6501	tion 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN‑SPAM); 15 U.S.C. § 6501 (COPPA); GDPR (EU) 2016/679; ePrivacy D
GDPR Art. 32	30, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), 47 U.S.C. § 230, GDPR Art. 32, NIST SP 800‑53 (SI‑7), DoD STIG APSC‑D
GDPR Art. 6	ithout Consent – Expanded Statutes: GDPR Art. 6, 7, 13, 14; ePrivacy Art. 5(3); CCPA Ca

198.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (7)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair/deceptive security practices.	ing System, Inc. et al. Counts: Count I – FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair/deceptive security practices. Count II – CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): U
Count II – CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized transmission of code causing damage.	Unfair/deceptive security practices. Count II – CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized transmission of code causing damage. Count III – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. §
Count III – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Interception of communications without consent.	transmission of code causing damage. Count III – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Interception of communications without consent. Count IV – GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 68
Count IV – GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Failure to protect customer information.	on of communications without consent. Count IV – GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Failure to protect customer information. Count V – ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12181): De
Count V – ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12181): Denial of equal access.	lure to protect customer information. Count V – ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12181): Denial of equal access. Count VI – CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 179
Count VI – CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Failure to provide opt‑out.	.C. § 12181): Denial of equal access. Count VI – CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Failure to provide opt‑out. Count VII – GDPR (EU 2016/679): Proce
Count VII – GDPR (EU 2016/679): Processing without lawful basis.	798.100): Failure to provide opt‑out. Count VII – GDPR (EU 2016/679): Processing without lawful basis. Damages Sought: Treble damages on a

198.4 Dollar Figures (88)

$1.00 · $1.20 · $1.68 · $1.90 · $2.10 · $2.20 · $2.25 · $2.50 · $2.60 · $2.80 · $3.00 · $3.10 · $3.50 · $3.80 · $4.20 · $4.30 · $5.30 · $5.60 · $5.80 · $5.90 · $6.00 · $6.40 · $6.80 · $7.10 · $7.20 · $7.50 · $7.80 · $7.90 · $8.20 · $8.40 · $8.50 · $9.20 · $9.50 · $10.00 · $11.60 · $11.80 · $12.53 · $12.80 · $14.20 · $15.40 · $15.80 · $19.20 · $19.50 · $19.60 · $20.80 · $22.30 · $25.50 · $27.00 · $28.19 · $31.40 · $37.59 · $38.70 · $750.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $22,500.00 · $38,808.00 · $47,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $63,750.00 · $75,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $112,500.00 · $202,500.00 · $561,558.00 · $4,200,000,000.00 · $8,600,000,000.00 · $145,988,480,000.00 · $291,976,960,000.00 · $2,250,000,000,000.00 · $3,880,800,000,000.00 · $4,572,358,440,000.00 · $4,700,000,000,000.00 · $6,375,000,000,000.00 · $7,500,000,000,000.00 · $11,250,000,000,000.00 · $18,450,000,000,000.00 · $19,200,000,000,000.00 · $19,500,000,000,000.00 · $20,250,000,000,000.00 · $24,600,000,000,000.00 · $25,500,000,000,000.00 · $25,600,000,000,000.00 · $56,155,800,000,000.00 · $61,872,661,420,000.00 · $80,573,049,923,400.00 · $81,372,661,420,000.00 · $106,073,049,923,400.00

198.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 199 of 261

Section 199 — FORENSIC AUDIT – TARGET 18: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Source File	FORENSIC-0199-treasury-audit-8763b801.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-23 04:29:16
Size	34,605 bytes
SHA-256	8763b801453ebafd7be787f3eb6c5c3aa27a57e430cdf0ed2ef0631bfad029b4

199.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

199.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (4)

Citation	Source excerpt
GDPR Art. 7	ion on a user's device (Art. 5(3)), and GDPR Art. 7 (consent must be freely given, specific
GDPR Art. 13	Act 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552a(e)(3) (notice), GDPR Art. 13 (privacy information), CCPA Sec. 1798.1
GDPR Art. 17	): GDPR Art. 13(2)(a) (storage period), GDPR Art. 17 (right to erasure), CCPA Sec. 1798.105
GDPR Art. 35	constitutes high-risk processing under GDPR Art. 35; no DPIA has been conducted or disclose

199.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

199.4 Dollar Figures (24)

$0.20 · $0.30 · $0.40 · $0.50 · $0.60 · $0.80 · $0.90 · $1.00 · $1.20 · $1.50 · $2.20 · $2.80 · $3.00 · $5.00 · $7.90 · $18.30 · $22.50 · $25.00 · $75.00 · $100.00 · $2,500.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $50,120.00

199.5 Dates (1)

2026-07-23

Section 200 of 261

Section 200 — FORENSIC AUDIT REPORT – TARGET 31 (CNN INTERNATIONAL HOMEPAGE – PART 4 OF 9)

Source File	FORENSIC-0200-cnnpart4of9audit-e7028cce.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-25 13:41:05
Size	39,140 bytes
SHA-256	e7028cce67ac0c17683eaacc28d867e4145494362e57242c5cfc49d08bca6939

200.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

200.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (32)

Citation	Source excerpt
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	P – continues from prior parts CRITICAL 15 U.S.C. § 45(a); NIST SP 800‑53 2 3301‑3320 External
GDPR Art. 7	ithout consent – GDPR/ePrivacy CRITICAL GDPR Art. 7, 83(4); ePrivacy Directive 5 3408‑34
18 U.S.C. § 1030(g)	m missing CSRF token – CSRF vector HIGH 18 U.S.C. § 1030(g); NIST AC‑6 6 3444‑3465 User account
5 U.S.C. § 552	secure session – session fixation HIGH 5 U.S.C. § 552a; GDPR Art. 32 7 3479‑3500 Login but
GDPR Art. 32	session fixation HIGH 5 U.S.C. § 552a; GDPR Art. 32 7 3479‑3500 Login button uses `href=
18 U.S.C. § 1030	ses `href="#"` – broken security MEDIUM 18 U.S.C. § 1030; NIST SP 800‑53 8 3512‑3535 Ad feedb
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)	XSS filtering – reflected XSS CRITICAL 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5); FTC § 45(n) 10 3582‑3605 No cookie
28 C.F.R. § 35.150	on interactive elements – ADA HIGH ADA 28 C.F.R. § 35.150; Section 508 17 3827‑3850 No dark mo
GDPR Art. 83	hout `data‑consent` – GDPR ad‑tech HIGH GDPR Art. 83(4); ePrivacy 20 3932‑3955 Video play
29 U.S.C. § 794	captions – Section 508 HIGH Section 508 29 U.S.C. § 794d; ADA 21 3967‑3990 Live video label
15 U.S.C. § 6801	CCPA/GLBA MEDIUM CCPA § 1798.100; GLBA 15 U.S.C. § 6801 24 4072‑4095 No explicit opt‑out for
Civ. Code § 1798.120	ird‑party sharing – CCPA HIGH CCPA Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.120 25 4107‑4130 Forms lack `autocomplet
GDPR Art. 13	in header – CCPA HIGH CCPA § 1798.130; GDPR Art. 13 28 4212‑4235 Missing `HttpOnly`/`Sec
GDPR Art. 30	` version tracking LOW CCPA § 1798.130; GDPR Art. 30 39 4597‑4620 Payment elements withou
15 U.S.C. § 6823	` – PCI‑DSS HIGH GLBA 15 U.S.C. § 6801; 15 U.S.C. § 6823 40 4632‑4655 No `data‑third‑party` d
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A)	Corp. , 799 F.3d 236 (3d Cir. 2015). 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A) – CFAA: Knowingly causing transmission
Civ. Code § 1798.150(a)	ssing info on user devices. CCPA Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150(a) – Private right of action for data brea
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(C)	ct JS. Statutory Citations (3×): 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(C) – Intentional damage to protected compu
15 U.S.C. § 45(n)	) – Civil action with treble damages. 15 U.S.C. § 45(n) – FTC Act: substantial injury to consum
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)	CSRF. Statutory Citations (3×): 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C) – Unauthorized access to obtain informa
18 U.S.C. § 2520	horized access to obtain information. 18 U.S.C. § 2520 – Wiretap Act civil remedies. 5 U.S.C
Civ. Code § 1798.130(a)(5)	A § 1798.120 – Right to opt out. Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.130(a)(5) – Notice at collection. UN Guiding Pr
18 U.S.C. § 2511	eble – $4.5T. COUNT II – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Interception of electronic communicat
Civ. Code § 1798.150	junctive relief. COUNT V – CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150): Failure to implement reasonable secur
42 U.S.C. § 12181	mages: $6B (treble). COUNT VII – ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12181; 28 C.F.R. § 35.150): Web accessibility
22 U.S.C. § 2295	audit was conducted in accordance with 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	d in accordance with 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507‑2; 47 U
10 U.S.C. § 2304	th 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507‑2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S
47 U.S.C. § 230	1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507‑2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 18
Civ. Code § 1798.100	U.S.C. § 45(a); 15 U.S.C. § 6801; Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100; 42 U.S.C. § 12181; 29 U.S.C. § 794d; 1
15 U.S.C. § 7701	0; 42 U.S.C. § 12181; 29 U.S.C. § 794d; 15 U.S.C. § 7701; 15 U.S.C. § 6501; GDPR (EU) 2016/679;
15 U.S.C. § 6501	81; 29 U.S.C. § 794d; 15 U.S.C. § 7701; 15 U.S.C. § 6501; GDPR (EU) 2016/679; ePrivacy Directive

200.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (8)

Header	Source excerpt
COUNT I – CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants knowingly caused transmission of code and commands to protected computers without authorization, resulting in damage and loss. Lack of CSP, XSS filtering, and se	C. and CNN INTERNATIONAL, Defendants. COUNT I – CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants knowingly caused transmission of code and commands to protected computers wi
COUNT II – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Interception of electronic communications without consent via unauthorized tracking. Damages: $3T (treble).	Cir. 2016). Damages: treble – $4.5T. COUNT II – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Interception of electronic communications without consent via unauthorized track
COUNT III – GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Failure to protect nonpublic personal information and provide privacy notices. Damages: $1.2T.	ized tracking. Damages: $3T (treble). COUNT III – GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Failure to protect nonpublic personal information and provide privacy notices. Damage
COUNT IV – FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair/deceptive practices in data collection and security. FTC v. Wyndham , 799 F.3d 236 (3d Cir. 2015). Damages: $6.3M + injunctive relief.	vide privacy notices. Damages: $1.2T. COUNT IV – FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair/deceptive practices in data collection and security. FTC v. Wyndham , 799 F
COUNT V – CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150): Failure to implement reasonable security and provide opt‑out. Damages: $450B (treble).	. Damages: $6.3M + injunctive relief. COUNT V – CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150): Failure to implement reasonable security and provide opt‑out. Damages: $450B (
COUNT VI – GDPR (Art. 83(4)): Processing without lawful basis, no consent, inadequate security. Damages: $6B (treble).	ide opt‑out. Damages: $450B (treble). COUNT VI – GDPR (Art. 83(4)): Processing without lawful basis, no consent, inadequate security. Damages: $6B (treble). COU
COUNT VII – ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12181; 28 C.F.R. § 35.150): Web accessibility failure. Damages: $9.45M + injunction.	uate security. Damages: $6B (treble). COUNT VII – ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12181; 28 C.F.R. § 35.150): Web accessibility failure. Damages: $9.45M + injunction. COUNT VI
COUNT VIII – Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d): EIT accessibility failure. Damages: $9.45M.	ailure. Damages: $9.45M + injunction. COUNT VIII – Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d): EIT accessibility failure. Damages: $9.45M. TOTAL DAMAGES SOUGHT: $7.956 tril

200.4 Dollar Figures (77)

$1.20 · $1.50 · $1.90 · $2.00 · $2.10 · $2.20 · $2.25 · $2.50 · $2.60 · $2.80 · $3.00 · $3.10 · $3.50 · $3.60 · $3.80 · $4.20 · $4.30 · $4.50 · $5.30 · $5.60 · $5.80 · $5.90 · $6.00 · $6.30 · $6.40 · $6.80 · $7.10 · $7.20 · $7.80 · $7.90 · $7.95 · $8.20 · $8.40 · $8.50 · $9.00 · $9.20 · $9.40 · $9.45 · $9.50 · $11.60 · $11.80 · $12.50 · $12.80 · $14.20 · $15.03 · $15.40 · $15.80 · $19.20 · $19.60 · $22.30 · $25.60 · $31.40 · $38.70 · $50.00 · $55.10 · $400.00 · $450.00 · $500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $15,000.00 · $30,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $150,360.00 · $4,200,000,000.00 · $8,600,000,000.00 · $145,988,480,000.00 · $291,976,960,000.00 · $4,572,358,440,000.00 · $18,450,000,000,000.00 · $19,200,000,000,000.00 · $23,172,661,420,000.00 · $24,600,000,000,000.00 · $25,600,000,000,000.00 · $29,473,049,923,400.00 · $42,372,661,420,000.00 · $55,073,049,923,400.00

200.5 Dates (1)

2026-07-25

Section 201 of 261

Section 201 — FORENSIC AUDIT REPORT – schiff.senate.gov (Contact Page) – 2026-07-21

Source File	FORENSIC-0201-adam-schiff-audit-214cfa2b.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-21 16:31:31
Size	34,463 bytes
SHA-256	214cfa2b24e853f720a862f9c90b17a0ea3dcab35da13ec9b9221a5d283d990d

201.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

201.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (20)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	nt Lanier Sr., Esq., Ph.D. Authority: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	, Ph.D. Authority: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U
10 U.S.C. § 2304	y: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230 Audi
47 U.S.C. § 230	1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230 Audit Date: 2026-07-21 \| Report ID:
18 U.S.C. § 2511	-in, thereby violating the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511), the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)), and
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	ap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511), the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)), and the California Consumer Privacy A
Civ. Code § 1798.100	e California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100). Additionally, the site omits critical
42 U.S.C. § 12181	cessibility review under ADA Title III (42 U.S.C. § 12181) and Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d).
29 U.S.C. § 794	II (42 U.S.C. § 12181) and Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d). 2.2 Legal Authorities Invoked (
18 U.S.C. § 1030	ronic communications without consent 18 U.S.C. § 1030 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) – u
15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(A)	TC fine: $50,120 per violation per day (15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(A)). With 30+ resources, conservative base
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)	Statutory & Regulatory Citations: 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a): “intentionally intercepts, endeavors t
Civ. Code § 1798.100(b)	y are electronic communications. Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100(b): Consumers have the right to know what
18 U.S.C. § 2520(c)(2)	tual damages or $100/day per violation (18 U.S.C. § 2520(c)(2)). For millions of users, this is astron
Civ. Code § 1798.155	$7,500 per intentional violation (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.155). With a tag manager that can deploy mu
Prof. Code § 22575	dy). This violates CalOPPA (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22575) which requires a privacy policy for we
Prof. Code § 22575(a)	Statutory Citations: Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22575(a): “An operator of a commercial website …
Civ. Code § 1798.130(a)(5)	uously post its privacy policy.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.130(a)(5): “A business shall provide a clear and
Civ. Code § 1798.135	the notice of right to opt out.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.135: “Requires businesses to recognize opt-
Civ. Code § 1798.130	ailure to protect PII is unfair. Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.130 – requires disclosure of data retention

201.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (8)

Header	Source excerpt
Count 1: Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) – interception of electronic communications via Adobe Launch without consent.	Adobe, WordPress, Elementor, etc.): Count 1: Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) – interception of electronic communications via Adobe Launch withou
Count 2: Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) – unauthorized access/exfiltration of data via tracking scripts.	ons via Adobe Launch without consent. Count 2: Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) – unauthorized access/exfiltration of data via t
Count 3: Unfair and Deceptive Practices (FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) – failure to disclose tracking, cookie use, and security failures.	tration of data via tracking scripts. Count 3: Unfair and Deceptive Practices (FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) – failure to disclose tracking, cookie use, and secur
Count 4: Violation of CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.) – lack of opt-out, privacy policy deficiencies, and data sharing disclosure.	g, cookie use, and security failures. Count 4: Violation of CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.) – lack of opt-out, privacy policy deficiencies, and da
Count 5: Violation of CalOPPA (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22575) – inadequate privacy policy.	iencies, and data sharing disclosure. Count 5: Violation of CalOPPA (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22575) – inadequate privacy policy. Count 6: Violation of ADA Titl
Count 6: Violation of ADA Title III (42 U.S.C. § 12181) – digital accessibility barriers.	§ 22575) – inadequate privacy policy. Count 6: Violation of ADA Title III (42 U.S.C. § 12181) – digital accessibility barriers. Count 7: Negligence – failure to
Count 7: Negligence – failure to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures (CSP, SRI, security headers).	81) – digital accessibility barriers. Count 7: Negligence – failure to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures (CSP, SRI, security headers). Count 8: Breach
Count 8: Breach of Fiduciary Duty (the government owes a duty to protect constituent data).	easures (CSP, SRI, security headers). Count 8: Breach of Fiduciary Duty (the government owes a duty to protect constituent data). Damages Sought: Statutory maxi

201.4 Dollar Figures (55)

$1.20 · $1.90 · $2.10 · $2.40 · $2.80 · $3.50 · $3.80 · $4.30 · $5.30 · $5.60 · $5.80 · $7.90 · $9.20 · $11.80 · $19.40 · $35.00 · $50.00 · $53.90 · $70.00 · $75.00 · $100.00 · $105.00 · $135.30 · $150.00 · $170.00 · $200.00 · $210.00 · $225.00 · $240.00 · $270.00 · $300.00 · $450.00 · $510.00 · $600.00 · $700.00 · $720.00 · $800.00 · $810.00 · $2,500.00 · $7,500.00 · $50,120.00 · $75,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $150,000.00 · $150,360.00 · $200,000.00 · $225,000.00 · $300,000.00 · $450,000.00 · $500,000.00 · $600,000.00 · $700,000.00 · $800,000.00 · $1,503,600.00 · $4,510,800.00

201.5 Dates (1)

2026-07-21

Section 202 of 261

Section 202 — FORENSIC AUDIT REPORT – TARGET #25: TUCKER CARLSON NETWORK

Source File	FORENSIC-0202-tuckercarlsonaudit-33b49cb5.html
Created	July 24, 2026
Modified	2026-07-25 06:44:23
Size	42,582 bytes
SHA-256	33b49cb59ebf728597a4d7ccb3b01b643089f05dfef618b961451b2ba8b6248c

202.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	Henri Bryant Lanier Sr	FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Plaintiff: Henri Bryant Lanier Sr., Esq., Ph.D., on behalf of the United States and the class of all similarly situated use
defendant	Last Country	class of all similarly situated users Defendant: Last Country, Inc. (Tucker Carlson), a Florida entity, with

202.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (47)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	://ladcodefense2.com Audit Authority: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	m Audit Authority: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U
10 U.S.C. § 2304	y: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S
47 U.S.C. § 230	1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.
5 U.S.C. § 552	2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiret
18 U.S.C. § 2511	. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA);
18 U.S.C. § 1030	y Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	(Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal
15 U.S.C. § 6801	30 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA
Civ. Code § 1798.100	FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 2
42 U.S.C. § 12181	Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508);
29 U.S.C. § 794	0 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-S
15 U.S.C. § 7701	(ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-SPAM); 15 U.S.C. § 6501 (COPPA); G
15 U.S.C. § 6501	tion 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-SPAM); 15 U.S.C. § 6501 (COPPA); GDPR (EU) 2016/679; ePrivacy D
GDPR Art. 5	legal basis. Statutory Citations: GDPR Art. 5(1)(a): Lawfulness, fairness, and transp
GDPR Art. 6	fairness, and transparency – violated. GDPR Art. 6(1): No valid legal basis for processing
GDPR Art. 7	: No valid legal basis for processing. GDPR Art. 7: Consent not freely given, specific, or
GDPR Art. 13	t freely given, specific, or informed. GDPR Art. 13–14: Information not provided to data su
GDPR Art. 25	rmation not provided to data subjects. GDPR Art. 25: Data protection by design and default
GDPR Art. 83	vice access. Penalty Calculation: GDPR Art. 83(5): Up to €20M or 4% of global annual t
Civ. Code § 1798.100(b)	ignals. Statutory Citations: Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100(b): Right to know what personal informatio
Civ. Code § 1798.120(a)	ersonal information is collected. Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.120(a): Right to opt-out of sale or sharing.
Civ. Code § 1798.130	ht to opt-out of sale or sharing. Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.130: Transparency requirements – not promin
Civ. Code § 1798.135	rements – not prominently placed. Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.135: Global Privacy Control – not honored.
Civ. Code § 1798.185	al Privacy Control – not honored. Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.185: CPRA regulations – dark pattern prohib
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1)	disclosures. Statutory Citations: 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1): Unfair or deceptive acts or practices
15 U.S.C. § 45(n)	eptive acts or practices – prohibited. 15 U.S.C. § 45(n): Unfairness standard – substantial inju
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)	munications. Statutory Citations: 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a): Intentional interception of wire, oral
18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)	electronic communication – prohibited. 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d): Consent exception – requires prior, ex
18 U.S.C. § 2511(4)	on – requires prior, explicit consent. 18 U.S.C. § 2511(4): Criminal penalties and civil remedies.
18 U.S.C. § 2520	Act claims. Penalty Calculation: 18 U.S.C. § 2520: Statutory damages of $100 per day per
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)	under CFAA. Statutory Citations: 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C): Obtaining information from a protected
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(4)	tected computer without authorization. 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(4): Computer fraud – accessing with intent
18 U.S.C. § 1030(c)	ud – accessing with intent to defraud. 18 U.S.C. § 1030(c): Penalties (up to 5–10 years imprisonme
15 U.S.C. § 6801(a)	processing. Statutory Citations: 15 U.S.C. § 6801(a): Duty to protect consumers' non-public
15 U.S.C. § 6802(a)	mers' non-public personal information. 15 U.S.C. § 6802(a): Disclosure of non-public personal info
15 U.S.C. § 6803	prohibited without notice and opt-out. 15 U.S.C. § 6803: Annual privacy notice requirement – no
15 U.S.C. § 6501(a)(1)	tal consent. Statutory Citations: 15 U.S.C. § 6501(a)(1): Operators of websites directed to chil
16 C.F.R. § 312.2	st obtain verifiable parental consent. 16 C.F.R. § 312.2: Definition of "personal information" –
16 C.F.R. § 312.5	s persistent identifiers, geolocation. 16 C.F.R. § 312.5: Parental consent requirements – must b
16 C.F.R. § 312.10	ent requirements – must be verifiable. 16 C.F.R. § 312.10: Prohibition against conditioning parti
15 U.S.C. § 7703(a)	ation of unsolicited commercial email. 15 U.S.C. § 7703(a): Prohibition of false or misleading tra
15 U.S.C. § 7705	r misleading transmission information. 15 U.S.C. § 7705: Enforcement by FTC – penalties up to $
42 U.S.C. § 12182(a)	lternatives. Statutory Citations: 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a): Places of public accommodation – inclu
42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)	lic accommodation – includes websites. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A): Full and equal enjoyment – must provid
28 C.F.R. § 36.201	must provide reasonable modifications. 28 C.F.R. § 36.201(b): Effective communication – websites
GDPR Art. 82	rpreted by ECJ in Planet49 (C-673/17). GDPR Art. 82: Right to compensation for material and

202.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (10)

Header	Source excerpt
COUNT I – VIOLATION OF FTC ACT § 5(a) (15 U.S.C. § 45(a))	e of business at [Address of Record]. COUNT I – VIOLATION OF FTC ACT § 5(a) (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) Defendant engaged in unfair and decep
COUNT II – VIOLATION OF CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.)	ng user data without adequate notice. COUNT II – VIOLATION OF CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.) Defendant failed to provide consumers
COUNT III – VIOLATION OF GDPR (EU) 2016/679	a processing categories and purposes. COUNT III – VIOLATION OF GDPR (EU) 2016/679 Defendant processed personal data of
COUNT IV – VIOLATION OF WIRETAP ACT (18 U.S.C. § 2511)	f data subjects under Articles 12–22. COUNT IV – VIOLATION OF WIRETAP ACT (18 U.S.C. § 2511) Defendant intercepted electronic comm
COUNT V – VIOLATION OF CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030)	use movements, and browsing behavior. COUNT V – VIOLATION OF CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030) Defendant exceeded authorized access
COUNT VI – VIOLATION OF ADA TITLE III (42 U.S.C. § 12181)	y servers without user authorization. COUNT VI – VIOLATION OF ADA TITLE III (42 U.S.C. § 12181) Defendant failed to provide accessibl
COUNT VII – VIOLATION OF COPPA (15 U.S.C. § 6501)	, and inadequate keyboard navigation. COUNT VII – VIOLATION OF COPPA (15 U.S.C. § 6501) Defendant collected personal informat
COUNT VIII – VIOLATION OF CAN-SPAM (15 U.S.C. § 7701)	tent identifiers and behavioral data. COUNT VIII – VIOLATION OF CAN-SPAM (15 U.S.C. § 7701) Defendant sent commercial emails with
COUNT IX – VIOLATION OF ePRIVACY DIRECTIVE (2002/58/EC)	r notice of the right to unsubscribe. COUNT IX – VIOLATION OF ePRIVACY DIRECTIVE (2002/58/EC) Defendant stored and accessed informa
COUNT X – VIOLATION OF UN GUIDING PRINCIPLES (UNGPs 17–21)	any consent mechanism was presented. COUNT X – VIOLATION OF UN GUIDING PRINCIPLES (UNGPs 17–21) Defendant failed to conduct human rig

202.4 Dollar Figures (66)

$0.20 · $0.30 · $0.40 · $0.50 · $0.60 · $0.70 · $0.80 · $0.90 · $1.10 · $1.20 · $1.40 · $1.50 · $1.90 · $2.10 · $2.20 · $2.50 · $2.60 · $2.70 · $2.80 · $3.00 · $3.10 · $3.50 · $3.80 · $4.20 · $4.30 · $5.00 · $5.30 · $5.60 · $5.80 · $5.90 · $6.00 · $6.40 · $6.80 · $7.10 · $7.20 · $7.80 · $7.90 · $8.20 · $8.40 · $8.50 · $9.20 · $9.50 · $11.60 · $11.80 · $12.80 · $14.20 · $15.80 · $19.20 · $19.60 · $22.30 · $31.40 · $91.70 · $99.50 · $100.00 · $117.50 · $170.00 · $240.00 · $259.20 · $520.00 · $7,500.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $55,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $250,000.00

202.5 Dates (1)

2026-07-24

Section 203 of 261

Section 203 — FORENSIC AUDIT REPORT – Federal Communications Commission (FCC) – 2026-07-21

Source File	FORENSIC-0203-fcc-audit3-96aab5ce.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-21 19:07:10
Size	60,954 bytes
SHA-256	96aab5ce0e68810cd841a5e27bc35c8cf0e6095015795abf480dfcb69c711514

203.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

203.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (69)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	nt Lanier Sr., Esq., Ph.D. Authority: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	, Ph.D. Authority: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U
10 U.S.C. § 2304	y: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S
47 U.S.C. § 230	1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.
5 U.S.C. § 552	2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiret
18 U.S.C. § 2511	. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA);
18 U.S.C. § 1030	y Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	(Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal
15 U.S.C. § 6801	30 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA
Civ. Code § 1798.100	FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 2
42 U.S.C. § 12181	Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508);
29 U.S.C. § 794	0 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-S
15 U.S.C. § 7701	(ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-SPAM); 15 U.S.C. § 6501 (COPPA); G
15 U.S.C. § 6501	tion 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-SPAM); 15 U.S.C. § 6501 (COPPA); GDPR (EU) 2016/679; ePrivacy D
GDPR Art. 7	ty, integrity, supply‑chain security GDPR Art. 7, Art. 13 Consent and transparency eP
18 U.S.C. § 371	ility & Federal Criminal Statutes: 18 U.S.C. § 371 – Conspiracy to commit offense against
18 U.S.C. § 1343	it offense against the United States. 18 U.S.C. § 1343 – Wire fraud. 18 U.S.C. § 1341 – Mail
18 U.S.C. § 1341	tes. 18 U.S.C. § 1343 – Wire fraud. 18 U.S.C. § 1341 – Mail fraud. 18 U.S.C. § 1349 – Atte
18 U.S.C. § 1349	aud. 18 U.S.C. § 1341 – Mail fraud. 18 U.S.C. § 1349 – Attempt and conspiracy to commit frau
18 U.S.C. § 1519	tempt and conspiracy to commit fraud. 18 U.S.C. § 1519 – Destruction, alteration, or falsifica
18 U.S.C. § 1621	of records in federal investigations. 18 U.S.C. § 1621 – Perjury. 18 U.S.C. § 1623 – False d
18 U.S.C. § 1623	ations. 18 U.S.C. § 1621 – Perjury. 18 U.S.C. § 1623 – False declarations before grand jury
18 U.S.C. § 1961	larations before grand jury or court. 18 U.S.C. § 1961 – RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrup
18 U.S.C. § 1962	nfluenced and Corrupt Organizations). 18 U.S.C. § 1962 – Prohibited activities under RICO. 1
18 U.S.C. § 2701	2 – Prohibited activities under RICO. 18 U.S.C. § 2701 – Stored Communications Act violations.
18 U.S.C. § 2702	Stored Communications Act violations. 18 U.S.C. § 2702 – Disclosure of stored communications.
18 U.S.C. § 3121	Disclosure of stored communications. 18 U.S.C. § 3121 – Pen register/trap and trace device vi
18 U.S.C. § 3559	ter/trap and trace device violations. 18 U.S.C. § 3559 – Sentencing classifications. 18 U.S.
18 U.S.C. § 3571	§ 3559 – Sentencing classifications. 18 U.S.C. § 3571 – Criminal fines for individuals and or
18 U.S.C. § 3581	es for individuals and organizations. 18 U.S.C. § 3581 – Terms of imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. §
18 U.S.C. § 3623	.S.C. § 3581 – Terms of imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. § 3623 – Fines for offenses. 21 U.S.C. § 853
21 U.S.C. § 853	8 U.S.C. § 3623 – Fines for offenses. 21 U.S.C. § 853 – Criminal forfeiture. 28 U.S.C. § 24
28 U.S.C. § 2461	1 U.S.C. § 853 – Criminal forfeiture. 28 U.S.C. § 2461 – Civil forfeiture. 31 U.S.C. § 3729
31 U.S.C. § 3729	28 U.S.C. § 2461 – Civil forfeiture. 31 U.S.C. § 3729 – False Claims Act. 31 U.S.C. § 3730
31 U.S.C. § 3730	31 U.S.C. § 3729 – False Claims Act. 31 U.S.C. § 3730 – Qui tam actions. Internation
44 U.S.C. § 3541	ation Security Management Act (FISMA) – 44 U.S.C. § 3541. Federal Information Processing Standa
44 U.S.C. § 3601	rivacy Act. E-Government Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. § 3601) – Privacy and security. Government P
44 U.S.C. § 3504	ment Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA) – 44 U.S.C. § 3504. Digital Accountability and Transparen
31 U.S.C. § 6101	ility and Transparency Act (DATA Act) – 31 U.S.C. § 6101. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)
42 U.S.C. § 1320	bility and Accountability Act (HIPAA) – 42 U.S.C. § 1320d. Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) – 15
47 U.S.C. § 227	ephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) – 47 U.S.C. § 227. Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) –
18 U.S.C. § 2710	Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) – 18 U.S.C. § 2710. Family Educational Rights and Privacy
20 U.S.C. § 1232	tional Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) – 20 U.S.C. § 1232g. Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DP
18 U.S.C. § 2721	river's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) – 18 U.S.C. § 2721. Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act
15 U.S.C. § 45	ederal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act) – 15 U.S.C. § 45. Consumer Financial Protection Act (CF
12 U.S.C. § 5481	sumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA) – 12 U.S.C. § 5481. Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) – 15
15 U.S.C. § 1681	1. Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) – 15 U.S.C. § 1681. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (F
15 U.S.C. § 1692	Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) – 15 U.S.C. § 1692. Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) –
15 U.S.C. § 1691	Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) – 15 U.S.C. § 1691. Truth in Lending Act (TILA) – 15 U.S.
15 U.S.C. § 1601	§ 1691. Truth in Lending Act (TILA) – 15 U.S.C. § 1601. Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act – 15 U.S.C
15 U.S.C. § 2301	§ 1601. Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act – 15 U.S.C. § 2301. 3. DETAILED VIOLATION FINDIN
44 U.S.C. § 3554	on Security Modernization Act (FISMA) – 44 U.S.C. § 3554 – requirement for security controls.
GDPR Art. 32	International Law Implications: GDPR Art. 32 – security of processing; lack of SRI u
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A)	to privacy. Criminal Liability: 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A) – Computer Fraud and Abuse Act – intent
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(B)	using damage to a protected computer. 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(B) – Recklessly causing damage. 18 U.S.C
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(C)	a)(5)(B) – Recklessly causing damage. 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(C) – Causing damage to a protected compute
18 U.S.C. § 1030(c)	using damage to a protected computer. 18 U.S.C. § 1030(c) – Penalties for CFAA violations (up to
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)	></script> Statutory Citations: 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a) – interception of electronic communicat
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(b)	Act – interception of communications. 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(b) – use of intercepted communications.
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(c)	– use of intercepted communications. 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(c) – disclosure of intercepted communicati
18 U.S.C. § 2511(4)	losure of intercepted communications. 18 U.S.C. § 2511(4) – penalties (up to 5 years imprisonment
Civ. Code § 1798.135	st be freely given and informed. Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.135: opt‑out preference signals. Case L
Civ. Code § 1798.130(a)(5)	erence signals must be honored.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.130(a)(5): “clear and conspicuous link” required.
GDPR Art. 21	of opt-out. International Law: GDPR Art. 21 – right to object. OECD – collection
GDPR Art. 13	enforcement. International Law: GDPR Art. 13 – transparency and notice. OECD – col
18 U.S.C. § 242	rimination. Criminal Liability: 18 U.S.C. § 242 – deprivation of rights under color of
42 U.S.C. § 1983	ivation of rights under color of law. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – civil rights violations. Penalty:
GDPR Art. 28	r liability. International Law: GDPR Art. 28 – data processor obligations. OECD –
Prof. Code § 22575	nt 5: Violation of CalOPPA (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22575) – inadequate privacy policy. Count 6

203.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (13)

Header	Source excerpt
Count 1: Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) – interception of electronic communications via tracking scripts without consent.	natrace, AddToAny, AudioEye, etc.): Count 1: Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) – interception of electronic communications via tracking scripts wi
Count 2: Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) – unauthorized access/exfiltration of data.	via tracking scripts without consent. Count 2: Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) – unauthorized access/exfiltration of data. Coun
Count 3: Unfair and Deceptive Practices (FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) – failure to secure data, lack of disclosure, and deceptive tracking.	thorized access/exfiltration of data. Count 3: Unfair and Deceptive Practices (FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) – failure to secure data, lack of disclosure, and dec
Count 4: Violation of CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.) – lack of opt‑out, missing “Do Not Sell” link, and no consent.	f disclosure, and deceptive tracking. Count 4: Violation of CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.) – lack of opt‑out, missing “Do Not Sell” link, and no
Count 5: Violation of CalOPPA (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22575) – inadequate privacy policy.	g “Do Not Sell” link, and no consent. Count 5: Violation of CalOPPA (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22575) – inadequate privacy policy. Count 6: Violation of the Priv
Count 6: Violation of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a) – collection of PII without required notice, no routine uses disclosure.	§ 22575) – inadequate privacy policy. Count 6: Violation of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a) – collection of PII without required notice, no routine us
Count 7: Violation of ADA Title III (42 U.S.C. § 12181) and Section 508 – digital accessibility barriers.	d notice, no routine uses disclosure. Count 7: Violation of ADA Title III (42 U.S.C. § 12181) and Section 508 – digital accessibility barriers. Count 8: Neglige
Count 8: Negligence – failure to implement reasonable security measures (SRI, CSP, security headers).	508 – digital accessibility barriers. Count 8: Negligence – failure to implement reasonable security measures (SRI, CSP, security headers). Count 9: Breach of F
Count 9: Breach of Fiduciary Duty – the government owes a duty to protect constituent data.	easures (SRI, CSP, security headers). Count 9: Breach of Fiduciary Duty – the government owes a duty to protect constituent data. Count 10: Violation of OMB Cir
Count 10: Violation of OMB Circular A‑130 – failure to manage third‑party risk.	s a duty to protect constituent data. Count 10: Violation of OMB Circular A‑130 – failure to manage third‑party risk. Count 11: Criminal Violations – 18 U.
Count 11: Criminal Violations – 18 U.S.C. § 2511, 18 U.S.C. § 1030, 18 U.S.C. § 1343, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, 18 U.S.C. § 371, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (RICO).	– failure to manage third‑party risk. Count 11: Criminal Violations – 18 U.S.C. § 2511, 18 U.S.C. § 1030, 18 U.S.C. § 1343, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, 18 U.S.C. § 371, 1
Count 12: Treaty Violations – ICCPR Art. 17, ECHR Art. 8, Budapest Convention, UN Charter Art. 55.	.S.C. § 371, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (RICO). Count 12: Treaty Violations – ICCPR Art. 17, ECHR Art. 8, Budapest Convention, UN Charter Art. 55. Count 13: Constitutiona
Count 13: Constitutional Violations – 4th Amendment (unreasonable search), 1st Amendment (freedom of association), 14th Amendment (due process).	apest Convention, UN Charter Art. 55. Count 13: Constitutional Violations – 4th Amendment (unreasonable search), 1st Amendment (freedom of association), 14th Am

203.4 Dollar Figures (59)

$1.20 · $1.50 · $1.90 · $2.10 · $2.40 · $2.50 · $2.80 · $3.10 · $3.50 · $3.80 · $4.20 · $4.30 · $4.50 · $5.30 · $5.60 · $5.80 · $5.90 · $6.80 · $7.20 · $7.90 · $8.50 · $9.20 · $11.50 · $11.80 · $29.90 · $34.10 · $55.00 · $82.30 · $93.00 · $93.80 · $100.00 · $150.00 · $200.00 · $225.00 · $250.00 · $300.00 · $365.00 · $400.00 · $450.00 · $600.00 · $700.00 · $750.00 · $800.00 · $900.00 · $2,500.00 · $50,120.00 · $75,000.00 · $150,000.00 · $200,000.00 · $225,000.00 · $250,000.00 · $300,000.00 · $400,000.00 · $450,000.00 · $600,000.00 · $750,000.00 · $800,000.00 · $900,000.00 · $1,002,400.00

203.5 Dates (1)

2026-07-21

Section 204 of 261

Section 204 — FORENSIC AUDIT REPORT – Target #16: United States Courts (uscourts.gov)

Source File	FORENSIC-0204-uscourts-audit-a0f2f49c.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-22 16:10:35
Size	103,037 bytes
SHA-256	a0f2f49c4e9f04beecf8451f088b439dcbf34080f44a6e9a7096be68e24a7f20

204.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	Henri Bryant Lanier Sr	irginia] Case No.: [To be assigned] Plaintiff: Henri Bryant Lanier Sr., Esq., Ph.D. , on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of t
defendant	Administrative Office	e United States as a qui tam relator. Defendant: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, United States Courts, and all related entities, officers, and agents.

204.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (28)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	AUTHORITY (CONTINUOUS, NON-EXHAUSTIVE): 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	US, NON-EXHAUSTIVE): 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U
10 U.S.C. § 2304	): 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S
47 U.S.C. § 230	1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.
5 U.S.C. § 552	2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiret
18 U.S.C. § 2511	. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA);
18 U.S.C. § 1030	y Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	(Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal
15 U.S.C. § 6801	30 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA
Civ. Code § 1798.100	FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 2
42 U.S.C. § 12181	Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508);
29 U.S.C. § 794	0 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-S
15 U.S.C. § 7701	(ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-SPAM); 15 U.S.C. § 6501 (COPPA); G
15 U.S.C. § 6501	tion 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-SPAM); 15 U.S.C. § 6501 (COPPA); GDPR (EU) 2016/679; ePrivacy D
GDPR Art. 7	t explicit, informed consent, violating GDPR Art. 7, ePrivacy Art. 5(3), and the Wiretap Ac
Civ. Code § 1798.100(b)	and the routine uses. CCPA/CPRA Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100(b): A business that collects a consumer's
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)	es a deceptive practice. Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a): Prohibits the intentional interception
18 U.S.C. § 2520	$50,120 = $18,293,800 . Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2520): Statutory damages of $100 per day per
GDPR Art. 13	TATUTORY CITATIONS (×3 Expansion): GDPR Art. 13 & 14: Requires controllers to provide d
GDPR Art. 44	TATUTORY CITATIONS (×3 Expansion): GDPR Art. 44–49: Data transfers to third countries (
GDPR Art. 4	specific, informed, and unambiguous. GDPR Art. 4(11): Definition of consent — "any freel
GDPR Art. 17	iteria used to determine that period. GDPR Art. 17: Right to erasure ("right to be forgott
GDPR Art. 15	TATUTORY CITATIONS (×3 Expansion): GDPR Art. 15: Right of access to personal data. GD
GDPR Art. 16	15: Right of access to personal data. GDPR Art. 16: Right to rectification. GDPR Art. 17
44 U.S.C. § 3541	e proper header configuration. FISMA, 44 U.S.C. § 3541: Requires federal agencies to implement
GDPR Art. 35	constitutes high-risk processing under GDPR Art. 35, requiring a Data Protection Impact Ass
GDPR Art. 36	e rights and freedoms of individuals. GDPR Art. 36: Requires prior consultation with the s
17 U.S.C. § 101	ved This audit report is protected by 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. and international copyright tre

204.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (10)

Header	Source excerpt
COUNT I — Violation of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a)	d entities, officers, and agents. COUNT I — Violation of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a) The Defendant has systematically coll
COUNT II — Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511)	tors, exposure exceeds $150 million . COUNT II — Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) The Defendant intentionally intercept
COUNT III — Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030)	sers, exposure exceeds $250 million . COUNT III — Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) The Defendant caused the transmission
COUNT IV — Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a))	ith exposure exceeding $100 million . COUNT IV — Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) The Defendant engaged in unfair and d
COUNT V — Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.)	lion since the inception of tracking. COUNT V — Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.) The Defendant failed to pro
COUNT VI — Violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (EU) 2016/679	with exposure exceeding $75 million . COUNT VI — Violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (EU) 2016/679 The Defendant processes personal data
COUNT VII — Violation of the ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC	ating to approximately $320 million . COUNT VII — Violation of the ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC The Defendant stores and accesses inf
COUNT VIII — Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12181)	ith exposure exceeding $100 million . COUNT VIII — Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12181) The Defendant's website contains nume
COUNT IX — Violation of CAN-SPAM Act (15 U.S.C. § 7701)	tion exposure exceeding $10 million . COUNT IX — Violation of CAN-SPAM Act (15 U.S.C. § 7701) The Defendant collects email addresse
COUNT X — Violation of COPPA (15 U.S.C. § 6501)	th exposure exceeding $18.3 million . COUNT X — Violation of COPPA (15 U.S.C. § 6501) The Defendant collects personal infor

204.4 Dollar Figures (73)

$0.50 · $0.60 · $0.80 · $1.00 · $1.20 · $1.50 · $1.80 · $1.90 · $2.00 · $2.10 · $2.20 · $2.40 · $2.50 · $2.60 · $2.80 · $3.00 · $3.10 · $3.20 · $3.50 · $3.80 · $4.20 · $4.30 · $4.50 · $5.00 · $5.20 · $5.30 · $5.60 · $5.80 · $5.90 · $6.00 · $6.25 · $6.50 · $6.80 · $7.10 · $7.20 · $7.90 · $8.00 · $8.20 · $8.50 · $8.80 · $9.20 · $9.80 · $10.00 · $10.20 · $11.80 · $12.80 · $18.30 · $18.75 · $19.60 · $22.50 · $25.00 · $37.20 · $45.40 · $50.00 · $50.12 · $75.00 · $100.00 · $102.20 · $121.80 · $150.00 · $160.00 · $225.00 · $250.00 · $320.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $75,000.00 · $150,000.00 · $500,000.00 · $18,293,800.00

204.5 Dates (1)

2026-07-22

Section 205 of 261

Section 205 — FORENSIC AUDIT REPORT – scott.senate.gov (Email Senator Scott) – 2026-07-21

Source File	FORENSIC-0205-tim-scott-audit-148cb68e.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-21 15:15:39
Size	37,072 bytes
SHA-256	148cb68ef0784ca254d77b75610beb8c3655323b86c18827de64939ac7e3ae06

205.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

205.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (20)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	nt Lanier Sr., Esq., Ph.D. Authority: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	, Ph.D. Authority: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U
10 U.S.C. § 2304	y: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230 Audi
47 U.S.C. § 230	1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230 Audit Date: 2026-07-21 \| Report ID:
18 U.S.C. § 2511	-in, thereby violating the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511), the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)), and
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	ap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511), the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)), and the California Consumer Privacy A
Civ. Code § 1798.100	e California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100). Additionally, the site omits critical
42 U.S.C. § 12181	cessibility review under ADA Title III (42 U.S.C. § 12181) and Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d).
29 U.S.C. § 794	II (42 U.S.C. § 12181) and Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d). 2.2 Legal Authorities Invoked (
18 U.S.C. § 1030	ronic communications without consent 18 U.S.C. § 1030 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) – u
15 U.S.C. § 6801	nfair or deceptive acts or practices 15 U.S.C. § 6801 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) – financi
15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(A)	TC fine: $50,120 per violation per day (15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(A)). With 25+ resources, conservative base
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)	Statutory & Regulatory Citations: 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a): “intentionally intercepts, endeavors t
Civ. Code § 1798.100(b)	y are electronic communications. Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100(b): Consumers have the right to know what
18 U.S.C. § 2520(c)(2)	tual damages or $100/day per violation (18 U.S.C. § 2520(c)(2)). For millions of users, this is astron
Civ. Code § 1798.155	$7,500 per intentional violation (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.155). With a tag manager that can deploy mu
Civ. Code § 1798.135	bal Privacy Control (GPC) signals. Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.135 requires businesses to recognize opt-ou
Gen. Stat. § 75	ailure to protect PII is unfair. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75‑60 (NC Identity Theft Protection Act) –
Civ. Code § 1798.130(a)(5)	” link. Statutory Citations: Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.130(a)(5): “A business shall provide a clear and
Prof. Code § 22575	nt 5: Violation of CalOPPA (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22575) – inadequate privacy policy. Count 6

205.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (8)

Header	Source excerpt
Count 1: Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) – interception of electronic communications via Adobe Launch without consent.	Adobe, WordPress, Elementor, etc.): Count 1: Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) – interception of electronic communications via Adobe Launch withou
Count 2: Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) – unauthorized access/exfiltration of data via tracking scripts.	ons via Adobe Launch without consent. Count 2: Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) – unauthorized access/exfiltration of data via t
Count 3: Unfair and Deceptive Practices (FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) – failure to disclose tracking, cookie use, and security failures.	tration of data via tracking scripts. Count 3: Unfair and Deceptive Practices (FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) – failure to disclose tracking, cookie use, and secur
Count 4: Violation of CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.) – lack of opt-out, privacy policy deficiencies, and data sharing disclosure.	g, cookie use, and security failures. Count 4: Violation of CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.) – lack of opt-out, privacy policy deficiencies, and da
Count 5: Violation of CalOPPA (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22575) – inadequate privacy policy.	iencies, and data sharing disclosure. Count 5: Violation of CalOPPA (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22575) – inadequate privacy policy. Count 6: Violation of ADA Titl
Count 6: Violation of ADA Title III (42 U.S.C. § 12181) – digital accessibility barriers.	§ 22575) – inadequate privacy policy. Count 6: Violation of ADA Title III (42 U.S.C. § 12181) – digital accessibility barriers. Count 7: Negligence – failure to
Count 7: Negligence – failure to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures (CSP, SRI, security headers).	81) – digital accessibility barriers. Count 7: Negligence – failure to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures (CSP, SRI, security headers). Count 8: Breach
Count 8: Breach of Fiduciary Duty (the government owes a duty to protect constituent data).	easures (CSP, SRI, security headers). Count 8: Breach of Fiduciary Duty (the government owes a duty to protect constituent data). Damages Sought: Statutory maxi

205.4 Dollar Figures (54)

$1.20 · $1.80 · $1.90 · $2.10 · $2.40 · $2.80 · $3.50 · $3.80 · $4.30 · $5.30 · $5.60 · $7.90 · $9.20 · $11.80 · $17.30 · $35.00 · $48.10 · $50.00 · $70.00 · $75.00 · $100.00 · $105.00 · $112.77 · $130.00 · $150.00 · $170.00 · $200.00 · $210.00 · $225.00 · $270.00 · $300.00 · $390.00 · $450.00 · $510.00 · $600.00 · $800.00 · $810.00 · $2,500.00 · $7,500.00 · $50,120.00 · $75,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $150,000.00 · $150,360.00 · $200,000.00 · $225,000.00 · $300,000.00 · $400,000.00 · $450,000.00 · $500,000.00 · $600,000.00 · $800,000.00 · $1,253,000.00 · $3,759,000.00

205.5 Dates (1)

2026-07-21

Section 206 of 261

Section 206 — FORENSIC AUDIT REPORT – TARGET #23: YAHOO HOMEPAGE

Source File	FORENSIC-0206-yahooaudit-cebe1f66.html
Created	July 24, 2026
Modified	2026-07-24 20:58:06
Size	62,082 bytes
SHA-256	cebe1f66399860961700df507c1ee7d82801466a92e9113c1d4834d497f4c318

206.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	Henri Bryant Lanier Sr	THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff: Henri Bryant Lanier Sr., Esq., Ph.D., on behalf of the United States and the class of all similarly situated user
defendant	Yahoo	class of all similarly situated users Defendant: Yahoo! Inc., a Delaware corporation, with pri

206.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (47)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	://ladcodefense2.com Audit Authority: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	m Audit Authority: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U
10 U.S.C. § 2304	y: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S
47 U.S.C. § 230	1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.
5 U.S.C. § 552	2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiret
18 U.S.C. § 2511	. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA);
18 U.S.C. § 1030	y Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	(Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal
15 U.S.C. § 6801	30 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA
Civ. Code § 1798.100	FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 2
42 U.S.C. § 12181	Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508);
29 U.S.C. § 794	0 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-S
15 U.S.C. § 7701	(ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-SPAM); 15 U.S.C. § 6501 (COPPA); G
15 U.S.C. § 6501	tion 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-SPAM); 15 U.S.C. § 6501 (COPPA); GDPR (EU) 2016/679; ePrivacy D
GDPR Art. 5	ecuted. Statutory Citations: • GDPR Art. 5(1)(a): Lawfulness, fairness, and transp
GDPR Art. 6	fulness, fairness, and transparency • GDPR Art. 6(1): Lawful processing – no valid legal
GDPR Art. 7	l processing – no valid legal basis • GDPR Art. 7: Conditions for consent – not freely gi
GDPR Art. 13	ions for consent – not freely given • GDPR Art. 13–14: Information to be provided – incomp
GDPR Art. 25	rovided – incomplete and misleading • GDPR Art. 25: Data protection by design and default
GDPR Art. 83	access. Penalty Calculation: GDPR Art. 83(5): Up to €20M or 4% of global annual t
Civ. Code § 1798.100(b)	s. Statutory Citations: • Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100(b): Right to know what personal informatio
Civ. Code § 1798.120(a)	sonal information is collected • Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.120(a): Right to opt-out of sale or sharing of
Civ. Code § 1798.130	haring of personal information • Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.130: Transparency requirements – disclosure
Civ. Code § 1798.135	losures not prominently placed • Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.135: Global Privacy Control (GPC) – not hon
Civ. Code § 1798.185	d (gpcSignal: false in config) • Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.185: CPRA regulations – failure to comply w
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1)	ements. Statutory Citations: • 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1): Unfair or deceptive acts or practices
15 U.S.C. § 45(n)	or affecting commerce – prohibited. • 15 U.S.C. § 45(n): Unfairness standard – causes substanti
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)	ap Act. Statutory Citations: • 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a): Intentional interception of wire, oral
18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)	ctronic communication – prohibited. • 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d): Consent exception – requires prior, ex
18 U.S.C. § 2511(4)	t consent, not implied or post-hoc. • 18 U.S.C. § 2511(4): Criminal penalties and civil remedies.
18 U.S.C. § 2520	claims. Penalty Calculation: 18 U.S.C. § 2520: Statutory damages of $100 per day per
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)	r CFAA. Statutory Citations: • 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C): Obtaining information from a protected
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(4)	ted computer without authorization. • 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(4): Computer fraud – accessing with intent
18 U.S.C. § 1030(c)	intent to defraud and obtain value. • 18 U.S.C. § 1030(c): Penalties (up to 5–10 years imprisonme
15 U.S.C. § 6801(a)	essing. Statutory Citations: • 15 U.S.C. § 6801(a): Duty to protect consumers' non-public
15 U.S.C. § 6802(a)	s' non-public personal information. • 15 U.S.C. § 6802(a): Disclosure of non-public personal info
15 U.S.C. § 6803	hibited without notice and opt-out. • 15 U.S.C. § 6803: Annual privacy notice requirement – no
15 U.S.C. § 6501(a)(1)	onsent. Statutory Citations: • 15 U.S.C. § 6501(a)(1): Operators of websites directed to chil
16 C.F.R. § 312.2	obtain verifiable parental consent. • 16 C.F.R. § 312.2: Definition of "personal information" –
16 C.F.R. § 312.5	tent identifiers, geolocation, etc. • 16 C.F.R. § 312.5: Parental consent requirements – must b
16 C.F.R. § 312.10	requirements – must be verifiable. • 16 C.F.R. § 312.10: Prohibition against conditioning parti
15 U.S.C. § 7703(a)	on of unsolicited commercial email. • 15 U.S.C. § 7703(a): Prohibition of false or misleading tra
15 U.S.C. § 7705	isleading transmission information. • 15 U.S.C. § 7705: Enforcement by FTC – penalties up to $
42 U.S.C. § 12182(a)	atives. Statutory Citations: • 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a): Places of public accommodation – inclu
42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)	ebsites (Wendt v. Host Internat'l). • 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A): Full and equal enjoyment – must provid
28 C.F.R. § 36.201	e modifications and auxiliary aids. • 28 C.F.R. § 36.201(b): Effective communication – websites
GDPR Art. 82	eted by ECJ in Planet49 (C-673/17). • GDPR Art. 82: Right to compensation for material and

206.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (10)

Header	Source excerpt
COUNT I – VIOLATION OF FTC ACT § 5(a) (15 U.S.C. § 45(a))	at 770 Broadway, New York, NY 10003 COUNT I – VIOLATION OF FTC ACT § 5(a) (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) Defendant engaged in unfair and decep
COUNT II – VIOLATION OF CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.)	ollection and processing practices. COUNT II – VIOLATION OF CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.) Defendant failed to provide consumers
COUNT III – VIOLATION OF GDPR (EU) 2016/679	processing categories and purposes. COUNT III – VIOLATION OF GDPR (EU) 2016/679 Defendant processed personal data of
COUNT IV – VIOLATION OF WIRETAP ACT (18 U.S.C. § 2511)	data subjects under Articles 12–22. COUNT IV – VIOLATION OF WIRETAP ACT (18 U.S.C. § 2511) Defendant intercepted electronic comm
COUNT V – VIOLATION OF CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030)	e movements, and browsing behavior. COUNT V – VIOLATION OF CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030) Defendant exceeded authorized access
COUNT VI – VIOLATION OF ADA TITLE III (42 U.S.C. § 12181)	bidders without user authorization. COUNT VI – VIOLATION OF ADA TITLE III (42 U.S.C. § 12181) Defendant failed to provide accessibl
COUNT VII – VIOLATION OF COPPA (15 U.S.C. § 6501)	and inadequate keyboard navigation. COUNT VII – VIOLATION OF COPPA (15 U.S.C. § 6501) Defendant collected personal informat
COUNT VIII – VIOLATION OF CAN-SPAM (15 U.S.C. § 7701)	nt identifiers and behavioral data. COUNT VIII – VIOLATION OF CAN-SPAM (15 U.S.C. § 7701) Defendant sent commercial emails with
COUNT IX – VIOLATION OF UN GUIDING PRINCIPLES (UNGPs 17–21)	notice of the right to unsubscribe. COUNT IX – VIOLATION OF UN GUIDING PRINCIPLES (UNGPs 17–21) Defendant failed to conduct human rig
COUNT X – VIOLATION OF SECTION 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d)	es, impacting the right to privacy. COUNT X – VIOLATION OF SECTION 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d) Defendant failed to provide accessibl

206.4 Dollar Figures (69)

$0.30 · $0.40 · $0.50 · $0.60 · $0.70 · $0.80 · $0.90 · $1.00 · $1.10 · $1.20 · $1.50 · $1.80 · $1.90 · $2.10 · $2.20 · $2.40 · $2.50 · $2.60 · $2.80 · $3.00 · $3.10 · $3.50 · $3.80 · $4.20 · $4.30 · $4.70 · $5.00 · $5.30 · $5.60 · $5.80 · $5.90 · $6.00 · $6.80 · $6.90 · $7.10 · $7.20 · $7.30 · $7.90 · $8.20 · $8.40 · $8.50 · $9.20 · $9.50 · $9.80 · $11.60 · $11.80 · $12.80 · $14.20 · $19.60 · $22.30 · $31.40 · $50.00 · $72.50 · $85.30 · $100.00 · $117.50 · $170.00 · $192.80 · $200.00 · $224.20 · $500.00 · $520.00 · $7,500.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $55,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $250,000.00

206.5 Dates (1)

2026-07-24

Section 207 of 261

Section 207 — FORENSIC AUDIT – TARGET 30 (CNN PART 3/9) – FULL RUNNING TABLE

Source File	FORENSIC-0207-cnnpart3of9audit-cfbdda73.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-25 13:29:11
Size	38,550 bytes
SHA-256	cfbdda73eb81008e53a6c767aa6c423ee7647aa7a4c2824dac253ebac0920a5b

207.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

207.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (32)

Citation	Source excerpt
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	– no `style‑src`, `script‑src` CRITICAL 15 U.S.C. § 45(a); NIST SP 800‑53 2 23‑31 External CSS
18 U.S.C. § 1030	y resource loading HIGH NIST SP 800‑53; 18 U.S.C. § 1030 5 112‑145 Extensive third‑party trac
GDPR Art. 7	ithout consent – GDPR/ePrivacy CRITICAL GDPR Art. 7, 83(4); ePrivacy Directive 6 156‑178
18 U.S.C. § 1030(g)	cross‑site request forgery vector HIGH 18 U.S.C. § 1030(g); NIST AC‑6 7 189‑210 User account na
5 U.S.C. § 552	sion attributes – session fixation HIGH 5 U.S.C. § 552a; GDPR Art. 32 8 222‑245 Login butto
GDPR Art. 32	session fixation HIGH 5 U.S.C. § 552a; GDPR Art. 32 8 222‑245 Login button uses `href="#
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)	ltering – reflected XSS vector CRITICAL 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5); FTC § 45(n) 11 325‑340 No visible c
28 C.F.R. § 35.150	tical elements – ADA violation HIGH ADA 28 C.F.R. § 35.150; Section 508 18 535‑558 No dark mode
GDPR Art. 83	consent` – GDPR ad‑tech compliance HIGH GDPR Art. 83(4); ePrivacy Directive 21 632‑650 Vi
29 U.S.C. § 794	captions – Section 508 HIGH Section 508 29 U.S.C. § 794d; ADA 22 662‑685 Live video label us
15 U.S.C. § 6801	CCPA/GLBA MEDIUM CCPA § 1798.100; GLBA 15 U.S.C. § 6801 25 768‑790 No explicit opt‑out for t
Civ. Code § 1798.120	ird‑party sharing – CCPA HIGH CCPA Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.120 26 802‑825 Forms lack `autocomplete=
GDPR Art. 13	in header – CCPA HIGH CCPA § 1798.130; GDPR Art. 13 29 905‑930 Missing `HttpOnly`/`Secur
GDPR Art. 30	` version tracking LOW CCPA § 1798.130; GDPR Art. 30 40 1315‑1340 Payment elements withou
15 U.S.C. § 6823	` – PCI‑DSS HIGH GLBA 15 U.S.C. § 6801; 15 U.S.C. § 6823 41 1355‑1380 No `data‑third‑party` d
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A)	Corp. , 799 F.3d 236 (3d Cir. 2015). 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A) – CFAA: Knowingly causing transmission
Civ. Code § 1798.150(a)	ssing info on user devices. CCPA Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150(a) – Private right of action for data brea
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(C)	ct JS. Statutory Citations (3×): 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(C) – Intentional damage to protected compu
15 U.S.C. § 45(n)	) – Civil action with treble damages. 15 U.S.C. § 45(n) – FTC Act: substantial injury to consum
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)	CSRF. Statutory Citations (3×): 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C) – Unauthorized access to obtain informa
18 U.S.C. § 2520	horized access to obtain information. 18 U.S.C. § 2520 – Wiretap Act civil remedies. 5 U.S.C
Civ. Code § 1798.130(a)(5)	A § 1798.120 – Right to opt out. Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.130(a)(5) – Notice at collection. UN Guiding Pr
18 U.S.C. § 2511	eble – $4.5T. COUNT II – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Interception of electronic communicat
Civ. Code § 1798.150	junctive relief. COUNT V – CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150): Failure to implement reasonable secur
42 U.S.C. § 12181	mages: $6B (treble). COUNT VII – ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12181; 28 C.F.R. § 35.150): Web accessibility
22 U.S.C. § 2295	audit was conducted in accordance with 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	d in accordance with 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507‑2; 47 U
10 U.S.C. § 2304	th 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507‑2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S
47 U.S.C. § 230	1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507‑2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 18
Civ. Code § 1798.100	U.S.C. § 45(a); 15 U.S.C. § 6801; Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100; 42 U.S.C. § 12181; 29 U.S.C. § 794d; 1
15 U.S.C. § 7701	0; 42 U.S.C. § 12181; 29 U.S.C. § 794d; 15 U.S.C. § 7701; 15 U.S.C. § 6501; GDPR (EU) 2016/679;
15 U.S.C. § 6501	81; 29 U.S.C. § 794d; 15 U.S.C. § 7701; 15 U.S.C. § 6501; GDPR (EU) 2016/679; ePrivacy Directive

207.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (8)

Header	Source excerpt
COUNT I – CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants knowingly caused transmission of code and commands to protected computers without authorization, resulting in damage and loss. Lack of CSP, XSS filtering, and se	C. and CNN INTERNATIONAL, Defendants. COUNT I – CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants knowingly caused transmission of code and commands to protected computers wi
COUNT II – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Interception of electronic communications without consent via unauthorized tracking. Damages: $3T (treble).	Cir. 2016). Damages: treble – $4.5T. COUNT II – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Interception of electronic communications without consent via unauthorized track
COUNT III – GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Failure to protect nonpublic personal information and provide privacy notices. Damages: $1.2T.	ized tracking. Damages: $3T (treble). COUNT III – GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Failure to protect nonpublic personal information and provide privacy notices. Damage
COUNT IV – FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair/deceptive practices in data collection and security. FTC v. Wyndham , 799 F.3d 236 (3d Cir. 2015). Damages: $6.3M + injunctive relief.	vide privacy notices. Damages: $1.2T. COUNT IV – FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair/deceptive practices in data collection and security. FTC v. Wyndham , 799 F
COUNT V – CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150): Failure to implement reasonable security and provide opt‑out. Damages: $450B (treble).	. Damages: $6.3M + injunctive relief. COUNT V – CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150): Failure to implement reasonable security and provide opt‑out. Damages: $450B (
COUNT VI – GDPR (Art. 83(4)): Processing without lawful basis, no consent, inadequate security. Damages: $6B (treble).	ide opt‑out. Damages: $450B (treble). COUNT VI – GDPR (Art. 83(4)): Processing without lawful basis, no consent, inadequate security. Damages: $6B (treble). COU
COUNT VII – ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12181; 28 C.F.R. § 35.150): Web accessibility failure. Damages: $9.45M + injunction.	uate security. Damages: $6B (treble). COUNT VII – ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12181; 28 C.F.R. § 35.150): Web accessibility failure. Damages: $9.45M + injunction. COUNT VI
COUNT VIII – Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d): EIT accessibility failure. Damages: $9.45M.	ailure. Damages: $9.45M + injunction. COUNT VIII – Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d): EIT accessibility failure. Damages: $9.45M. TOTAL DAMAGES SOUGHT: $7.956 tril

207.4 Dollar Figures (74)

$1.20 · $1.50 · $1.90 · $2.00 · $2.10 · $2.20 · $2.25 · $2.50 · $2.60 · $2.80 · $3.00 · $3.10 · $3.50 · $3.80 · $4.20 · $4.30 · $4.50 · $5.30 · $5.60 · $5.80 · $5.90 · $6.00 · $6.30 · $6.40 · $6.50 · $6.80 · $7.10 · $7.20 · $7.80 · $7.90 · $7.95 · $8.20 · $8.40 · $8.50 · $9.00 · $9.20 · $9.45 · $9.50 · $11.60 · $11.80 · $12.00 · $12.80 · $14.20 · $15.03 · $15.40 · $15.80 · $18.45 · $19.20 · $19.60 · $22.30 · $24.60 · $29.50 · $31.40 · $38.70 · $50.00 · $450.00 · $600.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $15,000.00 · $30,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $150,360.00 · $4,200,000,000.00 · $8,600,000,000.00 · $145,988,480,000.00 · $291,976,960,000.00 · $4,572,358,440,000.00 · $4,722,661,420,000.00 · $4,873,049,923,400.00 · $18,450,000,000,000.00 · $23,172,661,420,000.00 · $24,600,000,000,000.00 · $29,473,049,923,400.00

207.5 Dates (1)

2026-07-25

Section 208 of 261

Section 208 — Forensic Audit Report: Alex Jones Live (alexjoneslive.com) | Ladco Defense Technologies

Source File	FORENSIC-0208-alexjonesaudit-33abe893.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-25 08:01:59
Size	35,868 bytes
SHA-256	33abe893b62ade67ea4a38c6c2a65bdf5692a917735e3800c45d384e86261386

208.1 Parties (1)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
defendant	Alex Jones Live	t (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) Allegation: The Defendant, Alex Jones Live, engaged in unfair and deceptive acts or practices in commerce by failing to implement reasonab

208.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (22)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	://ladcodefense2.com Audit Authority: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	m Audit Authority: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U
10 U.S.C. § 2304	y: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S
47 U.S.C. § 230	1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.
5 U.S.C. § 552	2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiret
18 U.S.C. § 2511	. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA);
18 U.S.C. § 1030	y Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	(Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal
15 U.S.C. § 6801	30 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA
Civ. Code § 1798.100	FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 2
42 U.S.C. § 12181	Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508);
29 U.S.C. § 794	0 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-S
15 U.S.C. § 7701	(ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-SPAM); 15 U.S.C. § 6501 (COPPA); G
15 U.S.C. § 6501	tion 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-SPAM); 15 U.S.C. § 6501 (COPPA); GDPR (EU) 2016/679; ePrivacy D
GDPR Art. 32	es of $750 per consumer per incident. GDPR Art. 32: Requires appropriate technical measure
GDPR Art. 7	on, $7,500 per intentional violation. GDPR Art. 7 & 13: Requires affirmative opt-in conse
Civ. Code § 54.1	f federal contracts and damages. Cal. Civ. Code § 54.1: California Unruh Civil Rights Act prov
GDPR Art. 28	ulnerabilities is an unfair practice. GDPR Art. 28: Data processors must ensure appropriat
Civ. Code § 1798.185	. Statutory Violations: Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.185 (CPRA): Prohibits dark patterns that su
GDPR Art. 4	ssued guidance against dark patterns. GDPR Art. 4(11): Consent must be freely given, spec
Civ. Code § 1798.150	sumer information appropriately. Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150 (CCPA Private Right of Action): Consume
GDPR Art. 5	mages $750 per consumer per incident. GDPR Art. 5(1)(e): Data should not be kept longer t

208.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (6)

Header	Source excerpt
COUNT I: Violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a))	7. Formal Complaint Allegations COUNT I: Violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) Allegation: The Defendant, Alex Jones
COUNT II: Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA)	v. Jukin Media , 2021 WL 616304. COUNT II: Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) Allegation: The Defe
COUNT III: Violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (EU) 2016/679	io, Inc. , 238 F. Supp. 3d 1204. COUNT III: Violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (EU) 2016/679 Allegation: The Defendant processed p
COUNT IV: Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (42 U.S.C. § 12181)	C-131/12; CNIL v. Google , 2019. COUNT IV: Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (42 U.S.C. § 12181) Allegation: The Defendant's website i
COUNT V: Violation of the CAN-SPAM Act (15 U.S.C. § 7701)	Domino's Pizza , 2019 WL 118982. COUNT V: Violation of the CAN-SPAM Act (15 U.S.C. § 7701) Allegation: The Defendant sent commer
COUNT VI: Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) (18 U.S.C. § 1030)	Cellwrks Inc. , 2018 WL 4673568. COUNT VI: Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) (18 U.S.C. § 1030) Allegation: The Defendant's failure t

208.4 Dollar Figures (79)

$1.00 · $1.20 · $1.35 · $1.50 · $1.68 · $1.90 · $2.10 · $2.20 · $2.50 · $2.60 · $2.80 · $3.00 · $3.10 · $3.50 · $3.80 · $4.20 · $4.30 · $5.00 · $5.30 · $5.60 · $5.80 · $5.90 · $6.00 · $6.40 · $6.80 · $7.10 · $7.20 · $7.80 · $7.90 · $8.20 · $8.40 · $8.50 · $9.20 · $9.50 · $10.00 · $11.60 · $11.80 · $12.80 · $12.90 · $14.20 · $15.00 · $15.40 · $15.80 · $19.20 · $19.60 · $22.30 · $31.40 · $33.60 · $33.90 · $38.70 · $46.20 · $50.00 · $67.20 · $67.50 · $99.50 · $114.90 · $116.10 · $225.00 · $231.45 · $259.20 · $297.90 · $500.00 · $694.35 · $750.00 · $2,500.00 · $4,000.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $100,000.00 · $112,500.00 · $150,000.00 · $150,360.00 · $300,000.00 · $450,000.00 · $500,000.00 · $6,000,000.00 · $225,000,000.00

208.5 Dates (2)

2026-07-24 · 2026-07-25

Section 209 of 261

Section 209 — FORENSIC AUDIT – TARGET 13‑A: BATTALION METALS CART (EXHAUSTIVE LINE‑ITEM EDITION)

Source File	FORENSIC-0209-metals-site-audit-2229aff0.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-22 19:23:10
Size	44,058 bytes
SHA-256	2229aff0047818360292d77b164868901cc9feaeefc2b4654ac37d7920fbd31b

209.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	Henri Bryant Lanier Sr	aware / Eastern District of Virginia] Plaintiff: Henri Bryant Lanier Sr., Esq., Ph.D., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. Defendant: Battal
defendant	Battalion Metals LLC. COUNT I	lf and all others similarly situated. Defendant: Battalion Metals LLC. COUNT I — Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. §

209.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (24)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	AUTHORITY (CONTINUOUS, NON-EXHAUSTIVE): 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	US, NON-EXHAUSTIVE): 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U
10 U.S.C. § 2304	): 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S
47 U.S.C. § 230	1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.
5 U.S.C. § 552	2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiret
18 U.S.C. § 2511	. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA);
18 U.S.C. § 1030	y Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	(Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal
15 U.S.C. § 6801	30 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA
Civ. Code § 1798.100	FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 2
42 U.S.C. § 12181	Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508);
29 U.S.C. § 794	0 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-S
15 U.S.C. § 7701	(ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-SPAM); 15 U.S.C. § 6501 (COPPA); G
15 U.S.C. § 6501	tion 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-SPAM); 15 U.S.C. § 6501 (COPPA); GDPR (EU) 2016/679; ePrivacy D
GDPR Art. 7	ion on a user’s device (Art. 5(3)), and GDPR Art. 7 (consent must be freely given, specific
Civ. Code § 1798.100(b)	ch notice is provided. CCPA/CPRA Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100(b): A business that collects a consumer’s
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)	es a deceptive practice. Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a): Prohibits the intentional interception
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(C)	bition. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(C): Causing the transmission of a program,
18 U.S.C. § 2520	over 365 days → $18.3M . Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2520): Statutory damages of $100 per day per
GDPR Art. 13	ut any consent mechanism. This violates GDPR Art. 13 (no disclosure of recipient), ePrivacy
GDPR Art. 17	): GDPR Art. 13(2)(a) (storage period), GDPR Art. 17 (right to erasure), CCPA § 1798.105 (de
GDPR Art. 32	§ 6801 (protect customer information), GDPR Art. 32 (security). ⚖️ CASE LAW (×3): FT
44 U.S.C. § 3541	DoD STIG V‑225562 (CSP required), FISMA 44 U.S.C. § 3541 (security controls). 💰 PENALTY:
GDPR Art. 35	constitutes high‑risk processing under GDPR Art. 35; no DPIA has been conducted. 📜 STAT

209.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (6)

Header	Source excerpt
COUNT I — Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a))	Defendant: Battalion Metals LLC. COUNT I — Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) Unfair/deceptive practices due to wea
COUNT II — Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511)	and failure to disclose data sharing. COUNT II — Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) Interception of payment and PII trans
COUNT III — Violation of the GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801)	nd PII transmissions without consent. COUNT III — Violation of the GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801) Failure to provide privacy notices an
COUNT IV — Violation of GDPR (EU) 2016/679	ut for financial information sharing. COUNT IV — Violation of GDPR (EU) 2016/679 Processing EU citizen data without la
COUNT V — Violation of CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100)	thout lawful basis, consent, or DPIA. COUNT V — Violation of CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100) Failure to provide notice of collecti
COUNT VI — Violation of COPPA (15 U.S.C. § 6501)	letion rights, or opt‑out mechanisms. COUNT VI — Violation of COPPA (15 U.S.C. § 6501) Collection of personal data from mino

209.4 Dollar Figures (30)

209.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 210 of 261

Section 210 — FSIR: Zillow Signal Mountain – Multi-Agency Forensic Audit (Print Version)

Source File	FORENSIC-0210-deepseek-html-20260626-d36e2f-3f0c10ce.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-06-26 07:31:26
Size	36,989 bytes
SHA-256	3f0c10ce5cd776f2612024603c672950398fac27c814adccc422a3e119c125cf

210.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

210.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (34)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 1030	II. COMPUTER FRAUD & ABUSE ACT (CFAA) – 18 U.S.C. § 1030 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C) – intention
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)	& ABUSE ACT (CFAA) – 18 U.S.C. § 1030 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C) – intentionally accessing a protected c
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A)	interstate or foreign communication. 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A) – knowingly causing the transmission of
18 U.S.C. § 1030(c)(4)(A)(i)	damages: $5,000–$25,000 per violation (18 U.S.C. § 1030(c)(4)(A)(i)) Actual damages: $500,000+ (remediati
18 U.S.C. § 2511	NIC COMMUNICATIONS PRIVACY ACT (ECPA) – 18 U.S.C. § 2511 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a) – intentionall
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)	PRIVACY ACT (ECPA) – 18 U.S.C. § 2511 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a) – intentionally intercepts, endeavors t
18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)	e, oral, or electronic communication. 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) – consent required for interception of
18 U.S.C. § 2520(c)(2)(B)	atutory damages: $10,000 per violation (18 U.S.C. § 2520(c)(2)(B)) Aggregate (2.3M users × 10,000): $23
18 U.S.C. § 2710	. VIDEO PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT (VPPA) – 18 U.S.C. § 2710 18 U.S.C. § 2710(b)(1) – a video tape
18 U.S.C. § 2710(b)(1)	TECTION ACT (VPPA) – 18 U.S.C. § 2710 18 U.S.C. § 2710(b)(1) – a video tape service provider who kno
18 U.S.C. § 2710(b)(2)(B)	nsumer to any person shall be liable. 18 U.S.C. § 2710(b)(2)(B) – requires "informed, written consent"
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1)	V. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT – 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1) 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1) – unfair or dece
16 C.F.R. § 1.98	Civil penalty: $50,120 per violation (16 C.F.R. § 1.98, adjusted annually) Per-user (2.3M ac
15 U.S.C. § 78	redress VI. SECURITIES FRAUD – 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) & Rule 10b-5 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) –
Rule 10b	SECURITIES FRAUD – 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) & Rule 10b-5 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) – manipulative o
17 C.F.R. § 240.10	ith purchase or sale of any security. 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5 – unlawful to make any untrue statem
47 U.S.C. § 201	Similar exposure VIII. FCC – 47 U.S.C. § 201 (COMMON CARRIER) 47 U.S.C. § 201(b) –
47 U.S.C. § 201(b)	CC – 47 U.S.C. § 201 (COMMON CARRIER) 47 U.S.C. § 201(b) – all charges, practices, classificatio
47 U.S.C. § 503	orfeiture up to $150,000 per violation (47 U.S.C. § 503) IX. CALIFORNIA CONSUMER PRIV
Civ. Code § 1798.100	CALIFORNIA CONSUMER PRIVACY ACT – Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq. Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100(a)
Civ. Code § 1798.100(a)	al. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq. Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100(a) – inform consumers at or before point o
Civ. Code § 1798.135	ses, and whether sold or shared. Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.135 – right to opt out of sale/sharing; "Do
42 U.S.C. § 12181	XI. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT – 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq. 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7) – public
42 U.S.C. § 12181(7)	ITIES ACT – 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq. 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7) – public accommodation includes website
28 C.F.R. § 36.303	blic accommodation includes websites. 28 C.F.R. § 36.303(c)(1) – auxiliary aids and services for
Regulation (EU) 2016/679	R JURISDICTIONAL ANALYSIS EU GDPR – Regulation (EU) 2016/679 Art. 5(1)(c) – Data minimization vi
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	94 High $2,500 per violation 7 FTC – 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) Deceptive practice (GTM black-box) L135
18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7)	32,563 Medium $100,000–$2,000,000 29 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7) Identity fraud (ZUID exposure) L32,565
18 U.S.C. § 1028	345,000,000 $125,925,000,000 $629.6B 18 U.S.C. § 1028 (Identity) Fine + 15 yrs N/A N/A N/A
22 U.S.C. § 2295	codefense2.com Authorization: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a · 50 U.S.C. § 1702 10 U.S.C. § 2304
50 U.S.C. § 1702	Authorization: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a · 50 U.S.C. § 1702 10 U.S.C. § 2304 · 26 C.F.R. 1.507-2
10 U.S.C. § 2304	22 U.S.C. § 2295a · 50 U.S.C. § 1702 10 U.S.C. § 2304 · 26 C.F.R. 1.507-2 47 U.S.C. § 230 (
26 C.F.R. 1.507	· 50 U.S.C. § 1702 10 U.S.C. § 2304 · 26 C.F.R. 1.507-2 47 U.S.C. § 230 (Protection for Pri
47 U.S.C. § 230	10 U.S.C. § 2304 · 26 C.F.R. 1.507-2 47 U.S.C. § 230 (Protection for Private Blocking) © 1

210.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

210.4 Dollar Figures (47)

$1.04 · $2.09 · $2.50 · $4.19 · $10.49 · $11.50 · $31.48 · $41.97 · $57.50 · $210.30 · $629.60 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $25,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $100,000.00 · $150,000.00 · $250,000.00 · $500,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $2,000,000.00 · $5,000,000.00 · $50,000,000.00 · $345,000,000.00 · $500,000,000.00 · $1,150,000,000.00 · $1,250,000,000.00 · $2,070,000,000.00 · $2,300,000,000.00 · $5,750,000,000.00 · $11,500,000,000.00 · $17,250,000,000.00 · $23,000,000,000.00 · $115,276,000,000.00 · $125,925,000,000.00 · $419,750,000,000.00 · $575,000,000,000.00 · $2,098,750,000,000.00 · $2,300,000,000,000.00 · $6,296,250,000,000.00 · $8,395,000,000,000.00 · $42,075,000,000,000.00 · $209,875,000,000,000.00 · $839,500,000,000,000.00

210.5 Dates (2)

2025-07-01 · 2026-06-26

Section 211 of 261

Section 211 — Forensic Audit Report – Easyliving Tuscany

Source File	FORENSIC-0211-deepseek-html-20260627-851324-69be91b3.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-06-27 06:45:24
Size	28,461 bytes
SHA-256	69be91b3cd836e6bec5597a5ae5497128c5e8dc875d14bfd3bc677e81540e865

211.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

211.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (14)

Citation	Source excerpt
GDPR Art. 6	1.1: Pre‑execution of Google Analytics (GDPR Art. 6/7, ePrivacy Art. 5(3), CCPA §1798.100)
GDPR Art. 44	onversions API (CAPI) – Consent Bypass (GDPR Art. 44‑49, CCPA §1798.120) Line(s): L2250‑
GDPR Art. 5	ion 1.3: Covert Hidden‑Field Injection (GDPR Art. 5(1)(c), CFAA 1030(a)(2)(C)) Line(s):
GDPR Art.6	4‑L621 gtag('js') / 'config' EU / Italy GDPR Art.6/7, ePrivacy Art.5(3) 450,000 L2250‑L
GDPR Art.44	pc: CAPI = true US / EU CCPA §1798.120, GDPR Art.44‑49 7,200 L1050‑L1070 Hidden: budget,
GDPR Art.5	get, codice US / EU CFAA 1030(a)(2)(C), GDPR Art.5(1)(c) 7,200 L412‑L465 Price label mu
18 U.S.C. §1030(a)(2)(C)	‑1.3) as “exceeding authorized access” (18 U.S.C. §1030(a)(2)(C)). Subpoena /wp‑admin/admin‑ajax.php log
GDPR Art. 77	CAPI transmissions. Garante Italiano (GDPR Art. 77): Submit a complaint referencing L614‑L
22 U.S.C. §2295	infrastructure. Authorized under: 22 U.S.C. §2295a, 50 U.S.C. §1702, 10 U.S.C. §2304, 26
50 U.S.C. §1702	Authorized under: 22 U.S.C. §2295a, 50 U.S.C. §1702, 10 U.S.C. §2304, 26 C.F.R. 1.507‑2, an
10 U.S.C. §2304	der: 22 U.S.C. §2295a, 50 U.S.C. §1702, 10 U.S.C. §2304, 26 C.F.R. 1.507‑2, and Title 47 U.S.C.
26 C.F.R. 1.507	295a, 50 U.S.C. §1702, 10 U.S.C. §2304, 26 C.F.R. 1.507‑2, and Title 47 U.S.C. §230. Original
47 U.S.C. §230	.C. §2304, 26 C.F.R. 1.507‑2, and Title 47 U.S.C. §230. Original 1 of 1. All rights reserved.
31 U.S.C. §3729	ations constitute a qui tam claim under 31 U.S.C. §3729. Ladco Defense Technologies Pag

211.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

211.4 Dollar Figures (11)

$22.50 · $7,500.00 · $51,744.00 · $250,000.00 · $4,656,960.00 · $54,000,000.00 · $55,883,520.00 · $648,000,000.00 · $22,500,000,000.00 · $24,300,000,000.00 · $291,600,000,000.00

211.5 Dates (1)

2026-06-27

Section 212 of 261

Section 212 — FORENSIC AUDIT V3.0 – EXPANDED LIABILITY ASSESSMENT

Source File	FORENSIC-0212-deepseek-html-20260627-5d7b55-69e23eff.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-06-27 06:25:35
Size	35,671 bytes
SHA-256	69e23eff2afde9b0dd94e2528784d8b1279b9dec67bd9db3f11277dd666d77db

212.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

212.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (10)

Citation	Source excerpt
26 C.F.R. 1.507	.S. Code § 1702 \| 10 U.S. Code § 2304 \| 26 C.F.R. 1.507-2 (Special Rules; Transfer To, Or Opera
GDPR Art. 6	RECOGNITIVE GOOGLE ANALYTICS EXECUTION (GDPR Art. 6/7, ePrivacy Art. 5(3), CCPA § 1798.100)
GDPR Art. 44	NT BYPASS & UNAUTHORIZED DATA TRANSFER (GDPR Art. 44-49, CCPA § 1798.120) LINE REF: L225
GDPR Art. 5	INJECTION OF STRUCTURED HIDDEN FIELDS (GDPR Art. 5(1)(c) – DATA MINIMIZATION, CFAA 1030(a)
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)	for the stated purpose. (5) Under CFAA 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C), this constitutes “exceeding authorized
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(4)	a separate act of computer fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(4). TRIPLE-EXPANDED INSTANCE COUNT: 7,20
GDPR Art.44	pc: CAPI = true US / EU CCPA §1798.120, GDPR Art.44-49 7,200 L1050-L1070 Hidden: budget,
GDPR Art.5	get, codice US / EU CFAA 1030(a)(2)(C), GDPR Art.5(1)(c) 7,200 L412-L465 Price label mu
GDPR Art. 77	ions. (2) Garante Italiano: Submit a GDPR Art. 77 complaint referencing the precise code
47 U.S.C. § 230	de § 2304, 26 C.F.R. 1.507-2, and Title 47 U.S.C. § 230. Original 1 of 1. All rights reserved.

212.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

212.4 Dollar Figures (11)

$22.50 · $7,500.00 · $51,744.00 · $250,000.00 · $4,656,960.00 · $54,000,000.00 · $55,883,520.00 · $648,000,000.00 · $22,500,000,000.00 · $24,300,000,000.00 · $291,600,000,000.00

212.5 Dates (1)

2026-06-27

Section 213 of 261

Section 213 — SIGINT/FORENSIC AUDIT – FACTOR 4 DEEP DIVE

Source File	FORENSIC-0213-deepseek-html-20260629-0eb71c-882e94ee.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-06-29 07:10:37
Size	42,237 bytes
SHA-256	882e94ee9ce1e481c5db9563bac6e4e678f19b3376685e71d23a9157ab8f41d4

213.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

213.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (27)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	Ladco Defense Technologies AUTHORITY: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702 (IEEPA), 10 U.S.C. §
50 U.S.C. § 1702	ologies AUTHORITY: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702 (IEEPA), 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. §
10 U.S.C. § 2304	S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702 (IEEPA), 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2, 47 U.S.C. § 230
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	.S.C. § 1702 (IEEPA), 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2, 47 U.S.C. § 230 SUBJECT: Milspec S
47 U.S.C. § 230	10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2, 47 U.S.C. § 230 SUBJECT: Milspec SIGINT/FORENSIC Audi
Civ. Code § 1798.100	fornia Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100. Kennedy Foundation Cyber Exposur
18 U.S.C. § 1956	aundering and cyber-enabled theft under 18 U.S.C. § 1956. 3. SEC ENFORCEMENT ACTION T
Rule 13a	in accurate internal controls under SEC Rule 13a-15 $1.2 million civil penalty; requir
18 U.S.C. § 1001	OJ for potential criminal violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (false statements) – no charges filed.
Rule 10b	; failure to report 10b5-1 plans under Rule 10b5-1(c) ; potential misrepresentation of
15 U.S.C. § 78	insider trading criminal charges under 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) – case pending. SEC v. Parke
Rule 12b	s in joint venture financials under SEC Rule 12b-20 ; failure to disclose related-party
18 U.S.C. § 1343	ferred to FBI for potential wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343) – no charges filed. SEC v. Firs
Rule 3	intain accurate loss reserves under SEC Rule 3-09 ; fraudulent conveyance under Unifor
18 U.S.C. § 152	Referred to DOJ for bankruptcy fraud (18 U.S.C. § 152) – no charges. 4. WHITE COL
18 U.S.C. § 1344	raudulent loans; $15 million judgment 18 U.S.C. § 1344 FDIC v. First American Trust (D. Haw.
26 U.S.C. § 7201	ion back taxes + $8 million penalties 26 U.S.C. § 7201 U.S. v. The First American Corp. (C.D
18 U.S.C. § 1030	ational) $5 million in lost revenue 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA) U.S. v. First American Title C
26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3)	million misappropriated over 39 years 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3) violations; Cal. Corp. Code § 5235 IR
Corp. Code § 5235	26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3) violations; Cal. Corp. Code § 5235 IRS v. First American Financial Found
31 U.S.C. § 3729	ivision for potential False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. § 3729) – no charges. Closed; compliance mon
Penal Code § 503	rnia AG for criminal embezzlement (Cal. Penal Code § 503) – pending. Ongoing appeal by Foundat
17 C.F.R. § 240.10	vs. 8-K (2026-04-29) SEC Rule 10b5-1; 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b5-1 Submit whistleblower tip (Form TC
31 U.S.C. § 5336	entities Corporate Transparency Act (31 U.S.C. § 5336) File BOI access request (FinCEN Form
18 U.S.C. § 2701	30; FTC Act; Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. § 2701) File civil subpoena under 18 U.S.C.
18 U.S.C. § 2703	.C. § 2701) File civil subpoena under 18 U.S.C. § 2703 for breach logs, SIEM data, and exfiltr
18 U.S.C. § 1961	18 U.S.C. § 1956 (Money Laundering); 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (RICO) File complaint with U.S. Attor

213.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

213.4 Dollar Figures (20)

$1.10 · $1.20 · $3.00 · $3.20 · $4.20 · $5.00 · $5.20 · $5.50 · $8.00 · $10.00 · $12.00 · $15.00 · $20.00 · $25.00 · $45.00 · $150.00 · $200.00 · $500.00 · $250,000.00 · $500,000.00

213.5 Dates (43)

2001-11-22 · 2005-11-22 · 2008-06-04 · 2010-01-08 · 2010-03-15 · 2010-08-15 · 2010-09-30 · 2011-03-01 · 2011-05-31 · 2011-06-01 · 2012-03-15 · 2012-05-21 · 2014-06-01 · 2015-02-05 · 2015-03-31 · 2015-12-31 · 2016-02-18 · 2016-05-01 · 2017-02-01 · 2017-03-15 · 2019-05-24 · 2019-06-01 · 2019-12-31 · 2020-06-15 · 2021-02-01 · 2021-02-10 · 2021-04-15 · 2021-06-01 · 2021-11-19 · 2022-02-10 · 2022-02-23 · 2022-03-01 · 2022-03-21 · 2022-06-15 · 2022-12-01 · 2023-01-15 · 2023-03-15 · 2023-11-01 · 2023-12-31 · 2024-03-01 · 2024-11-12 · 2026-04-29 · 2026-06-29

Section 214 of 261

Section 214 — Forensic Legal Analysis – Expanded Compendium

Source File	FORENSIC-0214-deepseek-html-20260630-e3b2b9-3ce07661.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-06-30 10:37:18
Size	37,318 bytes
SHA-256	3ce0766138987ba799769327207186a2989a8bbfa8c2e4cad77669f812ddd375

214.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

214.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (36)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 1343	l Statutory Framework 1.1. Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343) 1.2. Hobbs Act Extortion (18 U.S.C. §
18 U.S.C. § 1951	S.C. § 1343) 1.2. Hobbs Act Extortion (18 U.S.C. § 1951) 1.3. Deprivation of Rights Under Colo
18 U.S.C. § 242	privation of Rights Under Color of Law (18 U.S.C. § 242) 1.4. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
18 U.S.C. § 1961	nced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) – 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. 1.5. Computer Fraud and Abuse
18 U.S.C. § 1030	. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) – 18 U.S.C. § 1030 1.6. Stored Communications Act (SCA) –
18 U.S.C. § 2701	1.6. Stored Communications Act (SCA) – 18 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq. 1.7. Americans with Disabiliti
42 U.S.C. § 12132	with Disabilities Act (ADA) – Title II, 42 U.S.C. § 12132 1.8. Rehabilitation Act of 1973 – Sect
29 U.S.C. § 794	habilitation Act of 1973 – Section 504, 29 U.S.C. § 794 1.9. E-Government Act of 2002 – 44 U.S
44 U.S.C. § 3601	§ 794 1.9. E-Government Act of 2002 – 44 U.S.C. § 3601 note 1.10. Electronic Signatures in Gl
15 U.S.C. § 7001	al and National Commerce Act (E-SIGN) – 15 U.S.C. § 7001 et seq. 2. Florida Statutory Framework
Rule 61	C) – Real Estate Commission Rules 3.1. Rule 61J2-10.025 – Advertising 3.2. Rule 61J2-
Rule 901	Rules 5.1. Federal Rules of Evidence – Rule 901 (Authentication) 5.2. Federal Rules of
Rule 8	5.2. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure – Rule 8 (Pleading) 5.3. Florida Rules of Civil
Rule 1	5.3. Florida Rules of Civil Procedure – Rule 1.010 (Scope) 5.4. Florida Rules of Prof
Rule 4	Florida Rules of Professional Conduct – Rule 4-1.1 (Competence) 6. Constitutional Prov
18 U.S.C. § 1961(4)	n, association, or other legal entity" 【18 U.S.C. § 1961(4)】 \| Coldwell Banker/The Jills Zeder Grou
18 U.S.C. § 1962	ough pattern \| "prohibited activities" 【18 U.S.C. § 1962】 \| Systemic scheme to defraud high-net-
15 U.S.C. § 7001(a)	lely because it is in electronic form" 【15 U.S.C. § 7001(a)】 \| Cryptographic instruments (Check #20
15 U.S.C. § 7001(c)	umer shall have consented to such use" 【15 U.S.C. § 7001(c)】 \| No evidence of seller's consent to a
Fla. Stat. § 119.10	Violation of the Public Records Act" \| Fla. Stat. § 119.10 \| "Violates any provision of this chapt
Fla. Stat. § 475.25(1)(b)	dealing by trick, scheme, or device" \| Fla. Stat. § 475.25(1)(b) \| "Has been guilty of dishonest dealing
Fla. Stat. § 475.25(1)(o)	al Estate ¶IV \| "culpable negligence" \| Fla. Stat. § 475.25(1)(o) \| "Has been guilty of culpable negligen
Fla. Stat. § 501.204(1)	nfair or deceptive acts or practices" \| Fla. Stat. § 501.204(1) \| "Unfair methods of competition, uncon
Fla. Stat. § 817.545	clared unlawful." \| \| Forensic ¶II.3 \| "Fla. Stat. § 817.545 … Mortgage Fraud" \| Fla. Stat. § 817.
Fla. Stat. § 817.545(2)(a)	. Stat. § 817.545 … Mortgage Fraud" \| Fla. Stat. § 817.545(2)(a) \| "Makes any material misstatement, mis
22 U.S.C. § 2295	\| Signature \| "22 U.S. Code § 2295a" \| 22 U.S.C. § 2295a \| Limitation on military assistance to
50 U.S.C. § 1702	\| \| Signature \| "50 U.S. Code § 1702" \| 50 U.S.C. § 1702 \| Presidential authorities under IEEPA.
10 U.S.C. § 2304	\| \| Signature \| "10 U.S. Code § 2304" \| 10 U.S.C. § 2304 \| Competition requirements for DOD proc
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	ent. \| \| Signature \| "26 Cfr 1.507-2" \| 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 \| Special rules; transfer to, or oper
47 U.S.C. § 230	on as, public charity. \| \| Signature \| "47 U.S.C. § 230" \| 47 U.S.C. § 230 \| Protection for pri
Fla. Stat. § 90.801	8.2. Hearsay Considerations – Under Fla. Stat. § 90.801, hearsay is a statement, other than o
28 U.S.C. § 1331	Federal jurisdiction may exist under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) for ADA, wire frau
28 U.S.C. § 1332	laims. – Diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 may apply if parties are from differe
18 U.S.C. § 3282	1343): 5-year statute of limitations (18 U.S.C. § 3282). – Hobbs Act (18 U.S.C. § 1951):** 5
Fla. Stat. § 95.11(4)(c)	year statute of limitations in Florida (Fla. Stat. § 95.11(4)(c)). – Real estate fraud: 4-year statu
Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)(j)	fraud:** 4-year statute of limitations (Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)(j)). 9. CONCLUSION This expanded forensi

214.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

214.4 Dollar Figures (9)

$4.74 · $17.40 · $237.00 · $375.00 · $500.00 · $75,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $17,483,633.00 · $237,000,000.00

214.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 215 of 261

Section 215 — FORENSIC AUDIT V3.0 – EXPANDED LIABILITY ASSESSMENT

Source File	FORENSIC-0215-deepseek-html-20260627-792a69-807bb32f.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-06-27 06:19:08
Size	35,093 bytes
SHA-256	807bb32f8761bf8189889a99ef4334a5c37140dbdf62f87ce88cd5247367f660

215.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

215.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (10)

Citation	Source excerpt
26 C.F.R. 1.507	.S. Code § 1702 \| 10 U.S. Code § 2304 \| 26 C.F.R. 1.507-2 (Special Rules; Transfer To, Or Opera
GDPR Art. 6	RECOGNITIVE GOOGLE ANALYTICS EXECUTION (GDPR Art. 6/7, ePrivacy Art. 5(3), CCPA § 1798.100)
GDPR Art. 44	NT BYPASS & UNAUTHORIZED DATA TRANSFER (GDPR Art. 44-49, CCPA § 1798.120) LINE REF: L225
GDPR Art. 5	INJECTION OF STRUCTURED HIDDEN FIELDS (GDPR Art. 5(1)(c) – DATA MINIMIZATION, CFAA 1030(a)
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)	for the stated purpose. (5) Under CFAA 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C), this constitutes “exceeding authorized
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(4)	a separate act of computer fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(4). TRIPLE-EXPANDED INSTANCE COUNT: 7,20
GDPR Art.44	pc: CAPI = true US / EU CCPA §1798.120, GDPR Art.44-49 7,200 L1050-L1070 Hidden: budget,
GDPR Art.5	get, codice US / EU CFAA 1030(a)(2)(C), GDPR Art.5(1)(c) 7,200 L412-L465 Price label mu
GDPR Art. 77	ions. (2) Garante Italiano: Submit a GDPR Art. 77 complaint referencing the precise code
47 U.S.C. § 230	de § 2304, 26 C.F.R. 1.507-2, and Title 47 U.S.C. § 230. Original 1 of 1. All rights reserved.

215.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

215.4 Dollar Figures (11)

$22.50 · $7,500.00 · $51,744.00 · $250,000.00 · $4,656,960.00 · $54,000,000.00 · $55,883,520.00 · $648,000,000.00 · $22,500,000,000.00 · $24,300,000,000.00 · $291,600,000,000.00

215.5 Dates (1)

2026-06-27

Section 216 of 261

Section 216 — Forensic Audit – First American Financial / BlackRock / BCCI Nexus (4x Granular)

Source File	FORENSIC-0216-deepseek-html-20260629-2b7eb0-784cba40.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-06-29 13:49:56
Size	22,489 bytes
SHA-256	784cba40bd50f867edfba46ca5be3be5ce2be6c5398939df9072957692463cee

216.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

216.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (12)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	Ladco Defense Technologies AUTHORITY: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702 (IEEPA), 10 U.S.C. §
50 U.S.C. § 1702	ologies AUTHORITY: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702 (IEEPA), 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. §
10 U.S.C. § 2304	S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702 (IEEPA), 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2, 47 U.S.C. § 230
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	.S.C. § 1702 (IEEPA), 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2, 47 U.S.C. § 230 SUBJECT: Milspec S
47 U.S.C. § 230	10 U.S.C. § 2304, 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2, 47 U.S.C. § 230 SUBJECT: Milspec SIGINT/FORENSIC Audi
Rule 10b	2023) 2023‑2025 SEC Form 4 filings; Rule 10b5‑1 Shell Architecture Parker S
Rule 13a	Corp. SEC Admin File No. 3‑20789 Rule 13a‑15(a) violation; $487K penalty S
17 C.F.R. § 240.10	29) vs. 8‑K (2026‑04‑29) Rule 10b5‑1; 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b5‑1 Determine if trading occurred pri
31 U.S.C. § 5336	entities Corporate Transparency Act (31 U.S.C. § 5336) Identify beneficial owners; expose h
18 U.S.C. § 2703	Forensics Subpoena FAF / CoreLogic 18 U.S.C. § 2703 (Stored Communications Act) Obtain br
18 U.S.C. § 1956	rral U.S. v. Panama Entity (Sealed) 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (Money Laundering); 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (R
18 U.S.C. § 1961	18 U.S.C. § 1956 (Money Laundering); 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (RICO) Unseal indictment; pursue asse

216.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

216.4 Dollar Figures (13)

$1.00 · $6.40 · $7.10 · $8.45 · $16.60 · $18.80 · $487.00 · $500.00 · $506.00 · $487,616.00 · $500,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $8,457,994.00

216.5 Dates (4)

2024-12-06 · 2025-02-14 · 2025-07-24 · 2026-06-29

Section 217 of 261

Section 217 — Forensic Legal Analysis – Expanded Compendium (Print Ready)

Source File	FORENSIC-0217-deepseek-html-20260630-a006f2-6aace3a7.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-06-30 10:41:41
Size	38,212 bytes
SHA-256	6aace3a7e76d8811bc5c9a99cba9361165b83cfc67fde7b9673969d77dd6cd0a

217.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

217.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (0)

Citation	Source excerpt
no statutes extracted

217.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

217.4 Dollar Figures (0)

—

217.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 218 of 261

Section 218 — Expanded Forensic Legal Authority – Numerical Outline

Source File	FORENSIC-0218-deepseek-html-20260629-dc9f7a-5fea3cff.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-06-29 23:20:50
Size	34,246 bytes
SHA-256	5fea3cff7b4c64a4170dcaef762fafa2cf4feeeebad5891b8bfc65868a0e1c58

218.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

218.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (6)

Citation	Source excerpt
31 U.S.C. § 5311	tortion, RICO II. Federal Regulatory 31 U.S.C. § 5311 et seq.; EO 14067 BSA/FinCEN, OFAC Sanc
18 U.S.C. § 1343	ALYSIS 2.1 International Wire Fraud – 18 U.S.C. § 1343 – Extraterritorial Application Statut
18 U.S.C. § 1951	per count. 2.2 Hobbs Act Extortion – 18 U.S.C. § 1951 – Fear of Economic Loss Statutory Tex
18 U.S.C. § 1961	and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) – 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. Pattern of Racketeering Activ
18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(B)	ressly defined as a predicate act under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(B). Application: The coordinated combina
18 U.S.C. § 1964	rges; fines; imprisonment RICO Civil 18 U.S.C. § 1964 Treble damages ; attorney's fees Con

218.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

218.4 Dollar Figures (12)

$4.67 · $4.74 · $5.00 · $17.40 · $35.50 · $200.00 · $237.00 · $5,000.00 · $250,000.00 · $300,000.00 · $1,076,923.00 · $17,483,633.00

218.5 Dates (2)

2022-03-09 · 2026-06-30

Section 219 of 261

Section 219 — Forensic Audit Report – Easyliving Tuscany

Source File	FORENSIC-0219-deepseek-html-20260627-7d4693-86246217.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-06-27 06:30:27
Size	27,691 bytes
SHA-256	86246217866d6028883d3e824cc397762f387d78eb86922eab06b6c72f148d65

219.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

219.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (14)

Citation	Source excerpt
GDPR Art. 6	1.1: Pre‑execution of Google Analytics (GDPR Art. 6/7, ePrivacy Art. 5(3), CCPA §1798.100)
GDPR Art. 44	onversions API (CAPI) – Consent Bypass (GDPR Art. 44‑49, CCPA §1798.120) Line(s): L2250‑
GDPR Art. 5	ion 1.3: Covert Hidden‑Field Injection (GDPR Art. 5(1)(c), CFAA 1030(a)(2)(C)) Line(s):
GDPR Art.6	4‑L621 gtag('js') / 'config' EU / Italy GDPR Art.6/7, ePrivacy Art.5(3) 450,000 L2250‑L
GDPR Art.44	pc: CAPI = true US / EU CCPA §1798.120, GDPR Art.44‑49 7,200 L1050‑L1070 Hidden: budget,
GDPR Art.5	get, codice US / EU CFAA 1030(a)(2)(C), GDPR Art.5(1)(c) 7,200 L412‑L465 Price label mu
18 U.S.C. §1030(a)(2)(C)	‑1.3) as “exceeding authorized access” (18 U.S.C. §1030(a)(2)(C)). Subpoena /wp‑admin/admin‑ajax.php log
GDPR Art. 77	CAPI transmissions. Garante Italiano (GDPR Art. 77): Submit a complaint referencing L614‑L
22 U.S.C. §2295	infrastructure. Authorized under: 22 U.S.C. §2295a, 50 U.S.C. §1702, 10 U.S.C. §2304, 26
50 U.S.C. §1702	Authorized under: 22 U.S.C. §2295a, 50 U.S.C. §1702, 10 U.S.C. §2304, 26 C.F.R. 1.507‑2, an
10 U.S.C. §2304	der: 22 U.S.C. §2295a, 50 U.S.C. §1702, 10 U.S.C. §2304, 26 C.F.R. 1.507‑2, and Title 47 U.S.C.
26 C.F.R. 1.507	295a, 50 U.S.C. §1702, 10 U.S.C. §2304, 26 C.F.R. 1.507‑2, and Title 47 U.S.C. §230. Original
47 U.S.C. §230	.C. §2304, 26 C.F.R. 1.507‑2, and Title 47 U.S.C. §230. Original 1 of 1. All rights reserved.
31 U.S.C. §3729	ations constitute a qui tam claim under 31 U.S.C. §3729. Ladco Defense Technologies Pag

219.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

219.4 Dollar Figures (11)

$22.50 · $7,500.00 · $51,744.00 · $250,000.00 · $4,656,960.00 · $54,000,000.00 · $55,883,520.00 · $648,000,000.00 · $22,500,000,000.00 · $24,300,000,000.00 · $291,600,000,000.00

219.5 Dates (1)

2026-06-27

Section 220 of 261

Section 220 — Forensic Report – Zillow HTML Code Analysis

Source File	FORENSIC-0220-zillow-fraud-7fe70321.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-06-24 14:27:28
Size	26,984 bytes
SHA-256	7fe7032189b86515bc6d28dbda7df65bcbe5593db292247aa674e07e33af4384

220.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

220.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (11)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 2710	1 Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) – 18 U.S.C. § 2710 Legal Text: 18 U.S.C. § 2710(a)
18 U.S.C. § 2710(a)	) – 18 U.S.C. § 2710 Legal Text: 18 U.S.C. § 2710(a) defines a "consumer" as "any individual
18 U.S.C. § 2710(b)(1)	s or similar audio visual materials." 18 U.S.C. § 2710(b)(1) states: "A video tape service provider
18 U.S.C. § 2710(b)(2)(B)	sumer to any person shall be liable." 18 U.S.C. § 2710(b)(2)(B) allows disclosure only with the consume
15 U.S.C. § 45	ederal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act) – 15 U.S.C. § 45 Legal Text: 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1)
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1)	ct) – 15 U.S.C. § 45 Legal Text: 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1) states: "Unfair methods of competition
Civ. Code § 1798.100	rnia Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) – Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq. Legal Text: Cal. Civ. Co
Civ. Code § 1798.100(a)	798.100 et seq. Legal Text: Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100(a) requires businesses to inform consumers
42 U.S.C. § 12181	Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) – 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq. – Violation Analysis Legal
42 U.S.C. § 12181(7)	– Violation Analysis Legal Text: 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7) defines "public accommodation" to inclu
28 C.F.R. § 36.303	odation" broadly to include websites. 28 C.F.R. § 36.303(c)(1) requires public accommodations to

220.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

220.4 Dollar Figures (0)

—

220.5 Dates (4)

2025-07-01 · 2025-09-30 · 2026-01-01 · 2026-06-24

Section 221 of 261

Section 221 — QCUE Micro-Mote – Forensic Validation & System Analysis

Source File	FORENSIC-0221-deepseek-html-20260712-f4f6e7-6dc97234.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-12 08:46:49
Size	35,667 bytes
SHA-256	6dc97234af39a161fadfe1c7a2d4871f636b480703710a4220362de6a17b487c

221.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

221.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (1)

Citation	Source excerpt
47 U.S.C. § 230	S. Code § 2304 & 26 Cfr 1.507-2 & Title 47 U.S.C. § 230. We Authorize This Release Original 1 Of

221.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

221.4 Dollar Figures (7)

$775,000.00 · $4,500,000.00 · $15,100,000.00 · $20,381,250.00 · $42,000,000.00 · $65,000,000.00 · $156,256,250.00

221.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 222 of 261

Section 222 — Forensic Audit Dossier – Initial Point Realty LLC

Source File	FORENSIC-0222-deepseek-html-20260712-e3c09c-e3f9c4d1.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-12 16:13:08
Size	45,953 bytes
SHA-256	e3f9c4d1aabd3f78ac516a6039de88021f064a699e6e2d14b67b63fb681d7543

222.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

222.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (22)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	Realty LLC Audit Authorized Under: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	it Authorized Under: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507‑2; 47 U
10 U.S.C. § 2304	r: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507‑2; 47 U.S.C. § 230 Date
47 U.S.C. § 230	1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507‑2; 47 U.S.C. § 230 Date of Compilation: 2026-07-12 \| C
18 U.S.C. § 1030	o6hYmc' Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) – Exposing an authentication token cre
18 U.S.C. § 1030(c)(2)(B)	ncial data is processed via this key. 18 U.S.C. § 1030(c)(2)(B) : $5,000 – $50,000 fine per incident, p
47 U.S.C. § 227	t. Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. § 227) – Consent must be clear, conspicuous,
Civ. Code § 1798.100	– Text marketing consent. CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100) – Requires a "Do Not Sell My Personal
12 U.S.C. § 2607	Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (12 U.S.C. § 2607) – Prohibits kickbacks and unearned fee
42 U.S.C. § 12181	ments (buttons, tabs). ADA Title III (42 U.S.C. § 12181) & Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d) – Web
29 U.S.C. § 794	III (42 U.S.C. § 12181) & Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d) – Websites are places of public accom
15 U.S.C. § 52	s not typical." Truth in Advertising (15 U.S.C. § 52) – Prohibits false or misleading advert
42 U.S.C. § 3604	for me on pricing." Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. § 3604) – While not overtly discriminatory, an
42 U.S.C. § 3601	Housing \| Realtor"> Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.) – The Equal Housing logo must
Professions Code § 22575	e Privacy Protection Act – Business and Professions Code § 22575). People v. Delta Airlines (CA AG 202
44 U.S.C. § 3551	erabilities and failed to act. FISMA (44 U.S.C. § 3551) – Federal agency contractors can be fi
15 U.S.C. § 6801	mls_prefix . Gramm‑Leach‑Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. § 6801) – Non‑public personal information (NPI
18 U.S.C. § 2511	Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) – Wiretap Act – Intercepting or storin
18 U.S.C. § 2511(4)	it, granular consent a federal crime. 18 U.S.C. § 2511(4) : $10,000 – $100,000 per violation, plu
Civil Code § 1798.100(b)	California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) – Civil Code § 1798.100(b) – Sensitive Personal Information (SPI)
GDPR Article 33	ly $2M – $10M . Entire site No GDPR Article 33 breach notification timeline (72 hours)
GDPR Art. 33	isitors (common for overseas buyers). GDPR Art. 33 & 34 – Breach notification to superviso

222.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

222.4 Dollar Figures (58)

$1.00 · $1.20 · $1.50 · $1.80 · $2.00 · $2.30 · $2.50 · $2.60 · $2.80 · $3.20 · $3.40 · $4.30 · $5.00 · $6.00 · $7.10 · $7.50 · $8.50 · $10.00 · $11.80 · $12.00 · $13.00 · $15.00 · $25.00 · $35.00 · $50.00 · $75.00 · $93.00 · $100.00 · $245.00 · $480.00 · $500.00 · $575.00 · $750.00 · $1,000.00 · $1,500.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $11,000.00 · $15,000.00 · $16,000.00 · $20,000.00 · $25,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $55,000.00 · $65,000.00 · $75,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $200,000.00 · $250,000.00 · $250,600.00 · $400,000.00 · $500,000.00 · $650,000.00 · $1,000,000.00

222.5 Dates (1)

2026-07-12

Section 223 of 261

Section 223 — Forensic Audit Dossier – Initial Point Realty LLC

Source File	FORENSIC-0223-deepseek-html-20260712-134326-f456f6b4.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-12 16:09:45
Size	44,184 bytes
SHA-256	f456f6b49fd69258d87cb600ab502cdd04a9b6807b8b92ff1d0a2566ba5c1e3c

223.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

223.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (22)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	Realty LLC Audit Authorized Under: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	it Authorized Under: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507‑2; 47 U
10 U.S.C. § 2304	r: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507‑2; 47 U.S.C. § 230 Date
47 U.S.C. § 230	1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507‑2; 47 U.S.C. § 230 Date of Compilation: 2026-07-12 \| C
18 U.S.C. § 1030	o6hYmc' Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) – Exposing an authentication token cre
18 U.S.C. § 1030(c)(2)(B)	ncial data is processed via this key. 18 U.S.C. § 1030(c)(2)(B) : $5,000 – $50,000 fine per incident, p
47 U.S.C. § 227	t. Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. § 227) – Consent must be clear, conspicuous,
Civ. Code § 1798.100	– Text marketing consent. CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100) – Requires a "Do Not Sell My Personal
12 U.S.C. § 2607	Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (12 U.S.C. § 2607) – Prohibits kickbacks and unearned fee
42 U.S.C. § 12181	ments (buttons, tabs). ADA Title III (42 U.S.C. § 12181) & Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d) – Web
29 U.S.C. § 794	III (42 U.S.C. § 12181) & Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d) – Websites are places of public accom
15 U.S.C. § 52	s not typical." Truth in Advertising (15 U.S.C. § 52) – Prohibits false or misleading advert
42 U.S.C. § 3604	for me on pricing." Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. § 3604) – While not overtly discriminatory, an
42 U.S.C. § 3601	Housing \| Realtor"> Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.) – The Equal Housing logo must
Professions Code § 22575	e Privacy Protection Act – Business and Professions Code § 22575). People v. Delta Airlines (CA AG 202
44 U.S.C. § 3551	erabilities and failed to act. FISMA (44 U.S.C. § 3551) – Federal agency contractors can be fi
15 U.S.C. § 6801	mls_prefix . Gramm‑Leach‑Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. § 6801) – Non‑public personal information (NPI
18 U.S.C. § 2511	Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) – Wiretap Act – Intercepting or storin
18 U.S.C. § 2511(4)	it, granular consent a federal crime. 18 U.S.C. § 2511(4) : $10,000 – $100,000 per violation, plu
Civil Code § 1798.100(b)	California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) – Civil Code § 1798.100(b) – Sensitive Personal Information (SPI)
GDPR Article 33	ly $2M – $10M . Entire site No GDPR Article 33 breach notification timeline (72 hours)
GDPR Art. 33	isitors (common for overseas buyers). GDPR Art. 33 & 34 – Breach notification to superviso

223.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

223.4 Dollar Figures (58)

223.5 Dates (1)

2026-07-12

Section 224 of 261

Section 224 — QCUE Micro-Mote – Forensic Validation & System Analysis

Source File	FORENSIC-0224-deepseek-html-20260712-b78f2f-d88f7d64.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-12 08:28:32
Size	33,740 bytes
SHA-256	d88f7d6492b01451b93989610a87a58a34240e7bd2380d77f7c9421c95510ecc

224.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

224.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (1)

Citation	Source excerpt
47 U.S.C. § 230	S. Code § 2304 & 26 Cfr 1.507-2 & Title 47 U.S.C. § 230. We Authorize This Release Original 1 Of

224.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

224.4 Dollar Figures (7)

$775,000.00 · $4,500,000.00 · $15,100,000.00 · $20,381,250.00 · $42,000,000.00 · $65,000,000.00 · $156,256,250.00

224.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 225 of 261

Section 225 — Forensic Analysis – Expanded Legal Violations Matrix

Source File	FORENSIC-0225-deepseek-html-20260712-6b0558-dff6e952.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-12 07:15:32
Size	39,905 bytes
SHA-256	dff6e952d89d2666432c93ecc3ece89f1f8dba1c1294291f7e7aa7106c11b1a4

225.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

225.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (16)

Citation	Source excerpt
Regulation (EU) 2024/1689	Violations EU AI Act Non‑Compliance (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689) GDPR Violations (Regulation (EU) 20
Regulation (EU) 2016/679	ion (EU) 2024/1689) GDPR Violations (Regulation (EU) 2016/679) Product Liability – Defective Softw
18 U.S.C. § 1030	l Level – Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) The CFAA makes it unlawful to "inten
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)	"in excess of authorized access" under 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2). The DOJ has explicitly stated that the
Penal Code § 502	access." 1.2 State Level – California Penal Code § 502 California's comprehensive computer a
18 U.S.C. § 1030(c)	y criminal penalties under federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1030(c) – up to 10 years imprisonment for repea
GDPR Article 6	lawful processing requirements . Under GDPR Article 6, processing of personal data requires a
GDPR Article 22	mated decision‑making enforcement under GDPR Article 22 for profiling, AI‑assisted decision‑mak
Rule 23	onsumer protection statutes and federal Rule 23. 6. TERMS OF SERVICE & USAGE POL
47 U.S.C. § 301	ULATIONS Communications Act of 1934 \| 47 U.S.C. § 301 et seq. \| FCC Spectrum Policy Statement
47 U.S.C. § 333	commercial, public safety), it violates 47 U.S.C. § 333 (willful or malicious interference) and
47 U.S.C. § 503(b)	f up to $116,688 per violation per day (47 U.S.C. § 503(b)), and can seek criminal penalties for w
Penal Code § 502(c)(2)	ation Penalty California Penal Code § 502(c)(2) Unauthorized computer access Felony
Penal Code § 502(c)(7)	years imprisonment California Penal Code § 502(c)(7) Access with intent to defraud Felon
Penal Code § 33.02	puter tampering Felony Texas Penal Code § 33.02 Breach of computer security Felony
Virginia Code § 18.2	against computer users Felony Virginia Code § 18.2‑152.3 Computer trespass Felony

225.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

225.4 Dollar Figures (1)

$116,688.00

225.5 Dates (2)

2026-03-09 · 2026-08-02

Section 226 of 261

Section 226 — Forensic Analysis – Expanded Legal Violations Matrix

Source File	FORENSIC-0226-deepseek-html-20260712-73372b-a6cb9ec9.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-12 07:30:39
Size	42,036 bytes
SHA-256	a6cb9ec926ca1844d5428d167612caad171ff73a7691f0dfda9ee99f3d7d6213

226.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

226.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (17)

Citation	Source excerpt
Regulation (EU) 2024/1689	Violations EU AI Act Non‑Compliance (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689) GDPR Violations (Regulation (EU) 20
Regulation (EU) 2016/679	ion (EU) 2024/1689) GDPR Violations (Regulation (EU) 2016/679) Product Liability – Defective Softw
18 U.S.C. § 1030	l Level – Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) The CFAA makes it unlawful to "inten
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)	"in excess of authorized access" under 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2). The DOJ has explicitly stated that the
Penal Code § 502	access." 1.2 State Level – California Penal Code § 502 California's comprehensive computer a
18 U.S.C. § 1030(c)	y criminal penalties under federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1030(c) – up to 10 years imprisonment for repea
GDPR Article 6	lawful processing requirements . Under GDPR Article 6, processing of personal data requires a
GDPR Article 22	mated decision‑making enforcement under GDPR Article 22 for profiling, AI‑assisted decision‑mak
Rule 23	onsumer protection statutes and federal Rule 23. 6. TERMS OF SERVICE & USAGE POL
47 U.S.C. § 301	ULATIONS Communications Act of 1934 \| 47 U.S.C. § 301 et seq. \| FCC Spectrum Policy Statement
47 U.S.C. § 333	commercial, public safety), it violates 47 U.S.C. § 333 (willful or malicious interference) and
47 U.S.C. § 503(b)	f up to $116,688 per violation per day (47 U.S.C. § 503(b)), and can seek criminal penalties for w
Penal Code § 502(c)(2)	ation Penalty California Penal Code § 502(c)(2) Unauthorized computer access Felony
Penal Code § 502(c)(7)	years imprisonment California Penal Code § 502(c)(7) Access with intent to defraud Felon
Penal Code § 33.02	puter tampering Felony Texas Penal Code § 33.02 Breach of computer security Felony
Virginia Code § 18.2	against computer users Felony Virginia Code § 18.2‑152.3 Computer trespass Felony
47 U.S.C. § 230	Code § 2304, 26 Cfr 1.507-2, and Title 47 U.S.C. § 230. UNCLASSIFIED // FORENSIC ANALYSIS //

226.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

226.4 Dollar Figures (1)

$116,688.00

226.5 Dates (2)

2026-03-09 · 2026-08-02

Section 227 of 261

Section 227 — Forensic Audit Dossier – Initial Point Realty LLC

Source File	FORENSIC-0227-deepseek-html-20260712-b74531-f31a30fa.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-12 16:17:41
Size	44,595 bytes
SHA-256	f31a30fa14cc8f8ba0e8050b0f765452d51e07f194c66a3469165cda273b8cb8

227.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

227.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (22)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	Realty LLC Audit Authorized Under: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	it Authorized Under: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507‑2; 47 U
10 U.S.C. § 2304	r: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507‑2; 47 U.S.C. § 230 Date
47 U.S.C. § 230	1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507‑2; 47 U.S.C. § 230 Date of Compilation: 2026-07-12 \| C
18 U.S.C. § 1030	o6hYmc' Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) – Exposing an authentication token cre
18 U.S.C. § 1030(c)(2)(B)	ncial data is processed via this key. 18 U.S.C. § 1030(c)(2)(B) : $5,000 – $50,000 fine per incident, p
47 U.S.C. § 227	t. Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. § 227) – Consent must be clear, conspicuous,
Civ. Code § 1798.100	– Text marketing consent. CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100) – Requires a "Do Not Sell My Personal
12 U.S.C. § 2607	Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (12 U.S.C. § 2607) – Prohibits kickbacks and unearned fee
42 U.S.C. § 12181	ments (buttons, tabs). ADA Title III (42 U.S.C. § 12181) & Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d) – Web
29 U.S.C. § 794	III (42 U.S.C. § 12181) & Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d) – Websites are places of public accom
15 U.S.C. § 52	s not typical." Truth in Advertising (15 U.S.C. § 52) – Prohibits false or misleading advert
42 U.S.C. § 3604	for me on pricing." Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. § 3604) – While not overtly discriminatory, an
42 U.S.C. § 3601	Housing \| Realtor"> Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.) – The Equal Housing logo must
Professions Code § 22575	e Privacy Protection Act – Business and Professions Code § 22575). People v. Delta Airlines (CA AG 202
44 U.S.C. § 3551	erabilities and failed to act. FISMA (44 U.S.C. § 3551) – Federal agency contractors can be fi
15 U.S.C. § 6801	mls_prefix . Gramm‑Leach‑Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. § 6801) – Non‑public personal information (NPI
18 U.S.C. § 2511	Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) – Wiretap Act – Intercepting or storin
18 U.S.C. § 2511(4)	it, granular consent a federal crime. 18 U.S.C. § 2511(4) : $10,000 – $100,000 per violation, plu
Civil Code § 1798.100(b)	California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) – Civil Code § 1798.100(b) – Sensitive Personal Information (SPI)
GDPR Article 33	ly $2M – $10M . Entire site No GDPR Article 33 breach notification timeline (72 hours)
GDPR Art. 33	isitors (common for overseas buyers). GDPR Art. 33 & 34 – Breach notification to superviso

227.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

227.4 Dollar Figures (58)

227.5 Dates (1)

2026-07-12

Section 228 of 261

Section 228 — Forensic Audit Dossier – Print Ready

Source File	FORENSIC-0228-deepseek-html-20260712-fe85dc-5c18027b.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-12 16:25:07
Size	42,405 bytes
SHA-256	5c18027bbd9c36ec882c945491fedd880be52dc39822b40647e1ef360c01ef86

228.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

228.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (22)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	Realty LLC Audit Authorized Under: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	it Authorized Under: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507‑2; 47 U
10 U.S.C. § 2304	r: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507‑2; 47 U.S.C. § 230 Date
47 U.S.C. § 230	1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507‑2; 47 U.S.C. § 230 Date of Compilation: 2026-07-12 \| C
18 U.S.C. § 1030	Vto6hYmc' Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) – Exposing an authentication token cre
18 U.S.C. § 1030(c)(2)(B)	nancial data is processed via this key. 18 U.S.C. § 1030(c)(2)(B) : $5,000 – $50,000 fine per incident, p
47 U.S.C. § 227	ent. Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. § 227) – Consent must be clear, conspicuous,
Civ. Code § 1798.100	ox – Text marketing consent. CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100) – Requires a "Do Not Sell My Personal
12 U.S.C. § 2607	Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (12 U.S.C. § 2607) – Prohibits kickbacks and unearned fee
42 U.S.C. § 12181	lements (buttons, tabs). ADA Title III (42 U.S.C. § 12181) & Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d) – Web
29 U.S.C. § 794	III (42 U.S.C. § 12181) & Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d) – Websites are places of public accom
15 U.S.C. § 52	lts not typical." Truth in Advertising (15 U.S.C. § 52) – Prohibits false or misleading advert
42 U.S.C. § 3604	e for me on pricing." Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. § 3604) – While not overtly discriminatory, an
42 U.S.C. § 3601	l Housing \| Realtor"> Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.) – The Equal Housing logo must
Professions Code § 22575	e Privacy Protection Act – Business and Professions Code § 22575). People v. Delta Airlines (CA AG 2022)
44 U.S.C. § 3551	lnerabilities and failed to act. FISMA (44 U.S.C. § 3551) – Federal agency contractors can be fi
15 U.S.C. § 6801	, mls_prefix . Gramm‑Leach‑Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. § 6801) – Non‑public personal information (NPI
18 U.S.C. § 2511	Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) – Wiretap Act – Intercepting or storin
18 U.S.C. § 2511(4)	icit, granular consent a federal crime. 18 U.S.C. § 2511(4) : $10,000 – $100,000 per violation, plu
Civil Code § 1798.100(b)	California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) – Civil Code § 1798.100(b) – Sensitive Personal Information (SPI)
GDPR Article 33	usually $2M – $10M . Entire site No GDPR Article 33 breach notification timeline (72 hours)
GDPR Art. 33	visitors (common for overseas buyers). GDPR Art. 33 & 34 – Breach notification to superviso

228.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

228.4 Dollar Figures (58)

228.5 Dates (1)

2026-07-12

Section 229 of 261

Section 229 — Forensic Audit – Brivity Corporate Website

Source File	FORENSIC-0229-deepseek-html-20260713-2f1f0d-b96d961f.html
Created	July 12, 2026
Modified	2026-07-13 03:14:03
Size	38,484 bytes
SHA-256	b96d961fcd5cc8a66021417402709bde6422527674dc6ecd6df684565b836b8c

229.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

229.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (15)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	Audit Date: July 12, 2026 Authority: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	2, 2026 Authority: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U
10 U.S.C. § 2304	y: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230 Cumu
47 U.S.C. § 230	1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230 Cumulative Exposure (2026 Adjusted):
18 U.S.C. § 2511	5. Finding 4 – Wiretap Act Violation (18 U.S.C. § 2511) – Unconsented AI Processing 6. Find
Regulation (EU) 2016/679	ry Violations and Legal Basis GDPR (Regulation (EU) 2016/679): Article 82 provides for the right to
Civ. Code § 1798.100	titutes a clear violation. CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Section 1798.150 allows consu
15 U.S.C. § 45	ations and Legal Basis FTC Act § 5 (15 U.S.C. § 45): Prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)	tatutory Violations and Legal Basis 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a): “Any person who intentionally intercep
18 U.S.C. § 2520	ject to criminal and civil liability. 18 U.S.C. § 2520: Provides for civil remedies, including
42 U.S.C. § 12181	ions and Legal Basis ADA Title III (42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.): Prohibits discrimination on t
29 U.S.C. § 794	Pizza v. Robles , 2019). Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d): Requires federal agencies and entiti
50 U.S.C. § 3931	rts. Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (50 U.S.C. § 3931): Requires entities providing financial
17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(2)	g this requirement. DMCA Safe Harbor (17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(2)): To be eligible for safe harbor from c
GDPR Art. 82	hird‑Party Tracking 77–112, 379–410 GDPR Art. 82, CCPA § 1798.150, ePrivacy $3.7M – $7

229.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

229.4 Dollar Figures (16)

$1.20 · $1.80 · $3.70 · $5.10 · $7.20 · $14.20 · $50.00 · $100.00 · $180.00 · $250.00 · $500.00 · $520.00 · $750.00 · $10,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $100,000.00

229.5 Dates (1)

2026-07-12

Section 230 of 261

Section 230 — COMPREHENSIVE FORENSIC & LEGAL COMPENDIUM – Brivity / Initial Point / American Nation Bank

Source File	FORENSIC-0230-deepseek-html-20260714-5f7d14-cb9f6173.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-14 04:35:54
Size	81,514 bytes
SHA-256	cb9f61732a3e0f6cfb73ce8c8a5f090aa8b3b2213dede7ef83dd19e9d994d55c

230.1 Parties (3)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	Ladco Defense Technologies	print Audit Date: July 12–14, 2026 Plaintiff: Ladco Defense Technologies / Henri Bryant Lanier Sr., Esq., Ph.D. (
defendant	Initial Point Realty LLC	State Court (Oklahoma District Court) Defendants: Initial Point Realty LLC, Randi Nowlin, Kristen Hall, Southern Oklahoma Realty, Thomas Johnson, Sarah Fulton C
defendant	Brivity Inc	Western/Eastern District of Oklahoma) Defendants: Brivity Inc. (Ben Kinney), American Nation Bank, Init

230.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (32)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	m is issued under the authority of: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a – Foreign assistance oversight (extrac
50 U.S.C. § 1702	ction of U.S. minor from combat zone) 50 U.S.C. § 1702 – International Emergency Economic Powe
10 U.S.C. § 2304	Act (IEEPA) – foreign data transfers 10 U.S.C. § 2304 – Department of Defense procurement rul
47 U.S.C. § 230	mpt entity compliance (if applicable) 47 U.S.C. § 230 – Section 230 immunity does not apply t
18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)	the Board RICO enterprise leadership – 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) Kyle Mclmore CEO Sherman Act § 1 lia
18 U.S.C. § 1030	6hYmc'; Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) – Exposing an authentication token cre
47 U.S.C. § 227	r. Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. § 227) – Consent must be clear, conspicuous,
Civ. Code § 1798.100	– Text marketing consent. CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100) – Requires "Do Not Sell My Personal In
12 U.S.C. § 2607	pre‑approved?" (Buying route) RESPA (12 U.S.C. § 2607) – Prohibits kickbacks and unearned fee
42 U.S.C. § 12181	interactive elements. ADA Title III (42 U.S.C. § 12181) & Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d) – Web
29 U.S.C. § 794	III (42 U.S.C. § 12181) & Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d) – Websites are places of public accom
15 U.S.C. § 52	>Camlin D.</pl> Truth in Advertising (15 U.S.C. § 52) – Prohibits false or misleading advert
42 U.S.C. § 3604	for me on pricing." Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. § 3604) – Any testimonial that implies differe
42 U.S.C. § 3601	Housing \| Realtor"> Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.) – Equal Housing logo must be d
Professions Code § 22575	m/">Brivity</a> CalOPPA (Business and Professions Code § 22575) – Privacy policy must specify last upd
44 U.S.C. § 3551	cure third‑party dependencies. FISMA (44 U.S.C. § 3551) – Federal contractors can be fined up
15 U.S.C. § 6801	ff"> – Search exposes MLS data. GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801) – Non‑public personal information incl
18 U.S.C. § 2511	Socket (SignalR). ECPA / Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) – Intercepting or storing wire/electro
Civ. Code § 1798.100(b)	). No permission prompt. CPRA – Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100(b) – Sensitive Personal Information (SPI)
GDPR Article 33	lly $2M – $10M. Entire site No GDPR Article 33 breach notification timeline (72 hours)
GDPR Art. 33	) disclosed. Site serves EU visitors. GDPR Art. 33 & 34 – Breach notification to superviso
50 U.S.C. § 3931	/day 365 days $180K/year SCRA Notice 50 U.S.C. § 3931 $10,000/servicemember 10–50 $50K – $250
17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(2)	member 10–50 $50K – $250K DMCA Agent 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(2) Loss of safe harbor — Indeterminable
15 U.S.C. § 1	exts $5M – $15M Sherman Act (Cartel) 15 U.S.C. § 1 Treble damages — $14.37M RICO 18 U.S
18 U.S.C. § 1962	C. § 1 Treble damages — $14.37M RICO 18 U.S.C. § 1962 Treble damages — $14.37M + $19.89M T
18 U.S.C. § 2511(4)	to 5 years imprisonment per violation (18 U.S.C. § 2511(4)). Civil Exposure: $10,000 per user pe
18 U.S.C. § 2520	xposure: $10,000 per user per incident (18 U.S.C. § 2520). For 50,000 monthly users, civil exp
15 U.S.C. § 15(a)	Act. Exposure: Treble damages under § 15 U.S.C. § 15(a). For the $4.79M in obstructed property
18 U.S.C. § 1963	eble damages + asset forfeiture under § 18 U.S.C. § 1963 + attorney fees. 11. TACTICA
15 U.S.C. § 45	12 FTC Deceptive practices complaint 15 U.S.C. § 45 DOJ Antitrust Division Sherman Act c
12 U.S.C. § 1818	C. § 1 FDIC Bank examination request 12 U.S.C. § 1818 California AG CCPA/CPRA complaint Ca
Civ. Code § 1798	California AG CCPA/CPRA complaint Cal. Civ. Code § 1798 ODNI National security referral 50 U

230.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

230.4 Dollar Figures (86)

$1.00 · $1.20 · $1.50 · $1.75 · $1.80 · $2.00 · $2.30 · $2.45 · $2.50 · $2.60 · $2.80 · $3.00 · $3.20 · $3.31 · $3.40 · $3.70 · $4.30 · $4.60 · $4.79 · $5.00 · $5.10 · $6.00 · $7.10 · $7.20 · $7.50 · $10.00 · $11.80 · $12.00 · $13.00 · $14.00 · $14.20 · $14.37 · $15.00 · $19.89 · $20.00 · $25.00 · $30.00 · $34.14 · $35.00 · $50.00 · $55.00 · $60.00 · $75.00 · $80.00 · $93.00 · $100.00 · $109.00 · $110.00 · $180.00 · $245.00 · $250.00 · $468.00 · $480.00 · $500.00 · $575.00 · $684.00 · $750.00 · $1,000.00 · $1,500.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $11,000.00 · $15,000.00 · $16,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $55,000.00 · $65,000.00 · $75,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $250,000.00 · $250,600.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $1,290,000.00 · $1,621,932.00 · $3,315,000.00 · $3,500,000.00 · $4,790,000.00 · $9,945,000.00 · $12,633,992.00 · $34,145,924.00 · $468,195,801.29 · $684,117,343.77

230.5 Dates (3)

2025-12-31 · 2026-07-10 · 2026-07-14

Section 231 of 261

Section 231 — QCUE Micro-Mote – Forensic Validation & System Analysis

Source File	FORENSIC-0231-deepseek-html-20260712-b78f2f-1-caf49d97.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-12 08:43:40
Size	35,652 bytes
SHA-256	caf49d97d3040a51719022f9999ce4b2dbe19f2f674c78aa35d9eb8c180fa056

231.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

231.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (1)

Citation	Source excerpt
47 U.S.C. § 230	S. Code § 2304 & 26 Cfr 1.507-2 & Title 47 U.S.C. § 230. We Authorize This Release Original 1 Of

231.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

231.4 Dollar Figures (7)

$775,000.00 · $4,500,000.00 · $15,100,000.00 · $20,381,250.00 · $42,000,000.00 · $65,000,000.00 · $156,256,250.00

231.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 232 of 261

Section 232 — Generate PDF – Forensic Audit Dossier

Source File	FORENSIC-0232-deepseek-html-20260712-cbe1cf-5a376790.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-12 16:22:00
Size	41,924 bytes
SHA-256	5a3767908fc0d9a237865cbc804f9b801614a95062c4c17c339b9c3ce11c7845

232.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

232.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (22)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	Realty LLC Audit Authorized Under: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	it Authorized Under: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507‑2; 47 U
10 U.S.C. § 2304	r: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507‑2; 47 U.S.C. § 230 Date
47 U.S.C. § 230	1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507‑2; 47 U.S.C. § 230 Date of Compilation: 2026-07-12 \| C
18 U.S.C. § 1030	Vto6hYmc' Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) – Exposing an authentication token cre
18 U.S.C. § 1030(c)(2)(B)	nancial data is processed via this key. 18 U.S.C. § 1030(c)(2)(B) : $5,000 – $50,000 fine per incident, p
47 U.S.C. § 227	ent. Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. § 227) – Consent must be clear, conspicuous,
Civ. Code § 1798.100	ox – Text marketing consent. CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100) – Requires a "Do Not Sell My Personal
12 U.S.C. § 2607	Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (12 U.S.C. § 2607) – Prohibits kickbacks and unearned fee
42 U.S.C. § 12181	lements (buttons, tabs). ADA Title III (42 U.S.C. § 12181) & Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d) – Web
29 U.S.C. § 794	III (42 U.S.C. § 12181) & Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d) – Websites are places of public accom
15 U.S.C. § 52	lts not typical." Truth in Advertising (15 U.S.C. § 52) – Prohibits false or misleading advert
42 U.S.C. § 3604	e for me on pricing." Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. § 3604) – While not overtly discriminatory, an
42 U.S.C. § 3601	l Housing \| Realtor"> Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.) – The Equal Housing logo must
Professions Code § 22575	e Privacy Protection Act – Business and Professions Code § 22575). People v. Delta Airlines (CA AG 2022)
44 U.S.C. § 3551	lnerabilities and failed to act. FISMA (44 U.S.C. § 3551) – Federal agency contractors can be fi
15 U.S.C. § 6801	, mls_prefix . Gramm‑Leach‑Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. § 6801) – Non‑public personal information (NPI
18 U.S.C. § 2511	Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) – Wiretap Act – Intercepting or storin
18 U.S.C. § 2511(4)	icit, granular consent a federal crime. 18 U.S.C. § 2511(4) : $10,000 – $100,000 per violation, plu
Civil Code § 1798.100(b)	California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) – Civil Code § 1798.100(b) – Sensitive Personal Information (SPI)
GDPR Article 33	usually $2M – $10M . Entire site No GDPR Article 33 breach notification timeline (72 hours)
GDPR Art. 33	visitors (common for overseas buyers). GDPR Art. 33 & 34 – Breach notification to superviso

232.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

232.4 Dollar Figures (58)

232.5 Dates (1)

2026-07-12

Section 233 of 261

Section 233 — Forensic Audit – Thentia Cloud

Source File	FORENSIC-0233-orec-audit-0e1f7190.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-17 17:12:08
Size	15,287 bytes
SHA-256	0e1f7190f5a2eed96f56ff48d35f9db3fa0624fed772325c7231099ef74f9c3a

233.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

233.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (14)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	/thentia.com/ Audit Authorized Under: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	it Authorized Under: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507‑2; 47 U
10 U.S.C. § 2304	r: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507‑2; 47 U.S.C. § 230 Date
47 U.S.C. § 230	1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507‑2; 47 U.S.C. § 230 Date of Compilation: July 17, 2026
44 U.S.C. § 3551	in security failures. Penalty: FISMA (44 U.S.C. § 3551) – Federal agency contractors can be fi
GDPR Art. 7	okie consent banner. Statutory Basis: GDPR Art. 7 & 6(1)(a); CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.
Civ. Code § 1798.100	asis: GDPR Art. 7 & 6(1)(a); CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100) – Consent must be obtained before non‑
15 U.S.C. § 6801	es is present. Statutory Basis: GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801) – Safeguards Rule; CCPA § 1798.100 – D
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	ted. Statutory Basis: FTC Act § 5(a) (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) – Unfair or deceptive acts or practice
31 U.S.C. § 1352	ive implication of government approval; 31 U.S.C. § 1352 – Limitation on use of appropriated fun
31 U.S.C. § 3729	n, debarment, and civil penalties under 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (False Claims Act) – treble damages up
42 U.S.C. § 12181	ible. Statutory Basis: ADA Title III (42 U.S.C. § 12181); Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d); WCAG
29 U.S.C. § 794	e III (42 U.S.C. § 12181); Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d); WCAG 2.1 AA. Case Law: Robles v. D
18 U.S.C. § 2511	onsent, it may violate the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511). Statutory Basis: Electronic Communi

233.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

233.4 Dollar Figures (27)

$1.20 · $1.50 · $1.80 · $2.30 · $2.50 · $2.60 · $3.20 · $3.40 · $3.80 · $4.50 · $7.50 · $9.20 · $100.00 · $750.00 · $1,000.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $10,000.00 · $11,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $55,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $200,000.00 · $500,000.00 · $650,000.00 · $1,000,000.00

233.5 Dates (1)

2026-07-17

Section 234 of 261

Section 234 — Forensic Audit – Sarah Fulton / Southern Oklahoma Realty

Source File	FORENSIC-0234-sarah-fulton-audit-2c43ce63.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-17 16:33:22
Size	15,899 bytes
SHA-256	2c43ce639afdccd421c25bc2de513f16a085cffe8e0bbb7363e317efe3f94f53

234.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

234.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (13)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	sarah-fulton/ Audit Authorized Under: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	it Authorized Under: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507‑2; 47 U
10 U.S.C. § 2304	r: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507‑2; 47 U.S.C. § 230 Date
47 U.S.C. § 230	1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507‑2; 47 U.S.C. § 230 Date of Compilation: July 17, 2026
42 U.S.C. § 3601	r. Statutory Basis: Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.) – All real estate advertising
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	ded. Statutory Basis: FTC Act § 5(a) (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)) – Unfair or deceptive acts or practice
GDPR Art. 7	r opt‑out mechanism. Statutory Basis: GDPR Art. 7 & 6(1)(a); CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.
Civ. Code § 1798.100	asis: GDPR Art. 7 & 6(1)(a); CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100) – Consent must be obtained before non‑
44 U.S.C. § 3551	in security failures. Penalty: FISMA (44 U.S.C. § 3551) – Federal agency contractors can be fi
42 U.S.C. § 12181	oles. Statutory Basis: ADA Title III (42 U.S.C. § 12181); Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d); WCAG
29 U.S.C. § 794	e III (42 U.S.C. § 12181); Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d); WCAG 2.1 AA (success criterion 4.1.2
15 U.S.C. § 6801	ng is present. Statutory Basis: GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801) – Safeguards Rule; requires disclosure
18 U.S.C. § 2511	onsent, it may violate the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511). Statutory Basis: Electronic Communi

234.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

234.4 Dollar Figures (30)

$1.20 · $1.50 · $2.30 · $2.60 · $3.20 · $3.50 · $4.50 · $7.50 · $100.00 · $200.00 · $750.00 · $1,000.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $10,000.00 · $15,000.00 · $16,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $55,000.00 · $65,000.00 · $75,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $150,000.00 · $200,000.00 · $250,000.00 · $500,000.00 · $650,000.00 · $1,000,000.00

234.5 Dates (1)

2026-07-17

Section 235 of 261

Section 235 — Forensic Audit Case Index

Source File	FORENSIC-0235-index-5b8be6f9.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-17 03:29:58
Size	2,890 bytes
SHA-256	5b8be6f9e1c82a3152502d84d0b4f9930e0c9ef0a65482c74d2080c4b498620a

235.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

235.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (0)

Citation	Source excerpt
no statutes extracted

235.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

235.4 Dollar Figures (0)

—

235.5 Dates (1)

2026-07-16

Section 236 of 261

Section 236 — Forensic Audit – Oklahoma Real Estate Commission (OREC)

Source File	FORENSIC-0236-orec-audit-2-879ec51c.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-17 18:21:10
Size	13,672 bytes
SHA-256	879ec51cc85b534321689092493ff6f3792927c229b36649fd581765981f393c

236.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

236.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (11)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ov/webs/orec/ Audit Authorized Under: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	it Authorized Under: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507‑2; 47 U
10 U.S.C. § 2304	r: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507‑2; 47 U.S.C. § 230 Date
47 U.S.C. § 230	1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507‑2; 47 U.S.C. § 230 Date of Compilation: July 17, 2026
44 U.S.C. § 3551	in security failures. Penalty: FISMA (44 U.S.C. § 3551) – Federal agency contractors can be fi
GDPR Art. 7	ts (JSZip, Angular). Statutory Basis: GDPR Art. 7 & 6(1)(a); CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.
Civ. Code § 1798.100	asis: GDPR Art. 7 & 6(1)(a); CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100) – Consent required for non‑essential c
15 U.S.C. § 6801	ng is present. Statutory Basis: GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801) – Safeguards Rule requires disclosure
42 U.S.C. § 12181	utes. Statutory Basis: ADA Title III (42 U.S.C. § 12181); Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d); WCAG
29 U.S.C. § 794	e III (42 U.S.C. § 12181); Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d); WCAG 2.1 AA. Case Law: Robles v. D
31 U.S.C. § 3729	n, debarment, and civil penalties under 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (False Claims Act) – treble damages up

236.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

236.4 Dollar Figures (25)

$1.20 · $1.50 · $2.10 · $2.20 · $2.30 · $3.20 · $3.50 · $5.60 · $7.50 · $100.00 · $750.00 · $1,000.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $10,000.00 · $11,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $55,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $250,000.00 · $500,000.00 · $800,000.00 · $1,000,000.00

236.5 Dates (1)

2026-07-17

Section 237 of 261

Section 237 — Complete Forensic Audit + Expanded Case Law Citations

Source File	FORENSIC-0237-orec-audit-3-d6b280f6.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-17 18:52:05
Size	89,440 bytes
SHA-256	d6b280f65540172176ebbc31819be28d3f1e4634a4071a2c293a0d06338a5370

237.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

237.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (35)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	M EXPANSION Audit Authorized Under: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	it Authorized Under: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507‑2; 47 U
10 U.S.C. § 2304	r: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507‑2; 47 U.S.C. § 230 Date
47 U.S.C. § 230	1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507‑2; 47 U.S.C. § 230 Date of Compilation: July 17, 2026 \|
18 U.S.C. § 1961	on for private blocking and screening 18 U.S.C. § 1961‑1968 – Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
18 U.S.C. § 1343	nced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) 18 U.S.C. § 1343 – Wire Fraud (interstate communications
18 U.S.C. § 2511	ire Fraud (interstate communications) 18 U.S.C. § 2511 – Wiretap Act (Electronic Communication
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	lectronic Communications Privacy Act) 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) – FTC Act (unfair or deceptive acts)
15 U.S.C. § 7001	– FTC Act (unfair or deceptive acts) 15 U.S.C. § 7001 – E‑SIGN Act (electronic signatures)
Civ. Code § 1798.100	rnia Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) – Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA)
15 U.S.C. § 6801	, 34 Gramm‑Leach‑Bliley Act (GLBA) – 15 U.S.C. § 6801, 16 CFR 314 Telephone Consumer Prote
47 U.S.C. § 227	ephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) – 47 U.S.C. § 227 Real Estate Settlement Procedures Ac
12 U.S.C. § 2607	ate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) – 12 U.S.C. § 2607 Fair Housing Act (FHA) – 42 U.S.C. §
42 U.S.C. § 3601	S.C. § 2607 Fair Housing Act (FHA) – 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. Americans with Disabilities
42 U.S.C. § 12181	Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) – 42 U.S.C. § 12181 Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Ac
29 U.S.C. § 794	Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act – 29 U.S.C. § 794d Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR
18 U.S.C. § 1030	Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) – 18 U.S.C. § 1030 California Online Privacy Protection
18 U.S.C. § 1030(c)(2)(B)	authorised access; triggers CFPB UDAAP. 18 U.S.C. § 1030(c)(2)(B): $5,000 – $50,000 fine + up to 5 years
15 U.S.C. § 52	are not typical. Truth in Advertising (15 U.S.C. § 52) – false or misleading advertisements.
42 U.S.C. § 3604	e for me on pricing." Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. § 3604) – potential steering implications. HUD
44 U.S.C. § 3551	(2021) – supply‑chain liability. FISMA (44 U.S.C. § 3551): up to $7.5M. 1340 <input id="multi
Civ. Code § 1798.100(b)	I called without permission. CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100(b)) – no opt‑in for sensitive location dat
GDPR Art. 33	= $480M theoretical. Entire site No GDPR Art. 33 timeline (72 hours) disclosed. GDPR Art
GDPR Art. 7	okie consent banner. Statutory Basis: GDPR Art. 7 & 6(1)(a); CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.
31 U.S.C. § 3729	ation, debarment, and False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. § 3729) – treble damages up to $11,000 per fal
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)	Shriver 7th Cir. 1992 Indictment under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1) for wiretap violations. Forsyth v. B
15 U.S.C. § 45(c)	viewed FTC cease and desist order under 15 U.S.C. § 45(c). United States v. ITT Continental Ba
GDPR Article 7	on data opt‑in violations. 8.19 GDPR Article 7 – Lawfulness of Processing: Consent
GDPR Article 33	ugh clear affirmative act. 8.20 GDPR Article 33 – Notification of Personal Data Breach
GDPR Article 34	lized assessment required. 8.21 GDPR Article 34 – Communication of Breach to Data Subje
15 USC § 6801(a)	Fargo Bank v. Jenkins Ga. Sup. Ct. 2013 15 USC § 6801(a) expresses Congressional policy that fin
47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5)	PA Do‑Not‑Call private right of action (47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5)) based solely on receiving unwanted tex
12 U.S.C. § 2607(a)	leged violations of Section 8 of RESPA, 12 U.S.C. § 2607(a) and (b), for paying, receiving, and/or
42 USC § 3601	n for housing discrimination under FHA (42 USC § 3601 et seq.). Multiple federal cases Var
42 U.S.C. § 12182(a)	lity in places of public accommodation. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). Les v. Twentieth Century Fox 9th Ci

237.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

Header	Source excerpt
no count headers extracted

237.4 Dollar Figures (69)

$1.00 · $1.20 · $1.50 · $1.80 · $2.00 · $2.10 · $2.20 · $2.30 · $2.50 · $2.60 · $2.80 · $3.20 · $3.40 · $3.50 · $3.80 · $4.30 · $4.50 · $5.60 · $6.00 · $7.10 · $7.50 · $8.40 · $8.50 · $9.20 · $10.00 · $11.40 · $11.80 · $12.00 · $13.00 · $15.00 · $25.00 · $30.10 · $35.00 · $50.00 · $75.00 · $93.00 · $100.00 · $200.00 · $245.00 · $480.00 · $500.00 · $575.00 · $750.00 · $1,000.00 · $1,500.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $11,000.00 · $15,000.00 · $16,000.00 · $25,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $55,000.00 · $65,000.00 · $75,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $150,000.00 · $200,000.00 · $250,000.00 · $250,600.00 · $500,000.00 · $650,000.00 · $800,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $4,790,000.00

237.5 Dates (2)

2026-07-12 · 2026-07-17

Section 238 of 261

Section 238 — Forensic Audit Report – Battalion Metals LLC

Source File	FORENSIC-0238-audited-entity-battalion-metals-llc-3aab13e6.html
Created	August 27, 2026
Modified	2026-08-27 15:05:41
Size	61,843 bytes
SHA-256	3aab13e683e0168d5e7a4e7d6b282601ee56daad671feb253c5ae87aca1055f5

238.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Battalion M
defendant	Battalion Metals LLC	l affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Battalion Metals LLC, Google LLC, CookieYes Ltd., Lightbox, Inc., Sentry, Inc. Count I – Violation of Wiretap

238.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (30)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. §2511	ce="…"></script> High Wiretap Act 18 U.S.C. §2511; CCPA; GDPR Art. 6 2 Unauthori
GDPR Art. 6	gh Wiretap Act 18 U.S.C. §2511; CCPA; GDPR Art. 6 2 Unauthorized third‑party tra
GDPR Art. 7	High ePrivacy Directive Art. 5(3); GDPR Art. 7; FTC Act §5 3 Unauthorized thi
18 U.S.C. §1030	con.min.js" …></script> High CFAA 18 U.S.C. §1030; GDPR Art. 32 5 Missing Conten
GDPR Art. 32	/script> High CFAA 18 U.S.C. §1030; GDPR Art. 32 5 Missing Content Security Pol
Civil Code §1798.100	FTC Act §5; NIST SP 800‑53; California Civil Code §1798.100 6 Insecure cookie attributes
GDPR Art. 44	product-images/… High GLBA; CFAA; GDPR Art. 44 (data transfers) 8 No user con
County Code §12.40	xpansion (3×): • County: Los Angeles County Code §12.40 (privacy) – applies to LA residents.
Penal Code §502(c)	to LA residents. • State: California Penal Code §502(c) – unauthorized access to computers; Cal
Professions Code §17200	ess to computers; California Business & Professions Code §17200 – unfair competition. • Federal: Wire
18 U.S.C. §2511(1)(a)	r competition. • Federal: Wiretap Act 18 U.S.C. §2511(1)(a) – intentionally intercepts wire/oral/el
18 U.S.C. §1030(a)(2)(C)	re/oral/electronic communications; CFAA 18 U.S.C. §1030(a)(2)(C) – intentionally accesses a protected co
15 U.S.C. §45(a)	computer without authorization; FTC Act 15 U.S.C. §45(a) – unfair/deceptive practices. • Milit
GDPR Art. 5	(data as property). • International: GDPR Art. 5(1)(a) (lawfulness), Art. 6(1) (consent
Penal Code §632	Expansion (3×): • State: California Penal Code §632 – eavesdropping (if audio); CCPA violat
Penal Code §502	Expansion (3×): • State: California Penal Code §502 – unauthorized access; NY's SHIELD Act
Civil Code §1798.81.5	equires reasonable security; California Civil Code §1798.81.5. • Federal: GLBA §6801 – safeguarding
Prof. Code §17200	e: CCPA – requires opt‑out; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 – unfair competition. • Federal: FTC
18 U.S.C. §1836	• Federal: Defend Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. §1836) – misappropriation. • International:
Civ. Code §1798.100	77,920 €1,141,073,222,400 CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code §1798.100) $7,500 per count $868 $52,065 $3,123,9
15 U.S.C. §6801	3,036,538,368 $228,795,672,960 GLBA (15 U.S.C. §6801) $100,000 per count $11,570 $694,200 $4
Penal Code §33.02	al Law §156.00 (computer crimes); Texas Penal Code §33.02 (breach of security); Florida §934.01 (
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and
26 C.F.R. § 1.507	& 50 U.S.C. § 1702 & 10 U.S.C. § 2304 & 26 C.F.R. § 1.507-2 & Title 47, Telecommunications § 230
28 U.S.C. § 1331	nue This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (W
18 U.S.C. § 2511	er 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act), and 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC
15 U.S.C. § 45	n), 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act), and 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act). Venue is proper because a su
15 U.S.C. §45	eceptive Acts or Practices (FTC Act §5, 15 U.S.C. §45): Defendants misrepresented their priva

238.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (13)

Header	Source excerpt
count 5 transmissions per page view. According to public traffic estimates for similar e‑commerce sites, Battalion Metals likely receives ~2,000 page views per day (based on product volume and market size).	us Supabase requests. We conservatively count 5 transmissions per page view. According to public traffic estimates for similar e‑commerce sites, Battalion Metal
Count I – Violation of Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. §2511): Defendants intercepted electronic communications without consent.	Ltd., Lightbox, Inc., Sentry, Inc. Count I – Violation of Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. §2511): Defendants intercepted electronic communications without consent. Count
Count II – Violation of CFAA (18 U.S.C. §1030): Unauthorized access to user computers via tracking scripts.	ronic communications without consent. Count II – Violation of CFAA (18 U.S.C. §1030): Unauthorized access to user computers via tracking scripts. Count III – Vi
Count III – Violation of CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code §1798.100): Failure to provide opt‑out and selling personal information without notice.	user computers via tracking scripts. Count III – Violation of CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code §1798.100): Failure to provide opt‑out and selling personal information witho
Count IV – Unfair/Deceptive Practices (FTC Act §5): Misleading privacy practices.	personal information without notice. Count IV – Unfair/Deceptive Practices (FTC Act §5): Misleading privacy practices. Count V – Breach of Contract (Terms o
Count V – Breach of Contract (Terms of Service): Users agreed to terms that may not cover these practices.	ct §5): Misleading privacy practices. Count V – Breach of Contract (Terms of Service): Users agreed to terms that may not cover these practices. Count VI – Inva
Count VI – Invasion of Privacy (Tort): Intrusion upon seclusion and public disclosure of private facts.	s that may not cover these practices. Count VI – Invasion of Privacy (Tort): Intrusion upon seclusion and public disclosure of private facts. Damages Sought: Co
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. §2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications (user interactions) without consent.	quired by CCPA and GDPR. Counts Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. §2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications (user i
Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. §1030): Defendants accessed computers without authorization or exceeded authorized access by deploying tracking scripts.	(user interactions) without consent. Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. §1030): Defendants accessed computers without authoriza
Count III – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code §1798.100): Defendants failed to provide notice and opt‑out rights regarding the sale of personal information.	access by deploying tracking scripts. Count III – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code §1798.100): Defendants failed to provide noti
Count IV – Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices (FTC Act §5, 15 U.S.C. §45): Defendants misrepresented their privacy practices and failed to disclose tracking.	ing the sale of personal information. Count IV – Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices (FTC Act §5, 15 U.S.C. §45): Defendants misrepresented their privacy prac
Count V – Breach of Contract (Terms of Service): Defendants breached the terms of service they offered to users by violating their own privacy promises.	ices and failed to disclose tracking. Count V – Breach of Contract (Terms of Service): Defendants breached the terms of service they offered to users by violati
Count VI – Invasion of Privacy (Common Law Tort): Defendants intruded upon the seclusion of users and publicly disclosed private facts without consent.	violating their own privacy promises. Count VI – Invasion of Privacy (Common Law Tort): Defendants intruded upon the seclusion of users and publicly disclosed p

238.4 Dollar Figures (70)

$1.40 · $1.41 · $4.50 · $4.56 · $20.50 · $45.60 · $500.00 · $575.00 · $719.00 · $764.80 · $820.00 · $868.00 · $1,157.00 · $5,000.00 · $5,800.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $11,570.00 · $19,395.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $52,065.00 · $69,420.00 · $100,000.00 · $347,977.00 · $694,200.00 · $1,163,662.00 · $3,123,900.00 · $4,165,200.00 · $20,878,600.00 · $41,652,000.00 · $69,819,700.00 · $74,973,600.00 · $99,964,800.00 · $501,086,400.00 · $524,815,200.00 · $699,753,600.00 · $999,648,000.00 · $1,675,672,800.00 · $2,282,150,400.00 · $3,042,879,744.00 · $3,507,604,800.00 · $6,846,451,200.00 · $6,997,536,000.00 · $9,128,639,232.00 · $11,729,709,600.00 · $13,692,902,400.00 · $15,253,044,864.00 · $18,257,278,464.00 · $27,385,804,800.00 · $30,428,797,440.00 · $34,232,256,000.00 · $36,514,556,928.00 · $45,643,196,160.00 · $45,759,134,592.00 · $50,986,424,448.00 · $91,286,392,320.00 · $91,518,269,184.00 · $152,959,273,344.00 · $182,572,784,640.00 · $183,036,538,368.00 · $228,795,672,960.00 · $305,918,546,688.00 · $365,145,569,280.00 · $456,431,961,600.00 · $500,000,000,000.00 · $611,837,093,376.00 · $764,796,366,720.00 · $1,415,000,000,000.00 · $2,500,000,000,000.00

238.5 Dates (2)

2025-05-26 · 2026-08-27

Section 239 of 261

Section 239 — FORENSIC AUDIT REPORT – Target 28: Blinq Digital Business Card (Michelle High)

Source File	FORENSIC-0239-audit-buyers-agent-c5329552.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-26 15:34:28
Size	46,492 bytes
SHA-256	c5329552bb3a4efd27757cd76f637b51e63d33fec7728bc4ec186dae3c713e08

239.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

239.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (25)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	/ladcodefense2.com Audit Authority: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	Audit Authority: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U
10 U.S.C. § 2304	y: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S
47 U.S.C. § 230	1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.
5 U.S.C. § 552	2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiret
18 U.S.C. § 2511	. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA);
18 U.S.C. § 1030	y Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	(Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal
15 U.S.C. § 6801	30 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA
Civ. Code § 1798.100	FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 2
42 U.S.C. § 12181	Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508);
29 U.S.C. § 794	0 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-S
15 U.S.C. § 7701	(ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-SPAM); 15 U.S.C. § 6501 (COPPA); G
15 U.S.C. § 6501	tion 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-SPAM); 15 U.S.C. § 6501 (COPPA); GDPR (EU) 2016/679; ePrivacy D
GDPR Art. 32	S.C. § 1030 (unauthorized access risk); GDPR Art. 32 (security of processing). <html> roo
GDPR Art. 5	prior explicit consent. Critical GDPR Art. 5(1)(a), Art. 6(1)(a), Art. 7; ePrivacy D
Civ. Code § 1798.100(b)	acy Directive Art. 5(3); CCPA/CPRA Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100(b); Wiretap Act 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (unauthor
GDPR Art. 13	or third‑party sharing. Critical GDPR Art. 13‑14 (transparency); CCPA Cal. Civ. Code
Civ. Code § 1798.100(a)(3)	PR Art. 13‑14 (transparency); CCPA Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100(a)(3); GLBA 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (privacy notice)
Prof. Code § 22575	C. § 6801 (privacy notice); Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22575; UN Guiding Principles (Principle 16 –
GDPR Art. 7	Privacy Directive 2002/58/EC Art. 5(3); GDPR Art. 7; CCPA Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.135 (right
Civ. Code § 1798.135	58/EC Art. 5(3); GDPR Art. 7; CCPA Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.135 (right to opt‑out); Cal. Civ. Code § 17
Prof. Code § 17200	C Act § 5 (deceptive acts); Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200; EU Unfair Commercial Practices Directi
18 U.S.C. § 2520(c)	lation. Treble damages are sought under 18 U.S.C. § 2520(c) — $10,000 per violation + treble damag
Civ. Code § 1798.150	Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA/CPRA), Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150 Defendants failed to provide notice

239.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (8)

Header	Source excerpt
COUNT I – Violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (Wiretap Act), 18 U.S.C. § 2511	Blinq card service ( Target 28 ). COUNT I – Violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (Wiretap Act), 18 U.S.C. § 2511 Defendants intentionally inte
COUNT II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. § 1030	ers × $10,000 × 3 = $75,000,000. COUNT II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. § 1030 Defendants accessed, without author
COUNT III – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA/CPRA), Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150	sers × $5,000 × 3 = $37,500,000. COUNT III – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA/CPRA), Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150 Defendants failed to provid
COUNT IV – Violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act § 5, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	00 users × $7,500 = $18,750,000. COUNT IV – Violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act § 5, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) Defendants engaged in unfair and de
COUNT V – Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12181	$50,120 × 2,500 = $125,300,000. COUNT V – Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12181 The digital business card is a publ
COUNT VI – Violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) – Art. 83(5)	$75,000 × 2,500 = $187,500,000. COUNT VI – Violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) – Art. 83(5) The processing of personal data of
COUNT VII – Violation of the ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC	,000,000 plus statutory damages. COUNT VII – Violation of the ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC Storage and access to information o
COUNT VIII – Violation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights	users × €250,000 ≈ $680,000,000. COUNT VIII – Violation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights Failure to respect privacy rights t

239.4 Dollar Figures (36)

$50.00 · $100.00 · $750.00 · $2,500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $25,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $75,000.00 · $150,000.00 · $272,000.00 · $2,000,000.00 · $12,110,000.00 · $18,750,000.00 · $18,942,500.00 · $27,360,000.00 · $31,250,000.00 · $37,500,000.00 · $75,000,000.00 · $119,460,625.00 · $125,000,000.00 · $125,300,000.00 · $144,050,000.00 · $187,500,000.00 · $680,000,000.00 · $805,300,000.00 · $940,134,375.00 · $1,249,550,000.00 · $1,347,200,000.00 · $1,366,142,500.00 · $2,720,000,000.00 · $3,760,537,500.00 · $5,014,050,000.00

239.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 240 of 261

Section 240 — Forensic Audit Report – Hearst Homepage (index.html)

Source File	FORENSIC-0240-forensic-audit-hearst-homepage-4eb97ea5.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-27 19:31:10
Size	25,650 bytes
SHA-256	4eb97ea507459ed26571914189a623e5b638fe724e7952eb03709609078ea893

240.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All individuals whose personal data was collected, used, or disclosed by the Defendants without valid consent (
defendant	Hearst Communications	without valid consent (Class Action). Defendants: Hearst Communications, Inc., and any subsidiaries, affiliates, and third‑party service providers involved in t

240.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (10)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 1030	ial Reflected XSS Medium CFAA, FTC Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030 <form action="search-result" method="ge
Civ. Code § 1798.100	Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA/CPRA) – Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100: Hearst is a “business” that collects p
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	tion. • Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): The practice of collecting and sharin
18 U.S.C. § 2511	$50,120 per violation. • Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): The interception of electronic commun
15 U.S.C. § 6801	20. • Gramm‑Leach‑Bliley Act (GLBA) – 15 U.S.C. § 6801: If the site collects any financial inf
15 U.S.C. § 6501	d; included for completeness) COPPA (15 U.S.C. § 6501) $51,744 per violation Violation #1 (if
28 U.S.C. § 1746	re under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 that the foregoing audit has been condu
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

240.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (5)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (Wiretap Act), 18 U.S.C. § 2511 et seq.: Defendants intentionally intercepted and disclosed electronic communications (user browsing data, key	c., as co‑conspirators). Counts: Count I – Violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (Wiretap Act), 18 U.S.C. § 2511 et seq.: Defendants intentiona
Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. § 1030: Defendants’ failure to implement adequate security measures (CSP, input sanitization, secure cookies) enabled unauthorized ac	ion constitutes a separate violation. Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. § 1030: Defendants’ failure to implement adequa
Count III – Violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive acts by failing to disclose the extent of tracking and data sharing, and by failing to o	f unauthorized access is a violation. Count III – Violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive a
Count IV – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA/CPRA), Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100: Defendants collected and sold/shared consumers’ personal information without providing a clear opt‑out mecha	l consent, thereby harming consumers. Count IV – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA/CPRA), Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100: Defendants collected a
Count V – Violation of the GDPR (EU) 2016/679 and ePrivacy Directive: Defendants processed personal data of EU residents without a valid legal basis, including lack of explicit consent for cookies and tracki	rights to know, delete, and opt‑out. Count V – Violation of the GDPR (EU) 2016/679 and ePrivacy Directive: Defendants processed personal data of EU residents wi

240.4 Dollar Figures (15)

$8.14 · $450.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $15,000.00 · $30,000.00 · $45,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $100,000.00 · $272,500.00 · $769,364.00 · $814,364.00 · $8,143,640,000,000.00

240.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 241 of 261

Section 241 — Forensic Audit Report – RealOpen Contact Page

Source File	FORENSIC-0241-cowboy-wyhoming-audit-361062bf.html
Created	July 27, 2026
Modified	2026-07-27 16:50:29
Size	30,888 bytes
SHA-256	361062bfdd96ab19eb1c0417a5ec91c0de3ee24ba1169b0b6a81fa348bc95627

241.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) – including residents of
defendant	RealOpen Group	ct of Columbia, and EU member states. Defendants: RealOpen Group, Inc., and any third-party data processors (Cloudflare, Google, etc.) as joint tort

241.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (19)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 2511	cit consent, violating the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511), the Communications Act (47 U.S.C. § 6
47 U.S.C. § 605	U.S.C. § 2511), the Communications Act (47 U.S.C. § 605), and the GDPR. No cookie consent banne
18 U.S.C. § 1343	d submissions and potential wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343). The cumulative effect is a failure to
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	und to be Materially Non-Compliant with 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), 15 U.S.C. § 6801, Cal. Civ. Code § 179
15 U.S.C. § 6801	y Non-Compliant with 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), 15 U.S.C. § 6801, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100, GDPR, and 4
Civ. Code § 1798.100	U.S.C. § 45(a), 15 U.S.C. § 6801, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100, GDPR, and 47 U.S.C. § 605. 2. Vio
GDPR Art. 32	High 15 U.S.C. § 45(a); NIST SP 800-53; GDPR Art. 32; 18 U.S.C. § 1030 Entire file – no CSP
18 U.S.C. § 1030	§ 45(a); NIST SP 800-53; GDPR Art. 32; 18 U.S.C. § 1030 Entire file – no CSP meta tag or header
GDPR Art. 5	High 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 47 U.S.C. § 605; GDPR Art. 5-7; ePrivacy Directive Cloudflare Beacon
GDPR Art. 13	nism High CCPA § 1798.100; GLBA § 6801; GDPR Art. 13; ePrivacy Directive No cookie banner, p
15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(A)	es of up to $50,120 per violation under 15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(A). • NIST SP 800-53 (Security Controls)
40 U.S.C. § 11331	P 800-53 (Security Controls) and FISMA (40 U.S.C. § 11331): The absence of CSP violates control S
GDPR Article 32	ficiency that invites exploitation. • GDPR Article 32 (Security of Processing): The failure t
18 U.S.C. § 2510(12)	is an "electronic communication" under 18 U.S.C. § 2510(12). The data is captured and sent to third
Civ. Code § 1798.155(b)	.S.C. § 6801 $100,000 #5 CCPA – Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.155(b) $7,500 #5 GDPR (min per violation) €
28 U.S.C. § 1746	re under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 that the foregoing audit has been condu
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

241.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (6)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) and 47 U.S.C. § 605: Defendants unlawfully intercepted, disclosed, and used plaintiffs' electronic communications (IP addresses, browsing data) witho	.) as joint tortfeasors. Counts: Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) and 47 U.S.C. § 605: Defendants unlawfully intercepted, disclosed, an
Count II – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive acts by failing to implement basic security controls (CSP, CSRF tokens, input sanitization) and exposing API	tion, trebled, and injunctive relief. Count II – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive acts by failing to imp
Count III – Violation of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Defendants failed to provide a clear privacy notice at the point of collection, violating the GLBA's privacy rule. Plaintiffs seek statut	per violation and injunctive relief. Count III – Violation of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Defendants failed to provide a clear privacy notice
Count IV – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Defendants collected personal information without providing a privacy notice at collection and without an opt-out mecha	per violation and corrective action. Count IV – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Defendants collected personal info
Count V – Violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (EU) 2016/679: Defendants processed personal data without a lawful basis, without consent, and without providing information, and transfer	tory damages of $7,500 per violation. Count V – Violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (EU) 2016/679: Defendants processed personal data wit
Count VI – Violation of the ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC: Defendants stored or accessed information on user devices (cookies) without prior consent. Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief.	obal turnover, and injunctive relief. Count VI – Violation of the ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC: Defendants stored or accessed information on user devices (cook

241.4 Dollar Figures (22)

$1.00 · $1.20 · $303.00 · $452.80 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $30,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $270,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $3,000,000.00 · $750,000,000.00 · $3,000,000,000.00 · $10,000,000,000.00 · $11,000,000,000.00 · $20,048,000,000.00 · $54,000,000,000.00 · $300,000,000,000.00 · $303,000,000,000.00 · $452,798,000,000.00

241.5 Dates (1)

2026-07-27

Section 242 of 261

Section 242 — Forensic Audit Report – United Nations Homepage

Source File	FORENSIC-0242-un-audit-637d6245.html
Created	July 27, 2026
Modified	2026-07-27 17:04:09
Size	31,142 bytes
SHA-256	637d6245d48163b678843a77793d67b368fed1ebb704d1b9fe1c88056055c7b1

242.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) – including residents of
defendant	The United Nations	ct of Columbia, and EU member states. Defendants: The United Nations, the UN Secretariat, and any third-party data processors (Google LLC, etc.) as joint tortfe

242.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (19)

Citation	Source excerpt
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	und to be Materially Non-Compliant with 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), 15 U.S.C. § 6801, Cal. Civ. Code § 179
15 U.S.C. § 6801	y Non-Compliant with 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), 15 U.S.C. § 6801, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100, GDPR (EU) 2
Civ. Code § 1798.100	U.S.C. § 45(a), 15 U.S.C. § 6801, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100, GDPR (EU) 2016/679, ePrivacy Directive
18 U.S.C. § 2511	679, ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC, and 18 U.S.C. § 2511. This report refers the matter to the UN
47 U.S.C. § 605	Google Analytics High 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 47 U.S.C. § 605; GDPR Art. 5-7; ePrivacy Directive Line
GDPR Art. 5	High 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 47 U.S.C. § 605; GDPR Art. 5-7; ePrivacy Directive Lines: GTM-PD5P6B
GDPR Art. 32	High 15 U.S.C. § 45(a); NIST SP 800-53; GDPR Art. 32; 18 U.S.C. § 1030 Entire file – no CSP
18 U.S.C. § 1030	§ 45(a); NIST SP 800-53; GDPR Art. 32; 18 U.S.C. § 1030 Entire file – no CSP meta tag or header
18 U.S.C. § 1343	Missing CSRF Token in Search Form High 18 U.S.C. § 1343; FTC Act § 5(a); OWASP Top 10 Search fo
GDPR Art. 13	nism High CCPA § 1798.100; GLBA § 6801; GDPR Art. 13; ePrivacy Directive No consent banner;
18 U.S.C. § 2510(12)	is an "electronic communication" under 18 U.S.C. § 2510(12). The GTM/GA scripts capture the "conten
15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(A)	es of up to $50,120 per violation under 15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(A). • NIST SP 800-53 (Security Controls)
40 U.S.C. § 11331	P 800-53 (Security Controls) and FISMA (40 U.S.C. § 11331): The absence of CSP violates control S
GDPR Article 32	ficiency that invites exploitation. • GDPR Article 32 (Security of Processing): The failure t
Civ. Code § 1798.155(b)	.S.C. § 6801 $100,000 #4 CCPA – Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.155(b) $7,500 #4 GDPR (min per violation) €
28 U.S.C. § 1746	re under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 that the foregoing audit has been condu
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

242.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (6)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) and 47 U.S.C. § 605: Defendants unlawfully intercepted, disclosed, and used plaintiffs' electronic communications (IP addresses, browsing data) witho	.) as joint tortfeasors. Counts: Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) and 47 U.S.C. § 605: Defendants unlawfully intercepted, disclosed, an
Count II – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive acts by failing to implement basic security controls (CSP, CSRF tokens, SRI) and exposing plaintiffs to XSS	tion, trebled, and injunctive relief. Count II – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive acts by failing to imp
Count III – Violation of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Defendants failed to provide a clear privacy notice at the point of collection, violating the GLBA's privacy rule. Plaintiffs seek statut	per violation and injunctive relief. Count III – Violation of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Defendants failed to provide a clear privacy notice
Count IV – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Defendants collected personal information without providing a privacy notice at collection and without an opt-out mecha	per violation and corrective action. Count IV – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Defendants collected personal info
Count V – Violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (EU) 2016/679: Defendants processed personal data without a lawful basis, without consent, and without providing information, and transfer	tory damages of $7,500 per violation. Count V – Violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (EU) 2016/679: Defendants processed personal data wit
Count VI – Violation of the ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC: Defendants stored or accessed information on user devices (cookies) without prior consent. Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief.	obal turnover, and injunctive relief. Count VI – Violation of the ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC: Defendants stored or accessed information on user devices (cook

242.4 Dollar Figures (23)

$1.00 · $15.00 · $45.00 · $303.00 · $452.79 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $30,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $270,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $3,000,000.00 · $750,000,000,000.00 · $3,000,000,000,000.00 · $10,000,000,000,000.00 · $11,000,000,000,000.00 · $20,048,000,000,000.00 · $54,000,000,000,000.00 · $300,000,000,000,000.00 · $303,000,000,000,000.00 · $452,798,000,000,000.00

242.5 Dates (1)

2026-07-27

Section 243 of 261

Section 243 — Forensic Audit Report – CNN International Homepage (part 2)

Source File	FORENSIC-0243-cnn-audit-part-2-9-acac2df1.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-27 07:31:33
Size	30,507 bytes
SHA-256	acac2df12c82fc24433c53875cf77c01ae4874bffa3525973092bda0c5d885d1

243.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) – estimated 10 million da
defendant	Warner Bros. Discovery	sitors to CNN International homepage. Defendants: Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc.; CNN; Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.;

243.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (18)

Citation	Source excerpt
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	Distinction from Editorial Content High 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 47 U.S.C. § 605; GDPR Art. 5
47 U.S.C. § 605	ntent High 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 47 U.S.C. § 605; GDPR Art. 5(1)(a), 6 CSS definitions f
GDPR Art. 5	.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 47 U.S.C. § 605; GDPR Art. 5(1)(a), 6 CSS definitions for `.ad-slot`
18 U.S.C. § 2511	rivacy Directive Art. 5(3); Wiretap Act 18 U.S.C. § 2511 Media queries and `.ad-slot:not(.adSlot
Civ. Code § 1798.135	sing Opt‑Out Link Visibility) High Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.135; GDPR Art. 7, 4(11); FTC Act § 5 Stylin
GDPR Art. 7	bility) High Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.135; GDPR Art. 7, 4(11); FTC Act § 5 Styling of user‑acc
29 U.S.C. § 794	mpliance for Privacy Disclosures Medium 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508); ADA 42 U.S.C. § 12181 C
42 U.S.C. § 12181	ium 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508); ADA 42 U.S.C. § 12181 CSS does not ensure that consent and pr
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)	other identifiers without consent. • 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a) – "intentionally intercepts, endeavors
GDPR Art. 6	te collection without prior notice. • GDPR Art. 6(1)(a) – Processing requires lawful basi
Civ. Code § 1798.135(a)	Statutory Expansion (3×): • Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.135(a) – "A business that sells or shares cons
GDPR Art. 12	ies equal access to privacy rights. • GDPR Art. 12(1) – Information provided must be "conc
15 U.S.C. § 45	per violation Applies to FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45) – Deceptive Ad Placement $50,120 Viola
Regulation (EU) 2016/679	pt out. Count IV – Violation of GDPR (Regulation (EU) 2016/679) : Defendants processed personal data w
28 U.S.C. § 1746	re under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 that the foregoing audit has been condu
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

243.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (7)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Deceptive Trade Practices (FTC Act 15 U.S.C. § 45) : Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive acts by integrating advertising content into editorial layouts without adequate disclosure, misleadin	ocessing and ad selling. Counts: Count I – Deceptive Trade Practices (FTC Act 15 U.S.C. § 45) : Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive acts by integrating a
Count II – Violation of CCPA § 1798.100 : Defendants failed to provide notice of the categories of personal information collected and the purposes of collection before or at the point of collection, as eviden	ollect personal data without consent. Count II – Violation of CCPA § 1798.100 : Defendants failed to provide notice of the categories of personal information co
Count III – Violation of CCPA § 1798.135 : Defendants failed to provide a clear and conspicuous "Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information" link on their homepage, thereby denying consumers the right to opt	ad slots and tracking infrastructure. Count III – Violation of CCPA § 1798.135 : Defendants failed to provide a clear and conspicuous "Do Not Sell or Share My P
Count IV – Violation of GDPR (Regulation (EU) 2016/679) : Defendants processed personal data without a valid legal basis, failed to obtain freely given, specific, informed, and unambiguous consent, and violat	nying consumers the right to opt out. Count IV – Violation of GDPR (Regulation (EU) 2016/679) : Defendants processed personal data without a valid legal basis,
Count V – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) : Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications (user browsing data, device identifiers) without authorisation, using the ad deliver	ts to access, erasure, and objection. Count V – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) : Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications
Count VI – Violation of the ePrivacy Directive (2002/58/EC) : Defendants stored or accessed information on users' terminal equipment without prior consent, facilitated by the pre‑loaded ad slot placeholders.	using the ad delivery infrastructure. Count VI – Violation of the ePrivacy Directive (2002/58/EC) : Defendants stored or accessed information on users' terminal
Count VII – Violation of Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d) and ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12181) : Defendants failed to make privacy and consent controls accessible to individuals with disabilities, denying equal access to	the pre‑loaded ad slot placeholders. Count VII – Violation of Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d) and ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12181) : Defendants failed to make privacy and

243.4 Dollar Figures (21)

$0.07 · $0.50 · $0.75 · $2.75 · $2.92 · $4.75 · $4.95 · $100.00 · $200.00 · $300.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $75,000.00 · $75,000,000,000.00 · $100,000,000,000.00 · $501,200,000,000.00 · $750,000,000,000.00 · $4,952,000,000,000.00 · $14,856,000,000,000.00

243.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 244 of 261

Section 244 — Forensic Audit Report – CNN International Homepage

Source File	FORENSIC-0244-cnn-audit-part-1-9-dc01a0e6.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-27 07:27:47
Size	28,818 bytes
SHA-256	dc01a0e6f21e0944b641aae1ea4c70f8cc25b3a01c402bf68f05acbed1a21850

244.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) – estimated 10 million da
defendant	Warner Bros. Discovery	sitors to CNN International homepage. Defendants: Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc.; CNN; Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.;

244.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (26)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 1343	nstitutes unauthorized wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 and unlawful interception under 47 U.S.
47 U.S.C. § 605	§ 1343 and unlawful interception under 47 U.S.C. § 605, as these systems actively transmit per
18 U.S.C. § 2511	s and Preconnects High 47 U.S.C. § 605; 18 U.S.C. § 2511; GDPR Art. 5, 6; ePrivacy Art. 5(3) Lin
GDPR Art. 5	High 47 U.S.C. § 605; 18 U.S.C. § 2511; GDPR Art. 5, 6; ePrivacy Art. 5(3) Lines 4‑46 (prec
GDPR Art. 7	nt Implementation High CCPA § 1798.100; GDPR Art. 7, 4(11); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); Ca
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	gh CCPA § 1798.100; GDPR Art. 7, 4(11); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.135 Li
Civ. Code § 1798.135	(11); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.135 Lines 394‑395 (massive WBD consent scri
GDPR Art. 4	s Without Opt‑Out High CCPA § 1798.120; GDPR Art. 4(10), 21; 47 U.S.C. § 605(a) Lines 87 (w
47 U.S.C. § 605(a)	h CCPA § 1798.120; GDPR Art. 4(10), 21; 47 U.S.C. § 605(a) Lines 87 (window.CNN.ads registry with
47 U.S.C. § 301	atic Ad Auctions High 18 U.S.C. § 1343; 47 U.S.C. § 301; 47 U.S.C. § 333 Lines 87 (ADFUEL, Preb
47 U.S.C. § 333	High 18 U.S.C. § 1343; 47 U.S.C. § 301; 47 U.S.C. § 333 Lines 87 (ADFUEL, Prebid, A9, Rubicon,
5 U.S.C. § 552	isms High GLBA § 6801; CCPA § 1798.135; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act) Absence of clear, conspi
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)	browsing activity without consent. • 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a) – "intentionally intercepts, endeavors
15 U.S.C. § 45	ide a "reject all" option. • FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45) – The use of dark patterns to obtain c
Civ. Code § 1798.120	the FTC has repeatedly warned. • Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.120 – Consumers have the right to opt out o
GDPR Art. 21	clear and conspicuous" as required. • GDPR Art. 21 – Right to object to processing for dir
15 U.S.C. § 6501	ut the user's authorization. • COPPA (15 U.S.C. § 6501) – If any user is under 13, the collect
15 U.S.C. § 6801	552a) for U.S. citizens, and the GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801) which requires financial institutions
GDPR Art. 13	uch notice is provided in the file. • GDPR Art. 13 – Information to be provided at the tim
GDPR Art. 83	× users = $2.75 trillion; however, per GDPR Art. 83, the maximum fine is €20 million or 4%
Civil Code § 1798.120	alifornia Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) – Civil Code § 1798.120 : Defendants sold and shared personal i
Regulation (EU) 2016/679	or sale. Count V – Violation of GDPR (Regulation (EU) 2016/679) : Defendants processed personal data w
28 U.S.C. § 1746	re under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 that the foregoing audit has been condu
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

244.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (7)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) : Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications (browsing data) without consent, using preconnect and tracking scripts, resulting in	ocessing and ad selling. Counts: Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) : Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications (bro
Count II – Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605 (Unauthorized Publication or Use of Communications) : Defendants unlawfully intercepted and used radio/wire communications (user data) for commercial gain without autho	ting in damages to each class member. Count II – Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605 (Unauthorized Publication or Use of Communications) : Defendants unlawfully interc
Count III – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343) : Defendants devised a scheme to defraud users by misrepresenting data collection practices, obtained advertising revenue through these misrepresentations, and transmi	ommercial gain without authorization. Count III – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343) : Defendants devised a scheme to defraud users by misrepresenting data collectio
Count IV – Violation of California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) – Civil Code § 1798.120 : Defendants sold and shared personal information without providing a clear and conspicuous opt‑out mechanism, and withou	a via interstate wire communications. Count IV – Violation of California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) – Civil Code § 1798.120 : Defendants sold and shared person
Count V – Violation of GDPR (Regulation (EU) 2016/679) : Defendants processed personal data without a valid legal basis, failed to obtain freely given, specific, informed, and unambiguous consent, and violat	obtaining explicit consent for sale. Count V – Violation of GDPR (Regulation (EU) 2016/679) : Defendants processed personal data without a valid legal basis, fa
Count VI – Unfair and Deceptive Practices (FTC Act 15 U.S.C. § 45) : The consent modal and data practices are unfair and deceptive, harming consumers.	ts to access, erasure, and objection. Count VI – Unfair and Deceptive Practices (FTC Act 15 U.S.C. § 45) : The consent modal and data practices are unfair and d
Count VII – Violation of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) : For U.S. citizens, the collection and sharing of records without consent violates the Act.	air and deceptive, harming consumers. Count VII – Violation of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) : For U.S. citizens, the collection and sharing of records with

244.4 Dollar Figures (23)

$1.10 · $1.60 · $2.75 · $10.00 · $14.42 · $30.00 · $40.00 · $43.27 · $75.00 · $501.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $110,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $75,000,000,000.00 · $501,200,000,000.00 · $1,100,000,000,000.00 · $10,000,000,000,000.00 · $43,278,000,000,000.00 · $129,834,000,000,000.00

244.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 245 of 261

Section 245 — Forensic Audit Report – Target File

Source File	FORENSIC-0245-cnn-audit-part-6-9-c8319813.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-27 07:50:21
Size	19,147 bytes
SHA-256	c8319813f0fb2d1cde04e195d58bb4836b7d0fe34159f9aa4e17192ba12ebc93

245.1 Parties (1)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: CNN (Turne

245.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (12)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 2511	d Analytics Attributes (Continued) High 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 47 U.S.C. § 605; GDPR Art. 5, 7; CCPA
47 U.S.C. § 605	utes (Continued) High 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 47 U.S.C. § 605; GDPR Art. 5, 7; CCPA Lines 10078-10098
GDPR Art. 5	High 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 47 U.S.C. § 605; GDPR Art. 5, 7; CCPA Lines 10078-10098, 10160-10180
GDPR Art. 7	out Explicit Consent (Continued) Medium GDPR Art. 7, ePrivacy Directive; FTC Act Lines 1009
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	G) Medium NIST SP 800-53; OWASP Top 10; 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) Lines 3971, 4020, 4141, 4355 (duplicate
18 U.S.C. § 1030	Inline Event Handlers (XSS Vector) High 18 U.S.C. § 1030; OWASP A7:2017; NIST SI-10 Lines 10098-
18 U.S.C. § 2520	per violation plus treble damages under 18 U.S.C. § 2520. • 47 U.S.C. § 605 (Unauthorized Publi
Civ. Code § 1798.100	al annual turnover. • CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): California consumers have the right t
28 U.S.C. § 1746	re under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 that the foregoing audit has been condu
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

245.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (5)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications of Plaintiffs without consent through pervasive tracking attributes (data-zjs, analyt	party analytics vendors. Counts: Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications of Pl
Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants, without authorization, exceeded authorized access by transmitting user data to third-party servers and failing to imple	alytics) deployed on the CNN website. Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants, without authorization, exceeded a
Count III – Violation of CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Defendants sold or shared personal information of California residents without providing an effective opt-out mechanism, and without prior consen	ausing damage to protected computers. Count III – Violation of CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Defendants sold or shared personal information of Californ
Count IV – Violation of GDPR (Articles 5, 7, 32): Defendants processed personal data of EU residents without lawful basis, failed to obtain explicit consent for tracking and autoplay media, and neglected to i	mechanism, and without prior consent. Count IV – Violation of GDPR (Articles 5, 7, 32): Defendants processed personal data of EU residents without lawful basis,
Count V – Unfair and Deceptive Practices (FTC Act § 5): Defendants engaged in unfair practices by employing dark patterns (autoplay, hidden tracking) that deceive consumers and expose them to privacy harms.	ropriate technical security measures. Count V – Unfair and Deceptive Practices (FTC Act § 5): Defendants engaged in unfair practices by employing dark patterns

245.4 Dollar Figures (18)

$2.25 · $4.50 · $6.75 · $42.00 · $81.50 · $100.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $75,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $400,000,000.00 · $168,750,000,000.00 · $750,000,000,000.00 · $1,500,000,000,000.00 · $11,250,000,000,000.00 · $16,500,000,000,000.00

245.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 246 of 261

Section 246 — Forensic Audit Report – CNN International Homepage (part 3)

Source File	FORENSIC-0246-cnn-audit-part-3-9-ee53aa07.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-27 07:35:16
Size	29,331 bytes
SHA-256	ee53aa075dab2f6da1f9499097437fe7d38604b818a93ef0ed2a4a92ba71c985

246.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) – estimated 10 million da
defendant	Warner Bros. Discovery	sitors to CNN International homepage. Defendants: Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc.; CNN; Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.;

246.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (15)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 2511	titutes a violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) and the CCPA because user interactions
15 U.S.C. § 45	eceptive practice violates the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45) and the GDPR's principle of fairness a
GDPR Art. 5	High 18 U.S.C. § 2511; CCPA § 1798.100; GDPR Art. 5(1)(a), 6 Lines 597‑717 (ad-feedback mod
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	Between Ads and Editorial Content High 15 U.S.C. § 45(a); GDPR Art. 5(1)(a); CCPA § 1798.135 CSS
47 U.S.C. § 605	gh Responsive Ad Slot Placeholders High 47 U.S.C. § 605; ePrivacy Directive Art. 5(3); Wiretap
29 U.S.C. § 794	rols for Users with Disabilities Medium 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508); ADA 42 U.S.C. § 12181 C
42 U.S.C. § 12181	ium 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508); ADA 42 U.S.C. § 12181 CSS lacks sufficient contrast and focus
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)	ven. Statutory Expansion (3×): • 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a) – "intentionally intercepts, endeavors
GDPR Art. 6	sclosing how the data will be used. • GDPR Art. 6(1)(a) – Processing requires a lawful ba
GDPR Art. 12	ies equal access to privacy rights. • GDPR Art. 12(1) – Information must be "concise, tran
Regulation (EU) 2016/679	opt out. Count V – Violation of GDPR (Regulation (EU) 2016/679) : Defendants processed personal data w
28 U.S.C. § 1746	re under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 that the foregoing audit has been condu
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

246.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (7)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) : Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications (feedback form submissions, ad interaction data) without consent, using the ad‑feedb	ocessing and ad selling. Counts: Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) : Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications (fee
Count II – Deceptive Trade Practices (FTC Act 15 U.S.C. § 45) : Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive acts by integrating advertising content into editorial layouts without adequate disclosure, misleadin	ack modal and ad slot infrastructure. Count II – Deceptive Trade Practices (FTC Act 15 U.S.C. § 45) : Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive acts by integra
Count III – Violation of CCPA § 1798.100 : Defendants failed to provide notice of the categories of personal information collected and the purposes of collection before or at the point of collection, as eviden	ollect personal data without consent. Count III – Violation of CCPA § 1798.100 : Defendants failed to provide notice of the categories of personal information c
Count IV – Violation of CCPA § 1798.135 : Defendants failed to provide a clear and conspicuous "Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information" link on their homepage, thereby denying consumers the right to opt	edback modal and ad slot pre‑loading. Count IV – Violation of CCPA § 1798.135 : Defendants failed to provide a clear and conspicuous "Do Not Sell or Share My Pe
Count V – Violation of GDPR (Regulation (EU) 2016/679) : Defendants processed personal data without a valid legal basis, failed to obtain freely given, specific, informed, and unambiguous consent, and violat	nying consumers the right to opt out. Count V – Violation of GDPR (Regulation (EU) 2016/679) : Defendants processed personal data without a valid legal basis, f
Count VI – Violation of the ePrivacy Directive (2002/58/EC) : Defendants stored or accessed information on users' terminal equipment without prior consent, facilitated by the responsive ad slot placeholders.	ts to access, erasure, and objection. Count VI – Violation of the ePrivacy Directive (2002/58/EC) : Defendants stored or accessed information on users' terminal
Count VII – Violation of Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d) and ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12181) : Defendants failed to make privacy and consent controls accessible to individuals with disabilities, denying equal access to	the responsive ad slot placeholders. Count VII – Violation of Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d) and ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12181) : Defendants failed to make privacy and

246.4 Dollar Figures (24)

$0.50 · $0.75 · $2.75 · $2.92 · $3.32 · $5.67 · $13.17 · $13.57 · $75.00 · $100.00 · $200.00 · $400.00 · $600.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $75,000.00 · $75,000,000,000.00 · $100,000,000,000.00 · $501,200,000,000.00 · $750,000,000,000.00 · $13,577,400,000,000.00 · $40,732,200,000,000.00

246.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 247 of 261

Section 247 — Forensic Audit Report – CNN Navigation Fragment (Part 7 of 9)

Source File	FORENSIC-0247-cnn-audit-part-7-9-aa224026.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-27 08:00:44
Size	27,502 bytes
SHA-256	aa22402639fe70bbea267d144a9ce7b71c35c0dcf6759d2e7003d282e780ec90

247.1 Parties (1)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: CNN, Warne

247.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (13)

Citation	Source excerpt
GDPR Art. 5	Telemetry via data-zjs Attributes High GDPR Art. 5(1)(a), Art. 6(1); ePrivacy Directive Ar
18 U.S.C. §2511	Art. 5(3); CCPA §1798.100; Wiretap Act 18 U.S.C. §2511; CFAA 18 U.S.C. §1030 Lines 15015–16310
18 U.S.C. §1030	.100; Wiretap Act 18 U.S.C. §2511; CFAA 18 U.S.C. §1030 Lines 15015–16310 (navigation elements)
GDPR Art. 7	hanisms for Tracking and Profiling High GDPR Art. 7, Art. 22; ePrivacy Directive Art. 5(3);
Civ. Code §1798.100	. 5(3); FTC Act §5(a); GLBA §6801; Cal. Civ. Code §1798.100 No explicit opt‑in/consent UI present i
15 U.S.C. §45(a)	0,000 per violation. • FTC Act §5(a) (15 U.S.C. §45(a)): The failure to disclose the extent of
15 U.S.C. §6801	ation per day per user. • GLBA §6801 (15 U.S.C. §6801): Financial privacy protections apply t
GDPR Art. 83	Each intercepted click/scroll event GDPR Art. 83 (fines) €250,000 or 4% of global turnov
Civ. Code §1798.150	e California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civ. Code §1798.150: Defendants failed to provide opt‑out m
28 U.S.C. § 1746	re under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 that the foregoing audit has been condu
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

247.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (6)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (Wiretap Act), 18 U.S.C. §2511: Defendants intentionally intercepted, endeavored to intercept, and procured other persons to intercept electro	x) as joint tortfeasors. Counts: Count I – Violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (Wiretap Act), 18 U.S.C. §2511: Defendants intentionally inter
Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. §1030: Defendants exceeded authorized access to users’ devices and computers by installing tracking scripts that collect personal data witho	ion, trebled, plus injunctive relief. Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. §1030: Defendants exceeded authorized access to users’
Count III – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civ. Code §1798.150: Defendants failed to provide opt‑out mechanisms, failed to disclose data collection, and sold/shared personal information	amages, and reasonable attorney fees. Count III – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civ. Code §1798.150: Defendants failed to provide opt‑o
Count IV – Violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the ePrivacy Directive: Defendants processed personal data of EU/UK residents without lawful basis, stored and accessed information on	r is greater), and injunctive relief. Count IV – Violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the ePrivacy Directive: Defendants processed per
Count V – Violation of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. §45(a): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive practices by misrepresenting the extent of tracking and by failing to obtain consent. Plaintiffs seek disgorge	ge, and an order to cease processing. Count V – Violation of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. §45(a): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive practices by misrepresent
Count VI – Violation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Defendants’ tracking practices violate the right to privacy and constitute disproportionate surveillance. Plaintiffs seek a decl	vil penalties, and injunctive relief. Count VI – Violation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Defendants’ tracking practices violate the

247.4 Dollar Figures (22)

$1.20 · $1.50 · $1.60 · $2.10 · $5.00 · $7.50 · $8.25 · $9.00 · $30.00 · $150.00 · $150.36 · $200.00 · $750.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $30,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $100,000.00 · $250,000.00 · $2,100,000,000,000.00

247.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 248 of 261

Section 248 — Forensic Audit Report – Target File

Source File	FORENSIC-0248-cnn-audit-part-5-9-50461c12.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-27 07:45:40
Size	20,266 bytes
SHA-256	50461c12f434571c621a137ad0810e2e2f0bb722c36ddd9e5dd82e528f552c45

248.1 Parties (1)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: CNN (Turne

248.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (12)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 2511	d Analytics Attributes (Continued) High 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 47 U.S.C. § 605; GDPR Art. 5, 7; CCPA
47 U.S.C. § 605	utes (Continued) High 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 47 U.S.C. § 605; GDPR Art. 5, 7; CCPA Lines 5487-5511,
GDPR Art. 5	High 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 47 U.S.C. § 605; GDPR Art. 5, 7; CCPA Lines 5487-5511, 5683-5700, 58
GDPR Art. 7	out Explicit Consent (Continued) Medium GDPR Art. 7, ePrivacy Directive; FTC Act Lines 6403
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	G) Medium NIST SP 800-53; OWASP Top 10; 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) Lines 3971, 4020, 4141, 4355 (duplicate
18 U.S.C. § 1030	Inline Event Handlers (XSS Vector) High 18 U.S.C. § 1030; OWASP A7:2017; NIST SI-10 Lines 5105-5
18 U.S.C. § 2520	per violation plus treble damages under 18 U.S.C. § 2520. The continuous nature of tracking acros
Civ. Code § 1798.100	B, yielding $400M). • CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): California consumers have the right t
10 U.S.C. § 2304	tion and is a basis for liability under 10 U.S.C. § 2304 (contractual compliance). • FTC Act §
28 U.S.C. § 1746	re under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 that the foregoing audit has been condu
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f

248.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (5)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications of Plaintiffs without consent through pervasive tracking attributes (data-zjs, analyt	party analytics vendors. Counts: Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications of Pl
Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants, without authorization, exceeded authorized access by transmitting user data to third-party servers and failing to imple	alytics) deployed on the CNN website. Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants, without authorization, exceeded a
Count III – Violation of CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Defendants sold or shared personal information of California residents without providing an effective opt-out mechanism, and without prior consen	ausing damage to protected computers. Count III – Violation of CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Defendants sold or shared personal information of Californ
Count IV – Violation of GDPR (Articles 5, 7, 32): Defendants processed personal data of EU residents without lawful basis, failed to obtain explicit consent for tracking and autoplay media, and neglected to i	mechanism, and without prior consent. Count IV – Violation of GDPR (Articles 5, 7, 32): Defendants processed personal data of EU residents without lawful basis,
Count V – Unfair and Deceptive Practices (FTC Act § 5): Defendants engaged in unfair practices by employing dark patterns (autoplay, hidden tracking) that deceive consumers and expose them to privacy harms.	ropriate technical security measures. Count V – Unfair and Deceptive Practices (FTC Act § 5): Defendants engaged in unfair practices by employing dark patterns

248.4 Dollar Figures (20)

$2.25 · $4.50 · $6.75 · $10.00 · $42.00 · $81.50 · $100.00 · $400.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $75,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $400,000,000.00 · $168,750,000,000.00 · $750,000,000,000.00 · $1,500,000,000,000.00 · $11,250,000,000,000.00 · $16,500,000,000,000.00

248.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 249 of 261

Section 249 — Forensic Audit Report – Target File

Source File	FORENSIC-0249-cnn-audit-part-4-9-ad595504.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-27 07:42:31
Size	21,691 bytes
SHA-256	ad595504288c1df1beb1e2c3de9fab19514cf516c14a1ecfa9311e07622d3324

249.1 Parties (1)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: CNN (Turne

249.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (14)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 1030	sion (No CSRF, No TLS enforcement) High 18 U.S.C. § 1030; 15 U.S.C. § 45(a); GDPR Art. 32 Lines
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	TLS enforcement) High 18 U.S.C. § 1030; 15 U.S.C. § 45(a); GDPR Art. 32 Lines 756-771 (form ad-fe
GDPR Art. 32	gh 18 U.S.C. § 1030; 15 U.S.C. § 45(a); GDPR Art. 32 Lines 756-771 (form ad-feedback) 2 U
18 U.S.C. § 2511	data-zjs and analytics attributes High 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 47 U.S.C. § 605; GDPR Art. 5, 7; CCPA
47 U.S.C. § 605	ytics attributes High 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 47 U.S.C. § 605; GDPR Art. 5, 7; CCPA Lines 824-835, 85
GDPR Art. 5	High 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 47 U.S.C. § 605; GDPR Art. 5, 7; CCPA Lines 824-835, 859-866, 879-89
GDPR Art. 7	Content without Explicit Consent Medium GDPR Art. 7, ePrivacy Directive; FTC Act Lines 4999
18 U.S.C. § 2520	per violation plus treble damages under 18 U.S.C. § 2520. • 47 U.S.C. § 605 (Unauthorized Publi
Civ. Code § 1798.100	of global turnover. • CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Consumers have the right to opt-out o
47 U.S.C. § 301	ciple of transparency and fairness. • 47 U.S.C. § 301 (Unlicensed Radio Transmission): The tr
10 U.S.C. § 2304	tion and is a basis for liability under 10 U.S.C. § 2304 (contractual compliance). • FTC Act §
28 U.S.C. § 1746	re under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 that the foregoing audit has been condu
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f

249.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (5)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications of Plaintiffs without consent through the use of pervasive tracking attributes (data-	party analytics vendors. Counts: Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications of Pl
Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants, without authorization, exceeded authorized access by transmitting user data to third-party servers and failing to imple	ser interactions and behavioral data. Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants, without authorization, exceeded a
Count III – Violation of CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Defendants sold or shared personal information of California residents without providing an effective opt-out mechanism, and without prior consen	ausing damage to protected computers. Count III – Violation of CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Defendants sold or shared personal information of Californ
Count IV – Violation of GDPR (Articles 5, 7, 32): Defendants processed personal data of EU residents without lawful basis, failed to obtain explicit consent for tracking and autoplay media, and neglected to i	mechanism, and without prior consent. Count IV – Violation of GDPR (Articles 5, 7, 32): Defendants processed personal data of EU residents without lawful basis,
Count V – Unfair and Deceptive Practices (FTC Act § 5): Defendants engaged in unfair practices by employing dark patterns (autoplay, hidden tracking) that deceive consumers and expose them to privacy harms.	ropriate technical security measures. Count V – Unfair and Deceptive Practices (FTC Act § 5): Defendants engaged in unfair practices by employing dark patterns

249.4 Dollar Figures (19)

$2.25 · $4.50 · $6.75 · $10.00 · $42.00 · $77.50 · $100.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $75,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $400,000,000.00 · $750,000,000,000.00 · $1,125,000,000,000.00 · $1,500,000,000,000.00 · $11,250,000,000,000.00 · $16,500,000,000,000.00

249.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 250 of 261

Section 250 — Forensic Audit Report – CNN International Homepage

Source File	FORENSIC-0250-ae1-aeed5664.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-27 11:31:58
Size	243,166 bytes
SHA-256	aeed5664673cdb04fd153d7611f1f181896a0d8d6a290c224ec72a019dbfc1be

250.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) – estimated 10 million da
defendant	Warner Bros. Discovery	sitors to CNN International homepage. Defendants: Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc.; CNN; Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.;

250.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (45)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 1343	nstitutes unauthorized wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 and unlawful interception under 47 U.S.
47 U.S.C. § 605	§ 1343 and unlawful interception under 47 U.S.C. § 605, as these systems actively transmit per
18 U.S.C. § 2511	s and Preconnects High 47 U.S.C. § 605; 18 U.S.C. § 2511; GDPR Art. 5, 6; ePrivacy Art. 5(3) Lin
GDPR Art. 5	High 47 U.S.C. § 605; 18 U.S.C. § 2511; GDPR Art. 5, 6; ePrivacy Art. 5(3) Lines 4‑46 (prec
GDPR Art. 7	nt Implementation High CCPA § 1798.100; GDPR Art. 7, 4(11); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); Ca
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	gh CCPA § 1798.100; GDPR Art. 7, 4(11); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.135 Li
Civ. Code § 1798.135	(11); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.135 Lines 394‑395 (massive WBD consent scri
GDPR Art. 4	s Without Opt‑Out High CCPA § 1798.120; GDPR Art. 4(10), 21; 47 U.S.C. § 605(a) Lines 87 (w
47 U.S.C. § 605(a)	h CCPA § 1798.120; GDPR Art. 4(10), 21; 47 U.S.C. § 605(a) Lines 87 (window.CNN.ads registry with
47 U.S.C. § 301	atic Ad Auctions High 18 U.S.C. § 1343; 47 U.S.C. § 301; 47 U.S.C. § 333 Lines 87 (ADFUEL, Preb
47 U.S.C. § 333	High 18 U.S.C. § 1343; 47 U.S.C. § 301; 47 U.S.C. § 333 Lines 87 (ADFUEL, Prebid, A9, Rubicon,
5 U.S.C. § 552	isms High GLBA § 6801; CCPA § 1798.135; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act) Absence of clear, conspi
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)	browsing activity without consent. • 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a) – "intentionally intercepts, endeavors
15 U.S.C. § 45	ide a "reject all" option. • FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45) – The use of dark patterns to obtain c
Civ. Code § 1798.120	the FTC has repeatedly warned. • Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.120 – Consumers have the right to opt out o
GDPR Art. 21	clear and conspicuous" as required. • GDPR Art. 21 – Right to object to processing for dir
15 U.S.C. § 6501	ut the user's authorization. • COPPA (15 U.S.C. § 6501) – If any user is under 13, the collect
15 U.S.C. § 6801	552a) for U.S. citizens, and the GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801) which requires financial institutions
GDPR Art. 13	uch notice is provided in the file. • GDPR Art. 13 – Information to be provided at the tim
GDPR Art. 83	× users = $2.75 trillion; however, per GDPR Art. 83, the maximum fine is €20 million or 4%
Civil Code § 1798.120	alifornia Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) – Civil Code § 1798.120 : Defendants sold and shared personal i
Regulation (EU) 2016/679	or sale. Count V – Violation of GDPR (Regulation (EU) 2016/679) : Defendants processed personal data w
28 U.S.C. § 1746	re under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 that the foregoing audit has been condu
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and
29 U.S.C. § 794	mpliance for Privacy Disclosures Medium 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508); ADA 42 U.S.C. § 12181 C
42 U.S.C. § 12181	ium 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508); ADA 42 U.S.C. § 12181 CSS does not ensure that consent and pr
GDPR Art. 6	te collection without prior notice. • GDPR Art. 6(1)(a) – Processing requires lawful basi
Civ. Code § 1798.135(a)	Statutory Expansion (3×): • Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.135(a) – "A business that sells or shares cons
GDPR Art. 12	ies equal access to privacy rights. • GDPR Art. 12(1) – Information provided must be "conc
18 U.S.C. § 1030	sion (No CSRF, No TLS enforcement) High 18 U.S.C. § 1030; 15 U.S.C. § 45(a); GDPR Art. 32 Lines
GDPR Art. 32	gh 18 U.S.C. § 1030; 15 U.S.C. § 45(a); GDPR Art. 32 Lines 756-771 (form ad-feedback) 2 U
18 U.S.C. § 2520	per violation plus treble damages under 18 U.S.C. § 2520. • 47 U.S.C. § 605 (Unauthorized Publi
Civ. Code § 1798.100	of global turnover. • CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Consumers have the right to opt-out o
18 U.S.C. §2511	Art. 5(3); CCPA §1798.100; Wiretap Act 18 U.S.C. §2511; CFAA 18 U.S.C. §1030 Lines 15015–16310
18 U.S.C. §1030	.100; Wiretap Act 18 U.S.C. §2511; CFAA 18 U.S.C. §1030 Lines 15015–16310 (navigation elements)
Civ. Code §1798.100	. 5(3); FTC Act §5(a); GLBA §6801; Cal. Civ. Code §1798.100 No explicit opt‑in/consent UI present i
15 U.S.C. §45(a)	0,000 per violation. • FTC Act §5(a) (15 U.S.C. §45(a)): The failure to disclose the extent of
15 U.S.C. §6801	ation per day per user. • GLBA §6801 (15 U.S.C. §6801): Financial privacy protections apply t
Civ. Code §1798.150	e California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civ. Code §1798.150: Defendants failed to provide opt‑out m
GDPR Article 6	olation of 18 U.S.C. § 2511, as well as GDPR Article 6 (lack of lawful basis) and CCPA § 1798.
GDPR Article 32	protect personal data from misuse. • GDPR Article 32: Requires appropriate technical measure
15 U.S.C. § 7701	uch practices violate the CAN-SPAM Act (15 U.S.C. § 7701) by potentially harvesting email addres
18 U.S.C. § 2701	Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 U.S.C. § 2701): Defendants unlawfully accessed and di

250.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (56)

250.4 Dollar Figures (90)

$0.07 · $0.50 · $0.75 · $1.10 · $1.20 · $1.50 · $1.60 · $1.80 · $2.10 · $2.25 · $2.75 · $2.92 · $3.30 · $3.32 · $4.50 · $4.75 · $4.95 · $5.00 · $5.67 · $6.75 · $7.50 · $7.95 · $8.25 · $9.00 · $10.00 · $13.17 · $13.57 · $14.42 · $30.00 · $40.00 · $42.00 · $43.27 · $75.00 · $77.50 · $81.50 · $100.00 · $150.00 · $150.36 · $180.00 · $200.00 · $300.00 · $400.00 · $501.00 · $600.00 · $750.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $15,000.00 · $25,000.00 · $30,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $75,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $250,000.00 · $260,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $400,000,000.00 · $50,000,000,000.00 · $75,000,000,000.00 · $100,000,000,000.00 · $150,000,000,000.00 · $168,750,000,000.00 · $250,000,000,000.00 · $300,000,000,000.00 · $450,000,000,000.00 · $500,000,000,000.00 · $501,200,000,000.00 · $517,440,000,000.00 · $750,000,000,000.00 · $1,000,000,000,000.00 · $1,017,440,000,000.00 · $1,050,000,000,000.00 · $1,100,000,000,000.00 · $1,125,000,000,000.00 · $1,500,000,000,000.00 · $2,100,000,000,000.00 · $2,600,000,000,000.00 · $4,952,000,000,000.00 · $10,000,000,000,000.00 · $11,250,000,000,000.00 · $13,577,400,000,000.00 · $14,856,000,000,000.00 · $16,500,000,000,000.00 · $40,732,200,000,000.00 · $43,278,000,000,000.00 · $129,834,000,000,000.00

250.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 251 of 261

Section 251 — Forensic Audit Report – CNN Code Fragment (Part 8 of 9)

Source File	FORENSIC-0251-cnn-audit-part-8-9-e03c5f07.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-27 08:22:21
Size	23,311 bytes
SHA-256	e03c5f07b391c3661616e11d39bb3021ceacfaf65dcaf59f7b82fea1e397ee2f

251.1 Parties (1)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: CNN, Warne

251.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (13)

Citation	Source excerpt
GDPR Art. 5	alStorage storage without consent) High GDPR Art. 5(1)(a), Art. 6(1); ePrivacy Directive Ar
18 U.S.C. §2511	Art. 5(3); CCPA §1798.100; Wiretap Act 18 U.S.C. §2511; CFAA 18 U.S.C. §1030 Lines 17514–17515
18 U.S.C. §1030	.100; Wiretap Act 18 U.S.C. §2511; CFAA 18 U.S.C. §1030 Lines 17514–17515 (module 485), functio
GDPR Art. 7	ack of Explicit Consent Mechanisms High GDPR Art. 7, Art. 22; ePrivacy Directive Art. 5(3);
Civ. Code §1798.100	irective Art. 5(3); FTC Act §5(a); Cal. Civ. Code §1798.100 No consent dialog or opt-out present in
15 U.S.C. §45(a)	0,000 per violation. • FTC Act §5(a) (15 U.S.C. §45(a)): The failure to disclose the extent of
15 U.S.C. §6801	ation per day per user. • GLBA §6801 (15 U.S.C. §6801): While primarily for financial institu
GDPR Art. 83	ed content view or video start event GDPR Art. 83 (fines) €250,000 or 4% of global turnov
Civ. Code §1798.150	e California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civ. Code §1798.150: Defendants failed to provide opt‑out m
28 U.S.C. § 1746	re under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 that the foregoing audit has been condu
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

251.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (6)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (Wiretap Act), 18 U.S.C. §2511: Defendants intentionally intercepted, endeavored to intercept, and procured other persons to intercept electro	a) as joint tortfeasors. Counts: Count I – Violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (Wiretap Act), 18 U.S.C. §2511: Defendants intentionally inter
Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. §1030: Defendants exceeded authorized access to users’ devices and computers by installing tracking scripts that collect personal data witho	ion, trebled, plus injunctive relief. Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. §1030: Defendants exceeded authorized access to users’
Count III – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civ. Code §1798.150: Defendants failed to provide opt‑out mechanisms, failed to disclose data collection, and sold/shared personal information	amages, and reasonable attorney fees. Count III – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civ. Code §1798.150: Defendants failed to provide opt‑o
Count IV – Violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the ePrivacy Directive: Defendants processed personal data of EU/UK residents without lawful basis, stored and accessed information on	r is greater), and injunctive relief. Count IV – Violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the ePrivacy Directive: Defendants processed per
Count V – Violation of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. §45(a): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive practices by misrepresenting the extent of tracking and by failing to obtain consent. Plaintiffs seek disgorge	ge, and an order to cease processing. Count V – Violation of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. §45(a): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive practices by misrepresent
Count VI – Violation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Defendants’ tracking practices violate the right to privacy and constitute disproportionate surveillance. Plaintiffs seek a decl	vil penalties, and injunctive relief. Count VI – Violation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Defendants’ tracking practices violate the

251.4 Dollar Figures (15)

$1.50 · $1.80 · $2.10 · $8.25 · $9.00 · $150.00 · $150.36 · $180.00 · $750.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $30,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $2,100,000,000,000.00

251.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 252 of 261

Section 252 — Forensic Audit Report – Target File

Source File	FORENSIC-0252-cnn-audit-part-9-9-e8a50122.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-27 08:29:16
Size	37,274 bytes
SHA-256	e8a50122be7ba93bcac646c19e6408b7798ae787cc7c2c348967644cec571fa2

252.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Warner Bro
defendant	Warner Bros. Discovery	affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. and CNN (operators of the platform). Counts:

252.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (17)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 1343	nd financial data exposure, implicating 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud). Unauthorised radio freq
47 U.S.C. § 301	ised for signal interception, violating 47 U.S.C. § 301 and § 605. The cumulative effect re
18 U.S.C. § 2511	Collection & Tracking High GDPR, CCPA, 18 U.S.C. § 2511, 47 U.S.C. § 605 Modules: analytics-eve
47 U.S.C. § 605	king High GDPR, CCPA, 18 U.S.C. § 2511, 47 U.S.C. § 605 Modules: analytics-events.legacy, chart
15 U.S.C. § 6801	Storage of PII High GLBA, Privacy Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6801, 5 U.S.C. § 552a localStorage usage in
5 U.S.C. § 552	gh GLBA, Privacy Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6801, 5 U.S.C. § 552a localStorage usage in user-account-nav
18 U.S.C. § 1030	8 4 DOM-based XSS Vulnerability High 18 U.S.C. § 1030, FTC Act § 45(a) Use of innerHTML with
GDPR Article 6	olation of 18 U.S.C. § 2511, as well as GDPR Article 6 (lack of lawful basis) and CCPA § 1798.
Civ. Code § 1798.100	r 4% of global turnover apply. • Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA/CPRA): Consumers have the right t
GDPR Article 32	protect personal data from misuse. • GDPR Article 32: Requires appropriate technical measure
15 U.S.C. § 7701	uch practices violate the CAN-SPAM Act (15 U.S.C. § 7701) by potentially harvesting email addres
15 U.S.C. § 6501	ms and truthful header information. • 15 U.S.C. § 6501 (COPPA): CNN content includes children'
18 U.S.C. § 2701	Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 U.S.C. § 2701): Defendants unlawfully accessed and di
28 U.S.C. § 1746	re under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 that the foregoing audit has been condu
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

252.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (8)

Header	Source excerpt
count 1 aggregated violation per user.	nerates hundreds of tracking events; we count 1 aggregated violation per user. Penalty: 47 U.S.C. § 605 @ $110,000 ×
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications (user interactions, clicks, and page views) without consent, using JavaScript-based t	rators of the platform). Counts: Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications (user
Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants caused damage by failing to secure their web application, leading to XSS vulnerabilities that exposed users to unauthori	privacy rights of millions of users. Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants caused damage by failing to secure
Count III – Violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 U.S.C. § 2701): Defendants unlawfully accessed and disclosed stored communications (user preferences, browsing history) without authorizat	access and potential identity theft. Count III – Violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 U.S.C. § 2701): Defendants unlawfully accessed and d
Count IV – Violation of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Defendants failed to protect customer information (financial data, subscription details) by storing them insecurely in client-side storag	wsing history) without authorization. Count IV – Violation of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Defendants failed to protect customer information (
Count V – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Defendants collected, used, and sold personal information without providing notice or opt-out rights.	em insecurely in client-side storage. Count V – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Defendants collected, used, and so
Count VI – Violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) – Right to Privacy: Defendants processed personal data without a lawful basis, violating Articles 5, 6, and 7.	t providing notice or opt-out rights. Count VI – Violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) – Right to Privacy: Defendants processed personal da
Count VII – Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices (FTC Act § 45(a)): Defendants misrepresented the security and privacy of user data, engaged in excessive tracking, and failed to implement reasonable security m	asis, violating Articles 5, 6, and 7. Count VII – Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices (FTC Act § 45(a)): Defendants misrepresented the security and privacy of

252.4 Dollar Figures (29)

$3.30 · $7.50 · $7.95 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $15,000.00 · $25,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $260,000.00 · $50,000,000,000.00 · $75,000,000,000.00 · $100,000,000,000.00 · $150,000,000,000.00 · $250,000,000,000.00 · $300,000,000,000.00 · $450,000,000,000.00 · $500,000,000,000.00 · $501,200,000,000.00 · $517,440,000,000.00 · $1,000,000,000,000.00 · $1,017,440,000,000.00 · $1,050,000,000,000.00 · $1,100,000,000,000.00 · $2,600,000,000,000.00

252.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 253 of 261

Section 253 — Forensic Audit Report – Glenn Beck Homepage

Source File	FORENSIC-0253-glenn-beck-audit-ii-2d7043ff.html
Created	July 27, 2026
Modified	2026-07-27 18:54:14
Size	31,949 bytes
SHA-256	2d7043ffe56d1ed22adc8678c6b6a13e5a36806ff0f8dc7e65df0d73dc274d1f

253.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) – including residents of
defendant	Mercury Radio Arts	ct of Columbia, and EU member states. Defendants: Mercury Radio Arts, Inc. (Glenn Beck), and any third-party data p

253.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (19)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 2511	sure of electronic communications under 18 U.S.C. § 2511 and 47 U.S.C. § 605. Lack of Content
47 U.S.C. § 605	mmunications under 18 U.S.C. § 2511 and 47 U.S.C. § 605. Lack of Content Security Policy (CSP)
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	und to be Materially Non-Compliant with 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), 15 U.S.C. § 6801, Cal. Civ. Code § 179
15 U.S.C. § 6801	y Non-Compliant with 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), 15 U.S.C. § 6801, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100, GDPR (EU) 2
Civ. Code § 1798.100	U.S.C. § 45(a), 15 U.S.C. § 6801, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100, GDPR (EU) 2016/679, ePrivacy Directive
GDPR Art. 5	High 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 47 U.S.C. § 605; GDPR Art. 5-7; ePrivacy Directive GTM-545KRVVZ and
GDPR Art. 32	High 15 U.S.C. § 45(a); NIST SP 800-53; GDPR Art. 32; 18 U.S.C. § 1030 Entire file – no CSP
18 U.S.C. § 1030	§ 45(a); NIST SP 800-53; GDPR Art. 32; 18 U.S.C. § 1030 Entire file – no CSP meta tag or header
GDPR Art. 13	nism High CCPA § 1798.100; GLBA § 6801; GDPR Art. 13; ePrivacy Directive No consent banner;
18 U.S.C. § 1343	SRF Protection (Framework-Level) Medium 18 U.S.C. § 1343; FTC Act § 5(a); OWASP Top 10 No CSRF t
18 U.S.C. § 2510(12)	is an "electronic communication" under 18 U.S.C. § 2510(12). The GTM/GA scripts capture the "conten
15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(A)	es of up to $50,120 per violation under 15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(A). • NIST SP 800-53 (Security Controls)
40 U.S.C. § 11331	P 800-53 (Security Controls) and FISMA (40 U.S.C. § 11331): The absence of CSP violates control S
GDPR Article 32	ficiency that invites exploitation. • GDPR Article 32 (Security of Processing): The failure t
Civ. Code § 1798.155(b)	.S.C. § 6801 $100,000 #3 CCPA – Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.155(b) $7,500 #3 GDPR (min per violation) €
28 U.S.C. § 1746	re under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 that the foregoing audit has been condu
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

253.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (6)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) and 47 U.S.C. § 605: Defendants unlawfully intercepted, disclosed, and used plaintiffs' electronic communications (IP addresses, browsing data) witho	.) as joint tortfeasors. Counts: Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) and 47 U.S.C. § 605: Defendants unlawfully intercepted, disclosed, an
Count II – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive acts by failing to implement basic security controls (CSP, CSRF tokens, SRI) and exposing plaintiffs to XSS	tion, trebled, and injunctive relief. Count II – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive acts by failing to imp
Count III – Violation of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Defendants failed to provide a clear privacy notice at the point of collection, violating the GLBA's privacy rule. Plaintiffs seek statut	per violation and injunctive relief. Count III – Violation of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Defendants failed to provide a clear privacy notice
Count IV – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Defendants collected personal information without providing a privacy notice at collection and without an opt-out mecha	per violation and corrective action. Count IV – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Defendants collected personal info
Count V – Violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (EU) 2016/679: Defendants processed personal data without a lawful basis, without consent, and without providing information, and transfer	tory damages of $7,500 per violation. Count V – Violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (EU) 2016/679: Defendants processed personal data wit
Count VI – Violation of the ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC: Defendants stored or accessed information on user devices (cookies) without prior consent. Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief.	obal turnover, and injunctive relief. Count VI – Violation of the ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC: Defendants stored or accessed information on user devices (cook

253.4 Dollar Figures (23)

$2.50 · $7.00 · $15.30 · $26.03 · $50.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $30,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $270,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $3,000,000.00 · $37,500,000,000.00 · $300,000,000,000.00 · $500,000,000,000.00 · $1,002,400,000,000.00 · $1,100,000,000,000.00 · $4,050,000,000,000.00 · $15,000,000,000,000.00 · $15,300,000,000,000.00 · $26,039,900,000,000.00

253.5 Dates (1)

2026-07-27

Section 254 of 261

Section 254 — Forensic Audit – FinCEN Contact Page – Expanded Criminal & Civil Exposure

Source File	FORENSIC-0254-fincen-audit2-e1647dac.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-26 20:07:23
Size	23,032 bytes
SHA-256	e1647dacd3b392c1b4bc7f26d15e8cf1fe0ab95324ed28762b5d83701c5bc4bb

254.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

254.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (22)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 242	constitutes crimes under color of law (18 U.S.C. § 242), wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343), and a
18 U.S.C. § 1343	r of law (18 U.S.C. § 242), wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343), and a pattern of racketeering activit
18 U.S.C. § 1961	and a pattern of racketeering activity (18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq.). Individual actors and supervi
GDPR Art. 7	riminal (Color of Law) 18 U.S.C. § 242; GDPR Art. 7, 13; CCPA § 1798.100; Privacy Act § 552
GDPR Art. 44	Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud); GDPR Art. 44‑49; CCPA § 1798.100 Form action URL: pr
18 U.S.C. § 1341	– misrepresentation of purpose Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (mail fraud), § 1346 (honest services f
44 U.S.C. § 3501	OMB control number Civil/Administrative 44 U.S.C. § 3501 et seq.; 5 C.F.R. § 1320 No OMB control
5 C.F.R. § 1320	dministrative 44 U.S.C. § 3501 et seq.; 5 C.F.R. § 1320 No OMB control number displayed; agency
44 U.S.C. § 3541	y E‑Government Act Civil/Administrative 44 U.S.C. § 3541; OMB M‑03‑22 No PIA published or refere
GDPR Art. 32	ceptive act) Criminal 18 U.S.C. § 1343; GDPR Art. 32; CCPA § 1798.120 <script src="https://j
29 U.S.C. § 794	with Section 508 (accessibility) Civil 29 U.S.C. § 794d; 36 C.F.R. § 1194 No accessibility fea
36 C.F.R. § 1194	(accessibility) Civil 29 U.S.C. § 794d; 36 C.F.R. § 1194 No accessibility features, missing alt
18 U.S.C. § 1346	Violation #3: Honest Services Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1346) and Mail Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341) St
5 C.F.R. § 1320.5	s any burden statement. Regulation: 5 C.F.R. § 1320.5 – agencies must not conduct or sponsor
GDPR Art. 83	Statute Penalty per violation GDPR Art. 83(4) €250,000 or 4% global turnover CC
5 U.S.C. § 552	Count I – Violation of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Failure to notify individuals of the
Civ. Code § 1798.100	a. Count II – Violation of CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Unlawful collection and shari
18 U.S.C. § 1962	attern of Racketeering Activity (RICO – 18 U.S.C. § 1962): Enterprise (FinCEN) engaged in a patt
18 U.S.C. § 371	nspiracy to commit wire fraud and RICO (18 U.S.C. § 371). Individuals Named: Director of F
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

254.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (12)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Failure to notify individuals of the purposes and uses of collected data.	vil Complaint (U.S. District Court) Count I – Violation of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Failure to notify individuals of the purposes and uses of collecte
Count II – Violation of CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Unlawful collection and sharing of personal information without notice or opt‑out.	purposes and uses of collected data. Count II – Violation of CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Unlawful collection and sharing of personal information w
Count III – Violation of GDPR (EU data subjects): Lack of consent, inadequate data transfer safeguards.	nformation without notice or opt‑out. Count III – Violation of GDPR (EU data subjects): Lack of consent, inadequate data transfer safeguards. Count IV – Violati
Count IV – Violation of FTC Act § 5: Unfair and deceptive practices.	inadequate data transfer safeguards. Count IV – Violation of FTC Act § 5: Unfair and deceptive practices. Count V – Violation of Paperwork Redu
Count V – Violation of Paperwork Reduction Act: Collection without OMB approval.	§ 5: Unfair and deceptive practices. Count V – Violation of Paperwork Reduction Act: Collection without OMB approval. Count VI – Violation of Section 508:
Count VI – Violation of Section 508: Inaccessible to individuals with disabilities.	Act: Collection without OMB approval. Count VI – Violation of Section 508: Inaccessible to individuals with disabilities. Criminal Counts (Department of
Count I – Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law (18 U.S.C. § 242): Each form submission constitutes a separate act of deprivation.	(Department of Justice Prosecution) Count I – Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law (18 U.S.C. § 242): Each form submission constitutes a separate act of dep
Count II – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Scheme to defraud using interstate wire transmissions.	itutes a separate act of deprivation. Count II – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Scheme to defraud using interstate wire transmissions. Count III – Honest Servic
Count III – Honest Services Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1346): Depriving citizens of honest government services.	using interstate wire transmissions. Count III – Honest Services Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1346): Depriving citizens of honest government services. Count IV – Mail Fra
Count IV – Mail Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341): Use of mail to send confirmation emails (if applicable).	tizens of honest government services. Count IV – Mail Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341): Use of mail to send confirmation emails (if applicable). Count V – Pattern of Ra
Count V – Pattern of Racketeering Activity (RICO – 18 U.S.C. § 1962): Enterprise (FinCEN) engaged in a pattern of wire fraud and civil rights violations.	confirmation emails (if applicable). Count V – Pattern of Racketeering Activity (RICO – 18 U.S.C. § 1962): Enterprise (FinCEN) engaged in a pattern of wire frau
Count VI – Conspiracy to commit wire fraud and RICO (18 U.S.C. § 371).	re fraud and civil rights violations. Count VI – Conspiracy to commit wire fraud and RICO (18 U.S.C. § 371). Individuals Named: Director of FinC

254.4 Dollar Figures (30)

$8.55 · $17.10 · $22.44 · $25.65 · $43.39 · $121.50 · $150.00 · $238.60 · $300.00 · $500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $50,120.00 · $250,000.00 · $262,500.00 · $507,500.00 · $8,550,000,000.00 · $10,000,000,000.00 · $17,100,000,000.00 · $20,000,000,000.00 · $22,443,750,000.00 · $25,000,000,000.00 · $25,650,000,000.00 · $26,250,000,000.00 · $30,000,000,000.00 · $43,391,250,000.00 · $50,750,000,000.00 · $60,000,000,000.00 · $121,500,000,000.00 · $180,000,000,000.00

254.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 255 of 261

Section 255 — Forensic Audit Report – Document Viewer

Source File	FORENSIC-0255-socalled-document-signer-app-audit-4113cfac.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-26 19:32:17
Size	18,508 bytes
SHA-256	4113cfacffafe9794c86d683e85f2150d62b7b8247f27b42884a652574419b31

255.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

255.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (23)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	r – signtoshow.com Audit Authority: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	Audit Authority: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U
10 U.S.C. § 2304	y: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S
47 U.S.C. § 230	1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.
5 U.S.C. § 552	2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiret
18 U.S.C. § 2511	. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA);
18 U.S.C. § 1030	y Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	(Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal
15 U.S.C. § 6801	30 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA
Civ. Code § 1798.100	FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 2
42 U.S.C. § 12181	Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508);
29 U.S.C. § 794	0 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-S
15 U.S.C. § 7701	(ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-SPAM); 15 U.S.C. § 6501 (COPPA); G
15 U.S.C. § 6501	tion 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-SPAM); 15 U.S.C. § 6501 (COPPA); GDPR (EU) 2016/679; ePrivacy D
GDPR Art. 32	54; FTC Act § 5; CFAA 18 U.S.C. § 1030; GDPR Art. 32. <html> root; no CSP meta. 2
GDPR Art. 13	n, or third‑party sharing. CRITICAL GDPR Art. 13‑14; CCPA Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100(a)(3
Civ. Code § 1798.100(a)(3)	CRITICAL GDPR Art. 13‑14; CCPA Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100(a)(3); GLBA 15 U.S.C. § 6801; Cal. Bus. & Pro
Prof. Code § 22575	(3); GLBA 15 U.S.C. § 6801; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 22575; UN Guiding Principles (Principle 16);
GDPR Art. 7	RITICAL ePrivacy Directive Art. 5(3); GDPR Art. 7; CCPA Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.135; FTC Ac
Civ. Code § 1798.135	ctive Art. 5(3); GDPR Art. 7; CCPA Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.135; FTC Act § 5. No cookie banner, no co
15 U.S.C. § 45	COUNT I – Violation of FTC Act § 5 (15 U.S.C. § 45): Unfair and deceptive acts – failure t
Civ. Code § 1798.150	COUNT II – Violation of CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150): Failure to provide notice of data col
GDPR Art. 83	isclosure. COUNT III – Violation of GDPR Art. 83(5): Processing of personal data of EU r

255.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (5)

Header	Source excerpt
COUNT I – Violation of FTC Act § 5 (15 U.S.C. § 45): Unfair and deceptive acts – failure to disclose third‑party data sharing, absence of privacy policy, and deceptive security practices.	PLAINT ALLEGATIONS – FEDERAL COUNTS COUNT I – Violation of FTC Act § 5 (15 U.S.C. § 45): Unfair and deceptive acts – failure to disclose third‑party data sharin
COUNT II – Violation of CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150): Failure to provide notice of data collection, failure to honor opt‑out requests, and sharing personal information with third parties without disclosur	, and deceptive security practices. COUNT II – Violation of CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150): Failure to provide notice of data collection, failure to honor opt
COUNT III – Violation of GDPR Art. 83(5): Processing of personal data of EU residents without a legal basis, transparency, or security measures.	h third parties without disclosure. COUNT III – Violation of GDPR Art. 83(5): Processing of personal data of EU residents without a legal basis, transparency, o
COUNT IV – Violation of ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC: Storage and access to information on user devices without consent.	transparency, or security measures. COUNT IV – Violation of ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC: Storage and access to information on user devices without consent. CO
COUNT V – Violation of ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12181): The document viewer is a public accommodation that is not accessible to individuals with disabilities.	on on user devices without consent. COUNT V – Violation of ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12181): The document viewer is a public accommodation that is not accessible to indi

255.4 Dollar Figures (16)

$100.00 · $750.00 · $50,120.00 · $75,000.00 · $150,000.00 · $1,950,000.00 · $3,210,000.00 · $5,480,000.00 · $39,600,000.00 · $125,300,000.00 · $144,050,000.00 · $187,500,000.00 · $310,650,000.00 · $805,300,000.00 · $1,242,600,000.00 · $1,656,800,000.00

255.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 256 of 261

Section 256 — Forensic Audit Report – Federal Reserve Financial Services Homepage

Source File	FORENSIC-0256-frbservices-audit-ae328b3d.html
Created	July 27, 2026
Modified	2026-07-27 09:44:22
Size	53,329 bytes
SHA-256	ae328b3d996160c0b96dbac54ef724a46eb5242a3e4c4bd14d0ed3ac5744b311

256.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) – including but not limit
defendant	Federal Reserve Financial Services	ct of Columbia, and EU member states. Defendants: Federal Reserve Financial Services, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the twelve Federal R

256.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (33)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 2511	consent. This violates the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511), the Communications Act (47 U.S.C. § 6
47 U.S.C. § 605	U.S.C. § 2511), the Communications Act (47 U.S.C. § 605), the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a), th
5 U.S.C. § 552	Act (47 U.S.C. § 605), the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a), the CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100)
Civ. Code § 1798.100	y Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a), the CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100), the GDPR (EU 2016/679), and the GLBA
15 U.S.C. § 6801	, the GDPR (EU 2016/679), and the GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801), and constitutes a conspiracy against
18 U.S.C. § 241	onstitutes a conspiracy against rights (18 U.S.C. § 241) and deprivation of rights under color
18 U.S.C. § 242	privation of rights under color of law (18 U.S.C. § 242). Insecure forms and lack of encrypti
18 U.S.C. § 1343	searches, exposing users to wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343), interference with radio communication
47 U.S.C. § 333	interference with radio communications (47 U.S.C. § 333), and violations of the FTC Act (15 U.S
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	§ 333), and violations of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)). The absence of CSRF tokens and HTTPS
18 U.S.C. § 1030	es that compromise protected computers (18 U.S.C. § 1030) and violate NIST SP 800‑53, FISMA, and
GDPR Article 32	and violate NIST SP 800‑53, FISMA, and GDPR Article 32. This defect invites malicious code inj
42 U.S.C. § 12181	Accessibility failures under the ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12181) and Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d) – t
29 U.S.C. § 794	DA (42 U.S.C. § 12181) and Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d) – the "skip to content" link is non‑f
18 U.S.C. § 506	on of government endorsement, violating 18 U.S.C. § 506. Failure to comply with the Paperwork
22 U.S.C. § 2295	und to be Materially Non‑Compliant with 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 4
50 U.S.C. § 1702	y Non‑Compliant with 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 47 U.S.C. § 301, 47
10 U.S.C. § 2304	th 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 47 U.S.C. § 301, 47 U.S.C. § 333, and
47 U.S.C. § 301	5a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, 47 U.S.C. § 301, 47 U.S.C. § 333, and all cited statute
GDPR Art. 32	ure Protected Computers (CFAA, FTC Act, GDPR Art. 32) High 18 U.S.C. § 1030; 15 U.S.C. § 45(
GDPR Art. 5	45(a); GLBA; Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100; GDPR Art. 5‑7 Lines 13‑27, 857‑865 5 Accessibili
18 U.S.C. § 712	(18 U.S.C. § 506) High 18 U.S.C. § 506; 18 U.S.C. § 712 (false identification) Lines 51‑54 (Fed
44 U.S.C. § 3501	A) & Privacy Act System of Records High 44 U.S.C. § 3501; 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(4); OMB Circular A‑
GDPR Art. 44	rivacy Directive, OECD Guidelines) High GDPR Art. 44‑49; ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC; OECD
15 U.S.C. § 6501	ine Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) High 15 U.S.C. § 6501; 16 CFR Part 312 No age gating, no pare
47 U.S.C. § 230	al Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Medium 47 U.S.C. § 230; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; FAR 52.204‑21 Overal
18 U.S.C. § 2510(12)	is an "electronic communication" under 18 U.S.C. § 2510(12). The GTM/GA scripts capture the "conten
40 U.S.C. § 11331	atory for federal agencies under FISMA (40 U.S.C. § 11331). Line Reference: <form id="Searc
15 U.S.C. § 7701	ails to provide this. • CAN‑SPAM Act (15 U.S.C. § 7701): If any of the data collected is used
44 U.S.C. § 3502(3)	of information" as defined by the PRA (44 U.S.C. § 3502(3)). No OMB control number is displayed, n
15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(A)	le $5,000 × 3 = $15,000 #3 FTC Act – 15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(A) $50,120 #2, #3, #4 GLBA – 15 U.S.C.
Civ. Code § 1798.155(b)	.C. § 552a $5,000 #1, #7 CCPA – Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.155(b) $7,500 #1, #4 ADA / Section 508 $75,
28 U.S.C. § 1746	re under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 that the foregoing audit has been condu

256.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (11)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) and 47 U.S.C. § 605: Defendants unlawfully intercepted, disclosed, and used plaintiffs' electronic communications (IP addresses, browsing history, fo	C) as joint tortfeasors. Counts: Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) and 47 U.S.C. § 605: Defendants unlawfully intercepted, disclosed, an
Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants intentionally caused damage to plaintiffs' protected computers by failing to secure the website against XSS vulnerabilit	tion, trebled, and injunctive relief. Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants intentionally caused damage to pla
Count III – Violation of the Gramm‑Leach‑Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Defendants failed to provide a clear, conspicuous, and accurate privacy notice to plaintiffs, and failed to protect non‑public personal i	00 per violation, and treble damages. Count III – Violation of the Gramm‑Leach‑Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Defendants failed to provide a clear, conspicuous,
Count IV – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Defendants collected, used, and shared plaintiffs' personal information (including IP addresses and browsing data) with	nctive relief, and corrective action. Count IV – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Defendants collected, used, and s
Count V – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive acts and practices by misrepresenting the security of their website and failing to protect plaintiffs' data	tory damages of $7,500 per violation. Count V – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive acts and practices by m
Count VI – Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12181) and Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d): Defendants failed to make their website accessible to individuals with disabilities, denying	, injunctive relief, and restitution. Count VI – Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12181) and Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d): Defend
Count VII – Violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (EU) 2016/679: Defendants processed plaintiffs' personal data without a lawful basis, without explicit consent, and without providing adeq	l penalties of $75,000 per violation. Count VII – Violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (EU) 2016/679: Defendants processed plaintiffs' per
Count VIII – Violation of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Defendants failed to provide a Privacy Act statement, failed to maintain an accurate system of records, and disclosed records without consent	obal turnover, and injunctive relief. Count VIII – Violation of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Defendants failed to provide a Privacy Act statement,
Count IX – Violation of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. § 3501): Defendants collected information from the public without OMB approval, in violation of the PRA. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and ci	tory damages of $5,000 per violation. Count IX – Violation of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. § 3501): Defendants collected information from the public w
Count X – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 506 (Misuse of Government Seal): Defendants used the Federal Reserve seal in a manner that falsely implied endorsement of third‑party tracking, deceiving plaintiffs. Plaint	njunctive relief and civil penalties. Count X – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 506 (Misuse of Government Seal): Defendants used the Federal Reserve seal in a manner t
Count XI – Violation of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (15 U.S.C. § 6501): Defendants collected personal information from children under 13 without verifiable parental consent, in violation of C	civil remedies and injunctive relief. Count XI – Violation of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (15 U.S.C. § 6501): Defendants collected personal inf

256.4 Dollar Figures (34)

$6.80 · $22.78 · $75.00 · $150.00 · $225.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $15,000.00 · $25,000.00 · $30,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $75,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $270,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $50,000,000,000.00 · $75,000,000,000.00 · $100,000,000,000.00 · $150,000,000,000.00 · $225,000,000,000.00 · $250,000,000,000.00 · $258,720,000,000.00 · $375,000,000,000.00 · $500,000,000,000.00 · $550,000,000,000.00 · $751,800,000,000.00 · $1,000,000,000,000.00 · $2,700,000,000,000.00 · $10,000,000,000,000.00 · $22,785,520,000,000.00

256.5 Dates (1)

2026-07-27

Section 257 of 261

Section 257 — Forensic Audit Report – TerraLex

Source File	FORENSIC-0257-terralex-audit-43832af1.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-27 09:08:16
Size	32,915 bytes
SHA-256	43832af1aec6dd532998e3183a2170f14321f0d9964b06ecd5a97c32ab164d23

257.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: TerraLex a
defendant	TerraLex	affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: TerraLex and website operator, including any parent companies, third-party data processors (Informz, Google), an

257.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (29)

Citation	Source excerpt
18 U.S.C. § 2511	tion of electronic communications under 18 U.S.C. § 2511 and 47 U.S.C. § 605. The tracking infra
47 U.S.C. § 605	mmunications under 18 U.S.C. § 2511 and 47 U.S.C. § 605. The tracking infrastructure enables con
18 U.S.C. § 1030	Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030), and the Stored Communications Act (18
18 U.S.C. § 2701	30), and the Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. § 2701). Additionally, the site's deficient se
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	practices in violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)), the California Consumer Privacy Act (
Civ. Code § 1798.100	e California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100), the California Invasion of Privacy Ac
Penal Code § 630	alifornia Invasion of Privacy Act (Cal. Penal Code § 630), and other state laws. The site's priv
18 U.S.C. § 1343	without authorization 3 Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343) – Scheme to Defraud via Interception H
47 U.S.C. § 333	te wire communication 4 Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 333 (Interference with Radio Communications
Prof. Code § 17200	nt) High 15 U.S.C. § 45(a); Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 Cookie banner lacks granularity, implie
GDPR Art. 5	alid Consent, Lack of Transparency High GDPR Art. 5, 6, 7, 13-14; ePrivacy Directive Art. 5
15 U.S.C. § 6801	ect Consumer Financial Information High 15 U.S.C. § 6801; 16 C.F.R. Part 314 Site may handle sen
15 U.S.C. § 7701	il with Tracking without Consent Medium 15 U.S.C. § 7701 If users sign in, email tied to behavio
15 U.S.C. § 6501	ithout Verifiable Parental Consent High 15 U.S.C. § 6501 Site does not age-gate; tracking script
42 U.S.C. § 12181	n 508 – Accessibility Violations Medium 42 U.S.C. § 12181; 29 U.S.C. § 794d No explicit accessibi
29 U.S.C. § 794	ty Violations Medium 42 U.S.C. § 12181; 29 U.S.C. § 794d No explicit accessibility statement; p
50 U.S.C. § 1702	rs to disabled users 12 Violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1702 (IEEPA) – Unauthorized Data Transfer to
18 U.S.C. § 241	ontrols 13 Civil Rights Violations – 18 U.S.C. § 241, 242 – Conspiracy to Deprive Rights Hig
18 U.S.C. § 1589	14 Human Trafficking / Forced Labor – 18 U.S.C. § 1589, 1590 – Use of Data to Exploit High 18
18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a)	ent. Statutory Expansion (3×): • 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a): Prohibits interception of electronic c
18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)	88 F. Supp. 2d 434 (D. Del. 2013). • 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d): Consent defense invalid; banner appear
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)	ies. Statutory Expansion (3×): • 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C): Accessing a protected computer without
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(C)	sal, 676 F.3d 854 (9th Cir. 2012). • 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(C): Causing damage by trafficking in passw
Civ. Code § 1798.120	n. California AG enforcement. • Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.120: Right to opt out. • Penalty: $7,500
18 U.S.C. § 242	ts. Screws v. United States, 1945. • 18 U.S.C. § 242: Deprivation under color of law (if cla
18 U.S.C. § 1590	United States v. Kozminski, 1988. • 18 U.S.C. § 1590: Trafficking with respect to peonage, e
28 U.S.C. § 1746	re under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 that the foregoing audit has been condu
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

257.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (13)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications without consent, using tracking scripts that transmitted user behavioral data to thir	individuals responsible. Counts: Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications witho
Count II – Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605: Defendants used and divulged intercepted communications without authorization.	ser behavioral data to third parties. Count II – Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605: Defendants used and divulged intercepted communications without authorization. Co
Count III – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants accessed protected computers without authorization and obtained information.	communications without authorization. Count III – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants accessed protected computers with
Count IV – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Defendants devised a scheme to defraud users by deceptive tracking and used wire communications to execute the scheme.	thorization and obtained information. Count IV – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Defendants devised a scheme to defraud users by deceptive tracking and used wire
Count V – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive acts by using a dark pattern cookie banner and failing to secure data.	communications to execute the scheme. Count V – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive acts by using a dark pa
Count VI – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Defendants collected and sold personal information without proper notice or opt-out.	ie banner and failing to secure data. Count VI – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Defendants collected and
Count VII – Violation of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Defendants failed to implement safeguards to protect consumer financial information.	ion without proper notice or opt-out. Count VII – Violation of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Defendants failed to implement safeguards to prote
Count VIII – Violation of the CAN-SPAM Act (15 U.S.C. § 7701): Defendants used deceptive means to associate email addresses with tracking data without consent.	otect consumer financial information. Count VIII – Violation of the CAN-SPAM Act (15 U.S.C. § 7701): Defendants used deceptive means to associate email addresse
Count IX – Violation of COPPA (15 U.S.C. § 6501): Defendants collected personal information from children without verifiable parental consent.	s with tracking data without consent. Count IX – Violation of COPPA (15 U.S.C. § 6501): Defendants collected personal information from children without verifiab
Count X – Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12181) and Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d): Defendants failed to provide accessible website to individuals with disabilities.	without verifiable parental consent. Count X – Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12181) and Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d): Defendan
Count XI – Violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. § 1702): Defendants transferred data to foreign entities without proper authorization.	ite to individuals with disabilities. Count XI – Violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. § 1702): Defendants transferred data to
Count XII – Conspiracy to Deprive Civil Rights (18 U.S.C. § 241) and Deprivation of Rights (18 U.S.C. § 242): Defendants conspired to deprive users of their privacy rights.	ntities without proper authorization. Count XII – Conspiracy to Deprive Civil Rights (18 U.S.C. § 241) and Deprivation of Rights (18 U.S.C. § 242): Defendants c
Count XIII – Violation of UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, OECD Guidelines, and APEC CBPR: Defendants failed to respect human rights and implement data protection accountability.	eprive users of their privacy rights. Count XIII – Violation of UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, OECD Guidelines, and APEC CBPR: Defendants f

257.4 Dollar Figures (45)

$1.20 · $2.00 · $5.10 · $5.17 · $7.50 · $9.00 · $12.00 · $18.00 · $25.80 · $36.00 · $60.00 · $60.14 · $120.00 · $132.00 · $348.00 · $350.00 · $700.00 · $953.40 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $15,000.00 · $30,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $51,744.00 · $75,000.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $290,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $5,174,400,000.00 · $7,500,000,000.00 · $9,000,000,000.00 · $12,000,000,000.00 · $18,000,000,000.00 · $25,872,000,000.00 · $36,000,000,000.00 · $60,000,000,000.00 · $60,144,000,000.00 · $120,000,000,000.00 · $132,000,000,000.00 · $348,000,000,000.00 · $953,400,000,000.00 · $1,200,000,000,000.00

257.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 258 of 261

Section 258 — Forensic Audit Report – FinCEN Contact Us Page

Source File	FORENSIC-0258-fincen-audit-07e906f5.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-26 20:02:06
Size	21,740 bytes
SHA-256	07e906f545a2d789989caaa8530b5d7f892cbf491c111a4d464a3e1d815b57ed

258.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: FinCEN (U.
defendant	FinCEN	affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: FinCEN (U.S. Department of the Treasury), Micro

258.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (16)

Citation	Source excerpt
GDPR Art. 7	onsent, privacy notice, or opt‑out High GDPR Art. 7, 13; CCPA § 1798.100, 1798.120; Privacy
5 U.S.C. § 552	CCPA § 1798.100, 1798.120; Privacy Act 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3) Entire form, no privacy policy l
GDPR Art. 44	eguards or data transfer agreement High GDPR Art. 44‑49; CCPA § 1798.100; FTC Act § 5 Form a
GDPR Art. 32	TM and XSS risks Medium NIST SP 800‑53; GDPR Art. 32; FTC Act § 5 No CSP, no HSTS, no X‑Fram
GDPR Art. 13	pecific, informed, and unambiguous. • GDPR Art. 13 – information to be provided where pers
GDPR Art. 45	ies or international organisations. • GDPR Art. 45 – transfer on basis of adequacy decisio
GDPR Art. 46	acy decision (U.S. lacks adequacy). • GDPR Art. 46 – transfers subject to appropriate safe
18 U.S.C. § 2511	acy and provide access. • Wiretap Act 18 U.S.C. § 2511 – interception of electronic communicat
18 U.S.C. § 1030	ble security is an unfair practice. • 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA) – if vulnerability is exploited.
GDPR Art. 83	Penalty per violation Applies to GDPR Art. 83(4) €250,000 or 4% global turnover #1, #
18 U.S.C. § 1030(c)	on #1 (agency record violation) CFAA 18 U.S.C. § 1030(c) $5,000 + treble damages #5 (security ex
18 U.S.C. § 1030(g)	s Action Exposure: treble damages under 18 U.S.C. § 1030(g) and § 2520 (if applicable) yield a pote
Civ. Code § 1798.100	ohibition on unauthorised sharing (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100, 1798.120). Count III – Violation of
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

258.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (6)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of GDPR (EU citizens): Collection and transfer of personal data without consent or legal basis (Art. 6, 7, 44‑49).	Apps platform providers. Counts: Count I – Violation of GDPR (EU citizens): Collection and transfer of personal data without consent or legal basis (Art. 6, 7,
Count II – Violation of CCPA (California residents): Failure to provide notice, opt‑out, and prohibition on unauthorised sharing (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100, 1798.120).	nt or legal basis (Art. 6, 7, 44‑49). Count II – Violation of CCPA (California residents): Failure to provide notice, opt‑out, and prohibition on unauthorised s
Count III – Violation of Privacy Act: Agency failed to inform individuals of the purposes and uses of information (5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3)).	Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100, 1798.120). Count III – Violation of Privacy Act: Agency failed to inform individuals of the purposes and uses of information (5 U.S.C
Count IV – Violation of FTC Act § 5: Unfair and deceptive practices in data collection, sharing, and inadequate security.	information (5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3)). Count IV – Violation of FTC Act § 5: Unfair and deceptive practices in data collection, sharing, and inadequate security. C
Count V – Violation of ePrivacy Directive: Access to device information without consent (Art. 5(3)).	on, sharing, and inadequate security. Count V – Violation of ePrivacy Directive: Access to device information without consent (Art. 5(3)). Count VI – Violation
Count VI – Violation of CFAA: Failure to implement reasonable security measures, exposing systems to unauthorised access (18 U.S.C. § 1030).	ormation without consent (Art. 5(3)). Count VI – Violation of CFAA: Failure to implement reasonable security measures, exposing systems to unauthorised access (

258.4 Dollar Figures (21)

$103.20 · $107.50 · $350.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $50,120.00 · $55,120.00 · $257,500.00 · $262,500.00 · $507,500.00 · $3,086,720,000.00 · $17,510,000,000.00 · $17,850,000,000.00 · $25,750,000,000.00 · $26,250,000,000.00 · $34,510,000,000.00 · $50,000,000,000.00 · $50,750,000,000.00 · $107,466,720,000.00 · $300,000,000,000.00 · $350,000,000,000.00

258.5 Dates (1)

2016-06-01

Section 259 of 261

Section 259 — Forensic Audit Report – I.UA Homepage

Source File	FORENSIC-0259-i-ua-audit-f40bf229.html
Created	July 27, 2026
Modified	2026-07-27 17:00:19
Size	30,287 bytes
SHA-256	f40bf229bccd9c763f0ca488c350c3e4726c1bee38d7af4fd56862fc30a2dc7e

259.1 Parties (1)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) – including residents of

259.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (19)

Citation	Source excerpt
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	und to be Materially Non‑Compliant with 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), 15 U.S.C. § 6801, Cal. Civ. Code § 179
15 U.S.C. § 6801	y Non‑Compliant with 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), 15 U.S.C. § 6801, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100, GDPR (EU) 2
Civ. Code § 1798.100	U.S.C. § 45(a), 15 U.S.C. § 6801, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100, GDPR (EU) 2016/679, ePrivacy Directive
18 U.S.C. § 2511	679, ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC, and 18 U.S.C. § 2511. This report refers the matter to the Uk
GDPR Art. 32	High 15 U.S.C. § 45(a); NIST SP 800-53; GDPR Art. 32; 18 U.S.C. § 1030 Entire file – no CSP
18 U.S.C. § 1030	§ 45(a); NIST SP 800-53; GDPR Art. 32; 18 U.S.C. § 1030 Entire file – no CSP meta tag or header
18 U.S.C. § 1343	2 Missing CSRF Token in Login Form High 18 U.S.C. § 1343; FTC Act § 5(a); OWASP Top 10 Login for
47 U.S.C. § 605	d‑Party Trackers High 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 47 U.S.C. § 605; GDPR Art. 5-7; ePrivacy Directive Scri
GDPR Art. 5	High 18 U.S.C. § 2511; 47 U.S.C. § 605; GDPR Art. 5-7; ePrivacy Directive Scripts: Google A
GDPR Art. 13	nism High CCPA § 1798.100; GLBA § 6801; GDPR Art. 13; ePrivacy Directive No consent banner;
15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(A)	es of up to $50,120 per violation under 15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(A). • NIST SP 800-53 (Security Controls)
40 U.S.C. § 11331	P 800-53 (Security Controls) and FISMA (40 U.S.C. § 11331): The absence of CSP violates control S
GDPR Article 32	ficiency that invites exploitation. • GDPR Article 32 (Security of Processing): The failure t
18 U.S.C. § 2510(12)	is an "electronic communication" under 18 U.S.C. § 2510(12). The data is captured and sent to third
Civ. Code § 1798.155(b)	.S.C. § 6801 $100,000 #4 CCPA – Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.155(b) $7,500 #4 GDPR (min per violation) €
28 U.S.C. § 1746	re under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 that the foregoing audit has been condu
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

259.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (6)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) and 47 U.S.C. § 605: Defendants unlawfully intercepted, disclosed, and used plaintiffs' electronic communications (IP addresses, browsing data) witho	.) as joint tortfeasors. Counts: Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) and 47 U.S.C. § 605: Defendants unlawfully intercepted, disclosed, an
Count II – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive acts by failing to implement basic security controls (CSP, CSRF tokens, input sanitization) and exposing pla	tion, trebled, and injunctive relief. Count II – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive acts by failing to imp
Count III – Violation of the Gramm‑Leach‑Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Defendants failed to provide a clear privacy notice at the point of collection, violating the GLBA's privacy rule. Plaintiffs seek statut	per violation and injunctive relief. Count III – Violation of the Gramm‑Leach‑Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Defendants failed to provide a clear privacy notice
Count IV – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Defendants collected personal information without providing a privacy notice at collection and without an opt‑out mecha	per violation and corrective action. Count IV – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100): Defendants collected personal info
Count V – Violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (EU) 2016/679: Defendants processed personal data without a lawful basis, without consent, and without providing information, and transfer	tory damages of $7,500 per violation. Count V – Violation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (EU) 2016/679: Defendants processed personal data wit
Count VI – Violation of the ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC: Defendants stored or accessed information on user devices (cookies) without prior consent. Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief.	obal turnover, and injunctive relief. Count VI – Violation of the ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC: Defendants stored or accessed information on user devices (cook

259.4 Dollar Figures (23)

$3.03 · $4.47 · $10.00 · $150.00 · $450.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $30,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $100,000.00 · $110,000.00 · $270,000.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $3,000,000.00 · $7,500,000,000.00 · $30,000,000,000.00 · $100,000,000,000.00 · $110,000,000,000.00 · $150,360,000,000.00 · $540,000,000,000.00 · $3,000,000,000,000.00 · $3,030,000,000,000.00 · $4,477,860,000,000.00

259.5 Dates (1)

2026-07-27

Section 260 of 261

Section 260 — Forensic Audit Report – AI System Analysis

Source File	FORENSIC-0260-msnaudit-b4e95bd3.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-27 05:54:04
Size	38,851 bytes
SHA-256	b4e95bd3b6f5111abed331decf8b55ccc660bbd56d1dd9cc8fcf514e35b5cf7c

260.1 Parties (2)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
plaintiff	All affected individuals	States District Court – Civil Action Plaintiffs: All affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Yahoo! Inc
defendant	Yahoo	affected individuals (Class Action) Defendants: Yahoo! Inc., Apollo Global Management, Inc.,

260.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (20)

Citation	Source excerpt
GDPR Article 22	iolating the right to explanation under GDPR Article 22 and FTC Act Section 5(a) regarding unfa
GDPR Art. 5	ction & Sharing with Third Parties High GDPR Art. 5, 6; ePrivacy Dir.; CCPA §1798.100; 18 U
18 U.S.C. § 1030	t. 5, 6; ePrivacy Dir.; CCPA §1798.100; 18 U.S.C. § 1030 Script tags: benji-2.3.314.js, prebid-c
GDPR Art. 22	ng Without Consent or Transparency High GDPR Art. 22; EU AI Act Art. 52; FTC Act §5(a); Cal.
Civ. Code §1798.100	EU AI Act Art. 52; FTC Act §5(a); Cal. Civ. Code §1798.100 Personalization engines: "For You" feed
18 U.S.C. § 2511	ltration and Unauthorized Tracking High 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap); 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 18 U.S.C. §
5 U.S.C. § 552	acking High 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap); 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 18 U.S.C. § 1343 Analytics: s.yimg.co
18 U.S.C. § 1343	S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap); 5 U.S.C. § 552a; 18 U.S.C. § 1343 Analytics: s.yimg.com/ss/analytics-3.83
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	c Bias Against Protected Classes Medium 15 U.S.C. § 45(a); UN Guiding Principles on Business and
GDPR Art. 7	anism for Processing Personal Data High GDPR Art. 7; ePrivacy Dir. Art. 5(3); Cal. Civ. Cod
GDPR Art. 4	Advertising and Content Selection High GDPR Art. 4(4), 22; CCPA §1798.100; 18 U.S.C. § 158
18 U.S.C. § 1589	igh GDPR Art. 4(4), 22; CCPA §1798.100; 18 U.S.C. § 1589 (forced labor exploitation via data) Us
GDPR Article 6	et. Statutory Expansion (3×): 1. GDPR Article 6 (Lawfulness of processing): Processing
GDPR Article 7	se. Statutory Expansion (3×): 1. GDPR Article 7 (Conditions for consent): Consent must
GDPR Article 4	le. Statutory Expansion (3×): 1. GDPR Article 4(4) and 22 (Profiling and automated deci
GDPR Art. 83	mated 1 violation per user per month GDPR Art. 83 (Violation of Art. 5, 6, 22) €35,000,00
Civil Code §1798.100	ifornia Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and Civil Code §1798.100: Defendants collected and sold personal
22 U.S.C. § 2295	ordance with the standards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, a
50 U.S.C. § 1702	andards set forth in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable f
10 U.S.C. § 2304	in 22 U.S.C. § 2295a, 50 U.S.C. § 1702, 10 U.S.C. § 2304, and all applicable federal, state, and

260.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (6)

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and Civil Code §1798.100: Defendants collected and sold personal information of millions of California residents without providing a clear op	ent, Inc., and Does 1-100. Counts: Count I – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and Civil Code §1798.100: Defendants collected and sold per
Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants exceeded authorized access by deploying tracking scripts that exfiltrated personal data beyond the scope of user consent	ion, trebled, plus injunctive relief. Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants exceeded authorized access by depl
Count III – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intercepted electronic communications (clicks, keystrokes, etc.) without consent, in violation of federal wiretapping laws. Statutory dam	amages of $5,000 plus treble damages. Count III – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intercepted electronic communications (clicks, key
Count IV – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive practices by misrepresenting the extent of data collection and the use of AI in content personalization, cau	es of $10,000 per violation, trebled. Count IV – Violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive practices by misrepres
Count V – Violation of the GDPR (via EU citizens) and Privacy Shield principles (where applicable): Defendants processed personal data without a valid lawful basis, including automated decision-making withou	causing substantial consumer injury. Count V – Violation of the GDPR (via EU citizens) and Privacy Shield principles (where applicable): Defendants processed pe
Count VI – Common Law Fraud and Unjust Enrichment: Defendants fraudulently induced users to provide personal data under the guise of a free service, while profiting handsomely from the unauthorized sale and u	er state and federal tort principles. Count VI – Common Law Fraud and Unjust Enrichment: Defendants fraudulently induced users to provide personal data under th

260.4 Dollar Figures (31)

$0.76 · $1.14 · $1.25 · $1.53 · $1.87 · $2.25 · $2.50 · $3.20 · $3.75 · $4.60 · $5.00 · $8.00 · $11.25 · $12.00 · $22.50 · $25.06 · $50.00 · $51.30 · $51.31 · $250.00 · $375.00 · $500.00 · $5,000.00 · $7,500.00 · $10,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $1,000,000.00 · $560,000,000.00 · $250,000,000,000.00 · $375,000,000,000.00 · $500,000,000,000.00

260.5 Dates (0)

—

Section 261 of 261

Section 261 — Forensic Audit Report – Real Estate Buyer Representation Agreement

Source File	FORENSIC-0261-real-estate-agent-so-called-buyer-agent-contract-audit-79a144c6.html
Created	—
Modified	2026-07-26 18:42:20
Size	31,868 bytes
SHA-256	79a144c6bcf3376f0ef181b7fb7acd397414a23cb6014b5201f95fbca54dda24

261.1 Parties (0)

Side	Name	Source excerpt
no parties extracted

261.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (46)

Citation	Source excerpt
22 U.S.C. § 2295	indsey Real Estate Audit Authority: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 2
50 U.S.C. § 1702	Audit Authority: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U
10 U.S.C. § 2304	y: 22 U.S.C. § 2295a; 50 U.S.C. § 1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S
47 U.S.C. § 230	1702; 10 U.S.C. § 2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.
5 U.S.C. § 552	2304; 26 CFR 1.507-2; 47 U.S.C. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiret
18 U.S.C. § 2511	. § 230; 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA);
18 U.S.C. § 1030	y Act); 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)	(Wiretap Act); 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal
15 U.S.C. § 6801	30 (CFAA); 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA
Civ. Code § 1798.100	FTC Act); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA); Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 2
42 U.S.C. § 12181	Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508);
29 U.S.C. § 794	0 (CCPA/CPRA); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-S
15 U.S.C. § 7701	(ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794d (Section 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-SPAM); 15 U.S.C. § 6501 (COPPA); G
15 U.S.C. § 6501	tion 508); 15 U.S.C. § 7701 (CAN-SPAM); 15 U.S.C. § 6501 (COPPA); GDPR (EU) 2016/679; ePrivacy D
Fla. Stat. § 501.205	sumer protection ordinances pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 501.205. Duval County Ordinance Code – Chap
Municipal Code § 106.201	licensing disclosure. Jacksonville Municipal Code § 106.201 (Truth in Advertising) – Prohibits misl
Fla. Stat. § 475.42(1)(b)	2. STATE LAW VIOLATIONS – FLORIDA Fla. Stat. § 475.42(1)(b) – Real Estate License Law; requires eve
Fla. Stat. § 475.42(1)(e)	license number – direct violation. Fla. Stat. § 475.42(1)(e) – Prohibits misleading or deceptive adv
Fla. Stat. § 475.278(1)	e no actual property is identified. Fla. Stat. § 475.278(1) – Requires a written agency disclosure
Fla. Stat. § 475.278(2)(a)	he agency relationship as required. Fla. Stat. § 475.278(2)(a) – Requires that a single agent disclose
Fla. Stat. § 475.42(1)(f)	eates a dual compensation conflict. Fla. Stat. § 475.42(1)(f) – Prohibits a broker from charging a fe
Fla. Stat. § 501.204(1)	e deemed excessive and a violation. Fla. Stat. § 501.204(1) – Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Pr
Fla. Stat. § 501.204(2)	all are unfair/deceptive practices. Fla. Stat. § 501.204(2) – "In construing this section, due cons
Fla. Stat. § 817.41(1)	t § 5 and thus FDUTPA by extension. Fla. Stat. § 817.41(1) – False and fraudulent advertising; pro
Rule 61	ere introduction). Fla. Admin. Code Rule 61J2-10.025(1) – Every real estate contrac
Fla. Stat. § 455.227(1)(j)	it is a hidden charge – misleading. Fla. Stat. § 455.227(1)(j) – A licensee (any professional, includi
Fla. Stat. § 475.25(1)(a)	d overreach constitutes misconduct. Fla. Stat. § 475.25(1)(a) – Provides for discipline, including re
15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1)	LAW VIOLATIONS FTC Act § 5(a)(1) – 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1) – "Unfair or deceptive acts or practice
12 U.S.C. § 2601	ate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) – 12 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. – Prohibits kickbacks and unear
15 U.S.C. § 6801(a)	is financed, it may trigger. GLBA – 15 U.S.C. § 6801(a) – Requires financial institutions to pr
15 U.S.C. § 6823(b)	dling mortgage information.) GLBA – 15 U.S.C. § 6823(b) – Penalties for false statements. VIOLA
12 U.S.C. § 5481	Consumer Financial Protection Act – 12 U.S.C. § 5481 et seq. – Prohibits unfair, deceptive,
Fla. Stat. § 672.101	Commercial Code (adopted in Florida as Fla. Stat. § 672.101 et seq.) – Contract of adhesion; uncons
15 U.S.C. § 45(m)	hem. Federal Trade Commission Act – 15 U.S.C. § 45(m) – Penalties up to $50,120 per violation
18 U.S.C. § 1341	exposure $501,200+ per transaction. 18 U.S.C. § 1341 – Mail Fraud – If the contract is sent
18 U.S.C. § 1343	l criminal exposure for the broker. 18 U.S.C. § 1343 – Wire Fraud – If the contract is trans
15 U.S.C. § 1	fraud act. Sherman Antitrust Act – 15 U.S.C. § 1 – If this form is a standard industry p
15 U.S.C. § 14	l restraint of trade. Clayton Act – 15 U.S.C. § 14 – Exclusive dealing contracts that subs
18 U.S.C. § 1961	and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) – 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. – If the broker uses the mail o
Fla. Stat. § 501.204	4 counties All county consumer ord. Fla. Stat. § 501.204; § 475.42(1)(e) FTC Act § 5 (overbroa
Fla. Stat. § 817.41	her agreements False representation Fla. Stat. § 817.41 (fraud) 18 U.S.C. § 1341/1343 (mail/w
Fla. Stat. § 475.42	5.2 – Florida Real Estate License Law – Fla. Stat. § 475.42 Statute: § 475.42(1)(b) requires that
12 U.S.C. § 2607	s a separate violation. 5.4 – RESPA – 12 U.S.C. § 2607 Statute: § 2607(a) prohibits kickback
18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)	imprisonment per count. 5.7 – RICO – 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) Statute: Prohibits any person employe
18 U.S.C. § 1964(c)	orney fees, and costs under civil RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1964(c)). 6. FINANCIAL EXPOSURE CALCULATION (
15 U.S.C. § 45	COUNT I – Violation of FTC Act § 5 (15 U.S.C. § 45): Unfair and deceptive acts – failure t

261.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (8)

Header	Source excerpt
COUNT I – Violation of FTC Act § 5 (15 U.S.C. § 45): Unfair and deceptive acts – failure to disclose brokerage identity, hidden fees, overbroad tail, and omission of fiduciary duties.	PLAINT ALLEGATIONS – FEDERAL COUNTS COUNT I – Violation of FTC Act § 5 (15 U.S.C. § 45): Unfair and deceptive acts – failure to disclose brokerage identity, hid
COUNT II – Mail Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341): Transmission of the contract via mail constitutes a scheme to defraud Buyer of money (commission + $595) by misrepresentation.	, and omission of fiduciary duties. COUNT II – Mail Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341): Transmission of the contract via mail constitutes a scheme to defraud Buyer of mon
COUNT III – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Electronic transmission of the contract for e-signature is wire fraud.	ssion + $595) by misrepresentation. COUNT III – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Electronic transmission of the contract for e-signature is wire fraud. COUNT IV –
COUNT IV – Violation of Florida FDUTPA (Fla. Stat. § 501.204): Unfair and deceptive trade practices.	ract for e-signature is wire fraud. COUNT IV – Violation of Florida FDUTPA (Fla. Stat. § 501.204): Unfair and deceptive trade practices. COUNT V – Violation of
COUNT V – Violation of Florida Real Estate License Law (Fla. Stat. § 475.42): Failure to disclose brokerage identity, hidden compensation, and dual compensation.	fair and deceptive trade practices. COUNT V – Violation of Florida Real Estate License Law (Fla. Stat. § 475.42): Failure to disclose brokerage identity, hidden
COUNT VI – Violation of RESPA (12 U.S.C. § 2607): Charging an unearned $595 fee.	ompensation, and dual compensation. COUNT VI – Violation of RESPA (12 U.S.C. § 2607): Charging an unearned $595 fee. COUNT VII – Violation of GLBA (15 U
COUNT VII – Violation of GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Failure to provide privacy notice.	07): Charging an unearned $595 fee. COUNT VII – Violation of GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Failure to provide privacy notice. COUNT VIII – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1962
COUNT VIII – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)): Pattern of racketeering through mail/wire fraud in multiple transactions.	Failure to provide privacy notice. COUNT VIII – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)): Pattern of racketeering through mail/wire fraud in multiple transactions. Damages So

261.4 Dollar Figures (16)

$1.50 · $2.00 · $595.00 · $5,000.00 · $10,000.00 · $15,000.00 · $30,000.00 · $50,000.00 · $50,120.00 · $100,000.00 · $180,000.00 · $250,000.00 · $500,000.00 · $501,200.00 · $601,440.00 · $1,000,000.00

261.5 Dates (0)

—

Header	Source excerpt
Count Crime Accounting	Art. 5(3). 4.0 Deterministic Per-Count Crime Accounting 4.1 Methodology. A "count" is defined
Count Ct/Pg	Violation Class $ / Count Ct/Pg Per Sec Per Min Per Hr Per Day
Count I — 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA): Exposed IDX Kestrel activation token; $5,000 statutory minimum per violation.	, Paragon, and John/Jane Does 1–20. Count I — 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA): Exposed IDX Kestrel activation token; $5,000 statutory minimum per violation. Count II —
Count II — 17 U.S.C. § 504 (Copyright): Cross-origin hotlinking of Paragon MLS image; statutory damages up to $150,000 per work.	,000 statutory minimum per violation. Count II — 17 U.S.C. § 504 (Copyright): Cross-origin hotlinking of Paragon MLS image; statutory damages up to $150,000 per
Count III — 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act): Google Analytics tracking without consent; treble damages; $10,000 statutory minimum.	tory damages up to $150,000 per work. Count III — 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act): Google Analytics tracking without consent; treble damages; $10,000 statutory m
Count IV — 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act): Non-applicable (private entity).	e damages; $10,000 statutory minimum. Count IV — 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act): Non-applicable (private entity). Count V — 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act): D
Count V — 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act): Deceptive consent gate and misleading privacy claims; $50,120 per violation.	ct): Non-applicable (private entity). Count V — 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act): Deceptive consent gate and misleading privacy claims; $50,120 per violation. Count VI
Count VI — 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA): Real estate financial information handling.	rivacy claims; $50,120 per violation. Count VI — 15 U.S.C. § 6801 (GLBA): Real estate financial information handling. Count VII — 47 U.S.C. § 605: CDN scri
Count VII — 47 U.S.C. § 605: CDN script injection surface; $110,000 per count.	state financial information handling. Count VII — 47 U.S.C. § 605: CDN script injection surface; $110,000 per count. Count VIII — GDPR Arts. 5, 6, 7, 44–4
Count VIII — GDPR Arts. 5, 6, 7, 44–49: Google Fonts, Google Analytics, IDX cross-border; €250,000 or 4% global turnover per violation.	njection surface; $110,000 per count. Count VIII — GDPR Arts. 5, 6, 7, 44–49: Google Fonts, Google Analytics, IDX cross-border; €250,000 or 4% global turnover p
Count IX — UK DPA 2018 / UK GDPR: £17,500,000 or 4% global turnover.	or 4% global turnover per violation. Count IX — UK DPA 2018 / UK GDPR: £17,500,000 or 4% global turnover. Count X — Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (
Count X — Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA/CPRA): $7,500 per intentional violation per consumer.	R: £17,500,000 or 4% global turnover. Count X — Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 (CCPA/CPRA): $7,500 per intentional violation per consumer. Count XI — Invasion of Pri
Count XI — Invasion of Privacy (Four Branches).	r intentional violation per consumer. Count XI — Invasion of Privacy (Four Branches). Count XII — Trespass to Chattels and
Count XII — Trespass to Chattels and Conversion.	Invasion of Privacy (Four Branches). Count XII — Trespass to Chattels and Conversion. Count XIII — Negligence and Negligenc
Count XIII — Negligence and Negligence Per Se.	Trespass to Chattels and Conversion. Count XIII — Negligence and Negligence Per Se. Count XIV — Breach of Fiduciary Duty.
Count XIV — Breach of Fiduciary Duty.	— Negligence and Negligence Per Se. Count XIV — Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Count XV — Civil Conspiracy. Count
Count XV — Civil Conspiracy.	ount XIV — Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Count XV — Civil Conspiracy. Count XVI — Declaratory and Injunctiv
Count XVI — Declaratory and Injunctive Relief: Immediate rotation of the IDX Kestrel activation token; CSP, SRI, CSRF, and consent gating; disclosure of Google Analytics and Google Fonts data flows; MAAR IDX r	uty. Count XV — Civil Conspiracy. Count XVI — Declaratory and Injunctive Relief: Immediate rotation of the IDX Kestrel activation token; CSP, SRI, CSRF, and con

Header	Source excerpt
Count I — Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications of class members via GTM, GTM noscript iframe, modulepreload script execution, and th	r entities identified in discovery. Count I — Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications of
Count II — Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants exceeded authorized access to protected computers of class members by executing 14 unauthorized script bundles and by fi	sion, without consent, on each visit. Count II — Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants exceeded authorized access to prot
Count III — Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Defendants executed a scheme to defraud class members of their privacy for commercial gain, transmitting wire communications in furtherance thereof.	ndles and by fingerprinting browsers. Count III — Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Defendants executed a scheme to defraud class members of their privacy for comm
Count IV — Violation of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Disclosure of records without consent and failure to provide § 552a(e)(3) notice.	ommunications in furtherance thereof. Count IV — Violation of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Disclosure of records without consent and failure to provide §
Count V — Violation of the CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Failure to provide notice, opt‑out, and honor Global Privacy Control signals.	ilure to provide § 552a(e)(3) notice. Count V — Violation of the CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Failure to provide notice, opt‑out, and honor Gl
Count VI — Violation of the NY SHIELD Act (N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 899‑bb): Failure to implement reasonable safeguards for private information.	honor Global Privacy Control signals. Count VI — Violation of the NY SHIELD Act (N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 899‑bb): Failure to implement reasonable safeguards for pr
Count VII — Violation of the ePrivacy Directive (Art. 5(3)): Storage and access to terminal equipment without consent.	e safeguards for private information. Count VII — Violation of the ePrivacy Directive (Art. 5(3)): Storage and access to terminal equipment without consent. Cou
Count VIII — Violation of the GDPR (Arts. 5, 6, 7, 13, 44): Processing without lawful basis and transfer to third countries without safeguards.	o terminal equipment without consent. Count VIII — Violation of the GDPR (Arts. 5, 6, 7, 13, 44): Processing without lawful basis and transfer to third countrie
Count IX — Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1519 / § 2071: Destruction, alteration, and concealment of records through the hideCEOCard DOM‑manipulation script.	o third countries without safeguards. Count IX — Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1519 / § 2071: Destruction, alteration, and concealment of records through the hideCEO
Count X — Violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. § 1836): Disclosure of internal Jenkins CI path and internal origin URL.	hideCEOCard DOM‑manipulation script. Count X — Violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. § 1836): Disclosure of internal Jenkins CI path and internal
Count XI — Common Law Invasion of Privacy (Intrusion upon Seclusion): Highly offensive intrusion into the private affairs of each class member.	kins CI path and internal origin URL. Count XI — Common Law Invasion of Privacy (Intrusion upon Seclusion): Highly offensive intrusion into the private affairs
Count XII — Public Disclosure of Private Facts: Disclosure of sensitive browsing, quote, and tracking data.	private affairs of each class member. Count XII — Public Disclosure of Private Facts: Disclosure of sensitive browsing, quote, and tracking data. Count XIII — F
Count XIII — Fraud / Deceptive Practices: Misrepresentation of the site as privacy‑protective while executing 26 categories of unlawful tracking.	e browsing, quote, and tracking data. Count XIII — Fraud / Deceptive Practices: Misrepresentation of the site as privacy‑protective while executing 26 categorie
Count XIV — Breach of Fiduciary Duty: As a registered securities exchange entrusted with market data, NYSE breached its fiduciary duty to users.	g 26 categories of unlawful tracking. Count XIV — Breach of Fiduciary Duty: As a registered securities exchange entrusted with market data, NYSE breached its fi
Count XV — Negligence and Gross Negligence: Failure to conduct reasonable due diligence on tracking vendors and CI hygiene.	breached its fiduciary duty to users. Count XV — Negligence and Gross Negligence: Failure to conduct reasonable due diligence on tracking vendors and CI hygiene
Count XVI — Civil Conspiracy (42 U.S.C. § 1985): ICE, NYSE, and Google acted in concert to facilitate unlawful data flows.	e on tracking vendors and CI hygiene. Count XVI — Civil Conspiracy (42 U.S.C. § 1985): ICE, NYSE, and Google acted in concert to facilitate unlawful data flows.
Count XVII — Violation of SEC Regulation SCI (17 C.F.R. § 242.1000 et seq.): Failure to maintain adequate cybersecurity and system‑integrity controls.	rt to facilitate unlawful data flows. Count XVII — Violation of SEC Regulation SCI (17 C.F.R. § 242.1000 et seq.): Failure to maintain adequate cybersecurity an
Count XVIII — Violation of SEC Rule 10b‑5 (17 C.F.R. § 240.10b‑5): Manipulation of material information through CEO‑card suppression.	curity and system‑integrity controls. Count XVIII — Violation of SEC Rule 10b‑5 (17 C.F.R. § 240.10b‑5): Manipulation of material information through CEO‑card s
Count XIX — Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1372 (critical infrastructure): Damage to critical infrastructure by exfiltrating data through unsecured channels.	rmation through CEO‑card suppression. Count XIX — Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1372 (critical infrastructure): Damage to critical infrastructure by exfiltrating dat
Count XX — Violation of the ITU Radio Regulations (Art. 18): Harmful interference via unconsented radio‑frequency data transmission over the spectrum.	ting data through unsecured channels. Count XX — Violation of the ITU Radio Regulations (Art. 18): Harmful interference via unconsented radio‑frequency data tra

Header	Source excerpt
Count Crime Accounting	security. 4.0 Deterministic Per-Count Crime Accounting 4.1 Methodology. A "count" is defined
Count Ct/Pg	Violation Class $ / Count Ct/Pg Per Sec Per Min Per Hr Per Day
Count I — 18 U.S.C. § 1030: Exposed Power Automate flow URL with valid SAS sig; $5,000 statutory minimum per violation.	hCaptcha), and John/Jane Does 1–20. Count I — 18 U.S.C. § 1030: Exposed Power Automate flow URL with valid SAS sig; $5,000 statutory minimum per violation. Coun
Count II — 18 U.S.C. § 1028: Tenant, environment, organization, portal, and analytics cookie leakage; statutory maxima.	,000 statutory minimum per violation. Count II — 18 U.S.C. § 1028: Tenant, environment, organization, portal, and analytics cookie leakage; statutory maxima. Co
Count III — 18 U.S.C. § 2511: OneCollector telemetry without consent; treble damages; $10,000 statutory minimum.	ics cookie leakage; statutory maxima. Count III — 18 U.S.C. § 2511: OneCollector telemetry without consent; treble damages; $10,000 statutory minimum. Count IV
Count IV — 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act): PII collection without a System of Records Notice; $5,000 per violation.	e damages; $10,000 statutory minimum. Count IV — 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act): PII collection without a System of Records Notice; $5,000 per violation. Count V
Count V — 44 U.S.C. § 3551 et seq. (FISMA): Failure to implement required security controls.	Records Notice; $5,000 per violation. Count V — 44 U.S.C. § 3551 et seq. (FISMA): Failure to implement required security controls. Count VI — 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FT
Count VI — 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act): Misleading banner combined with SRI-absent scripts; $50,120 per violation.	implement required security controls. Count VI — 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act): Misleading banner combined with SRI-absent scripts; $50,120 per violation. Count VII
Count VII — 47 U.S.C. § 605: CDN script injection surface; $110,000 per count.	bsent scripts; $50,120 per violation. Count VII — 47 U.S.C. § 605: CDN script injection surface; $110,000 per count. Count VIII — GDPR Arts. 5, 6, 7, 44–4
Count VIII — GDPR Arts. 5, 6, 7, 44–49: Cross-border telemetry; €250,000 or 4% global turnover per violation.	njection surface; $110,000 per count. Count VIII — GDPR Arts. 5, 6, 7, 44–49: Cross-border telemetry; €250,000 or 4% global turnover per violation. Count IX — U
Count IX — UK DPA 2018 / UK GDPR: £17,500,000 or 4% global turnover.	or 4% global turnover per violation. Count IX — UK DPA 2018 / UK GDPR: £17,500,000 or 4% global turnover. Count X — Invasion of Privacy (Four B
Count X — Invasion of Privacy (Four Branches).	R: £17,500,000 or 4% global turnover. Count X — Invasion of Privacy (Four Branches). Count XI — Trespass to Chattels and C
Count XI — Trespass to Chattels and Conversion.	Invasion of Privacy (Four Branches). Count XI — Trespass to Chattels and Conversion. Count XII — Negligence and Negligence
Count XII — Negligence and Negligence Per Se.	Trespass to Chattels and Conversion. Count XII — Negligence and Negligence Per Se. Count XIII — Bivens (Fourth, Fifth, S
Count XIII — Bivens (Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth Amendments).	— Negligence and Negligence Per Se. Count XIII — Bivens (Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth Amendments). Count XIV — 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Reserve
Count XIV — 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Reserved for state actors.	h, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth Amendments). Count XIV — 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Reserved for state actors. Count XV — Civil Conspiracy. Count
Count XV — Civil Conspiracy.	C. § 1983: Reserved for state actors. Count XV — Civil Conspiracy. Count XVI — Declaratory and Injunctiv
Count XVI — Declaratory and Injunctive Relief: Immediate rotation of the exposed SAS signature; CSP, SRI, CSRF, and consent gating; disclosure of OneCollector telemetry; Privacy Act SORN.	tors. Count XV — Civil Conspiracy. Count XVI — Declaratory and Injunctive Relief: Immediate rotation of the exposed SAS signature; CSP, SRI, CSRF, and consent g

Header	Source excerpt
COUNT 1 Dual Google Tag Manager Containers Without Consent Gate	2.1 Detailed Violation Expansions COUNT 1 Dual Google Tag Manager Containers Without Consent Gate Evidence: Two separate GTM containers
COUNT 2 Google Analytics 4 Without Consent Gate	— €20M or 4%; ePrivacy — €250,000. COUNT 2 Google Analytics 4 Without Consent Gate Evidence: GA4 property loads without
COUNT 3 Meta Pixel PageView Tracking Without Consent	0. International: GDPR Art. 6, 44. COUNT 3 Meta Pixel PageView Tracking Without Consent Evidence: Facebook Pixel loads and fi
COUNT 4 Reddit Pixel PageVisit Tracking Without Consent	0,120. International: GDPR Art. 6. COUNT 4 Reddit Pixel PageVisit Tracking Without Consent Evidence: Reddit Pixel loads and fire
COUNT 5 TrustedForm Certificate Collection Without Disclosure	0,120. International: GDPR Art. 6. COUNT 5 TrustedForm Certificate Collection Without Disclosure Evidence: TrustedForm captures behavi
COUNT 6 Apex Chat Script Injection Without Disclosure	0,120. International: GDPR Art. 6. COUNT 6 Apex Chat Script Injection Without Disclosure Evidence: Apex Chat loads and renders
COUNT 7 GTranslate Widget Without Consent	reble. International: GDPR Art. 6. COUNT 7 GTranslate Widget Without Consent Evidence: GTranslate widget loads and
COUNT 8 Google reCAPTCHA v3 Without Disclosure	0. International: GDPR Art. 6, 44. COUNT 8 Google reCAPTCHA v3 Without Disclosure Evidence: reCAPTCHA v3 loads invisibl
COUNT 9 Google Fonts Third-Party Request Leak	0,120. International: GDPR Art. 6. COUNT 9 Google Fonts Third-Party Request Leak Evidence: Google Fonts loads from Goo
COUNT 10 Site Kit by Google Plugin Configuration Disclosure	r 4% (LG München I, 3 O 17493/20). COUNT 10 Site Kit by Google Plugin Configuration Disclosure Evidence: Plugin version and develope
COUNT 11 WordPress Version Disclosure	1030 — CFAA — $5,000; FTC Act § 5. COUNT 11 WordPress Version Disclosure Evidence: WordPress version 7.1.2 dis
COUNT 12 Gravity Forms Version Disclosure	18 U.S.C. § 1030 — CFAA — $5,000. COUNT 12 Gravity Forms Version Disclosure Evidence: Gravity Forms version 3.1.3
COUNT 13 Yoast SEO Version Disclosure	18 U.S.C. § 1030 — CFAA — $5,000. COUNT 13 Yoast SEO Version Disclosure Evidence: Yoast SEO version 28.6 disc
COUNT 14 WordPress REST API Endpoint Disclosure	18 U.S.C. § 1030 — CFAA — $5,000. COUNT 14 WordPress REST API Endpoint Disclosure Evidence: WP REST API root and page I
COUNT 15 WordPress Shortlink Disclosure	18 U.S.C. § 1030 — CFAA — $5,000. COUNT 15 WordPress Shortlink Disclosure Evidence: Shortlink endpoint disclose
COUNT 16 WordPress RSD/XML-RPC Endpoint Disclosure	18 U.S.C. § 1030 — CFAA — $5,000. COUNT 16 WordPress RSD/XML-RPC Endpoint Disclosure Evidence: XML-RPC endpoint disclosed,
COUNT 17 oEmbed JSON and XML Endpoint Disclosure	18 U.S.C. § 1030 — CFAA — $5,000. COUNT 17 oEmbed JSON and XML Endpoint Disclosure Evidence: oEmbed endpoints disclosed
COUNT 18 Redis Object Cache Disclosure	18 U.S.C. § 1030 — CFAA — $5,000. COUNT 18 Redis Object Cache Disclosure Evidence: Backend cache infrastructur
COUNT 19 Missing Content-Security-Policy Header	U.S.C. § 1836 — DTSA — $5,000,000. COUNT 19 Missing Content-Security-Policy Header Evidence: No CSP meta tag, no CSP hea
COUNT 20 Missing X-Frame-Options / frame-ancestors	s. & Com. Code § 501.001 — $7,500. COUNT 20 Missing X-Frame-Options / frame-ancestors Evidence: Site is embeddable in any a
COUNT 21 Missing Referrer-Policy Header	s. & Com. Code § 501.001 — $7,500. COUNT 21 Missing Referrer-Policy Header Evidence: Full referrer URL leaked to
COUNT 22 Missing Permissions-Policy Header	§ 5. International: GDPR Art. 44. COUNT 22 Missing Permissions-Policy Header Evidence: No restrictions on camera,
COUNT 23 Inline Style Attributes Throughout DOM	s. & Com. Code § 501.001 — $7,500. COUNT 23 Inline Style Attributes Throughout DOM Evidence: Inline styles defeat strict
COUNT 24 Deceptive reCAPTCHA Badge Concealment via CSS	§ 33.02. Tort: Negligence per se. COUNT 24 Deceptive reCAPTCHA Badge Concealment via CSS Evidence: The reCAPTCHA badge is redu
COUNT 25 Gravity Forms Honeypot Field Disclosure with Advisory Text	ational: GDPR Art. 6 — €20M or 4%. COUNT 25 Gravity Forms Honeypot Field Disclosure with Advisory Text Evidence: The hidden "Company" honeyp
COUNT 26 Gravity Forms Hidden Form Submission Method Disclosure	0. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 26 Gravity Forms Hidden Form Submission Method Disclosure Evidence: Hidden form method and post
COUNT 27 Gravity Forms Theme Disclosure	0. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 27 Gravity Forms Theme Disclosure Evidence: Form theme name and ID disc
COUNT 28 Gravity Forms Currency State Disclosure	0. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 28 Gravity Forms Currency State Disclosure Evidence: Encrypted currency and form
COUNT 29 Gravity Forms State Parameter Disclosure	0. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 29 Gravity Forms State Parameter Disclosure Evidence: Full form state serialized
COUNT 30 Gravity Forms Source and Target Page Disclosure	0. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 30 Gravity Forms Source and Target Page Disclosure Evidence: Source and target page numb
COUNT 31 Gravity Forms Field Values Disclosure	A. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 31 Gravity Forms Field Values Disclosure Evidence: Field values parameter disc
COUNT 32 Gravity Forms Product ID Disclosure	A. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 32 Gravity Forms Product ID Disclosure Evidence: Gravity Forms version_hash
COUNT 33 Gravity Forms Theme Config Disclosure	A. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 33 Gravity Forms Theme Config Disclosure Evidence: Full theme config including
COUNT 34 WordPress AJAX Nonce Disclosure	0. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 34 WordPress AJAX Nonce Disclosure Evidence: WordPress AJAX nonce disclo
COUNT 35 Google reCAPTCHA Site Key Disclosure	0. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 35 Google reCAPTCHA Site Key Disclosure Evidence: reCAPTCHA site key disclose
COUNT 36 Google reCAPTCHA Strings and Configuration Disclosure	0. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 36 Google reCAPTCHA Strings and Configuration Disclosure Evidence: Full reCAPTCHA configuratio
COUNT 37 Gravity Forms i18n String Disclosure	0. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 37 Gravity Forms i18n String Disclosure Evidence: Full Gravity Forms i18n dat
COUNT 38 Gravity Forms Legacy Multi-Form Disclosure	A. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 38 Gravity Forms Legacy Multi-Form Disclosure Evidence: Legacy multi-form array dis
COUNT 39 Gravity Forms Vars and Image URL Disclosure	A. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 39 Gravity Forms Vars and Image URL Disclosure Evidence: Form strings and images URL
COUNT 40 Gravity Forms Global Config Disclosure (Duplicated)	A. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 40 Gravity Forms Global Config Disclosure (Duplicated) Evidence: Duplicate gf_global variabl
COUNT 41 WordPress i18n Locale Disclosure	0. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 41 WordPress i18n Locale Disclosure Evidence: Locale direction set disclo
COUNT 42 Ditty News Ticker CSS Disclosure	A. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 42 Ditty News Ticker CSS Disclosure Evidence: Plugin version 3.1.71 discl
COUNT 43 Ditty Font Awesome 6.4.0 Disclosure	A. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 43 Ditty Font Awesome 6.4.0 Disclosure Evidence: Font Awesome version 6.4.0
COUNT 44 Google Language Translator Version Disclosure	A. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 44 Google Language Translator Version Disclosure Evidence: Plugin version 7.0.1 disclo
COUNT 45 Theme Build Hash Disclosure	A. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 45 Theme Build Hash Disclosure Evidence: Theme build hash and direct
COUNT 46 Theme new-style.css Disclosure	A. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 46 Theme new-style.css Disclosure Evidence: Additional theme CSS disclo
COUNT 47 Privacy Lightbox CSS Disclosure	A. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 47 Privacy Lightbox CSS Disclosure Evidence: Privacy lightbox CSS file d
COUNT 48 jQuery and jQuery Migrate Version Disclosure	A. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 48 jQuery and jQuery Migrate Version Disclosure Evidence: jQuery 3.7.1 and Migrate 3.
COUNT 49 Inline jQuery Script Disclosure	0. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 49 Inline jQuery Script Disclosure Evidence: Inline jQuery logic for ext
COUNT 50 Feedzy RSS Feeds External Link Icon CSS Disclosure	A. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 50 Feedzy RSS Feeds External Link Icon CSS Disclosure Evidence: Feedzy plugin external link
COUNT 51 Google Language Translator Inline Style Disclosure	A. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 51 Google Language Translator Inline Style Disclosure Evidence: GLT inline CSS disclosed, e
COUNT 52 Stream WordPress User Activity Plugin Version Disclosure	A. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 52 Stream WordPress User Activity Plugin Version Disclosure Evidence: Plugin version 4.4.0 disclo
COUNT 53 Admin Bar Body Class Disclosure	A. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 53 Admin Bar Body Class Disclosure Evidence: Admin bar body class and he
COUNT 54 Gravity Forms reCAPTCHA Badge Disable Attribute	A. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 54 Gravity Forms reCAPTCHA Badge Disable Attribute Evidence: "disable_badge" attribute p
COUNT 55 Speculation Rules Prefetch Configuration Disclosure	s. & Com. Code § 501.001 — $7,500. COUNT 55 Speculation Rules Prefetch Configuration Disclosure Evidence: Full prefetch ruleset discl
COUNT 56 GTranslate Language Flags Inline display:none Disclosure	A. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 56 GTranslate Language Flags Inline display:none Disclosure Evidence: Language flag list hidden v
COUNT 57 GTranslate Trigger Span Disclosure	A. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 57 GTranslate Trigger Span Disclosure Evidence: Translate trigger and toolb
COUNT 58 WordPress Admin AJAX Nonce Duplicated Across Forms	A. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 58 WordPress Admin AJAX Nonce Duplicated Across Forms Evidence: Multiple AJAX nonces disclo
Count 18	4 DTSA (18 U.S.C. § 1836) $5,000,000 Count 18 Expected Value Calculation Dete

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Unlawful interception of electronic communications (2009‑2026).	.; Cloudflare, Inc.; and Does 1‑50. Count I – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Unlawful interception of electronic communications (2009‑2026). Count II – CFAA (1
Count II – CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers (2009‑2026).	lectronic communications (2009‑2026). Count II – CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers (2009‑2026). Count III – Wire Fraud (18 U.S
Count III – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Scheme to defraud by transmitting tracking data (2009‑2026).	s to protected computers (2009‑2026). Count III – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Scheme to defraud by transmitting tracking data (2009‑2026). Count IV – RICO (1
Count IV – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Pattern of racketeering activity (2009‑2026).	ansmitting tracking data (2009‑2026). Count IV – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Pattern of racketeering activity (2009‑2026). Count V – FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a))
Count V – FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair and deceptive trade practices (2009‑2026).	of racketeering activity (2009‑2026). Count V – FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair and deceptive trade practices (2009‑2026). Count VI – California Consumer Pr
Count VI – California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150): Failure to provide opt‑out, sale of personal information (2009‑2026).	eceptive trade practices (2009‑2026). Count VI – California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150): Failure to provide opt‑out, sale of personal infor
Count VII – GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Failure to protect nonpublic personal information (2009‑2026).	of personal information (2009‑2026). Count VII – GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Failure to protect nonpublic personal information (2009‑2026). Count VIII – Privacy Ac
Count VIII – Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Unauthorized maintenance of records on individuals (2009‑2026).	lic personal information (2009‑2026). Count VIII – Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Unauthorized maintenance of records on individuals (2009‑2026). Count IX – Biv
Count IX – Bivens Constitutional Tort: Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations (2009‑2026).	f records on individuals (2009‑2026). Count IX – Bivens Constitutional Tort: Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations (2009‑2026). Count X – Common Law Invasion of
Count X – Common Law Invasion of Privacy (all four branches) (2009‑2026).	fth Amendment violations (2009‑2026). Count X – Common Law Invasion of Privacy (all four branches) (2009‑2026). Damages Sought: Compensatory, statu
Count I – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants unlawfully intercepted electronic communications (2009‑2026).	over 204,000 individuals. Counts Count I – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants unlawfully intercepted electronic communications (2009‑2026). Count II – C
Count II – Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants accessed protected computers without authorization (2009‑2026).	lectronic communications (2009‑2026). Count II – Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants accessed protected computers without authorization
Count III – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Defendants devised a scheme to defraud by collecting and selling data (2009‑2026).	rs without authorization (2009‑2026). Count III – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Defendants devised a scheme to defraud by collecting and selling data (2009‑202
Count IV – Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Defendants engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity (2009‑2026).	lecting and selling data (2009‑2026). Count IV – Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Defendants engaged in a pattern of racke
Count V – Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 45): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices (2009‑2026).	of racketeering activity (2009‑2026). Count V – Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 45): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices (2009‑
Count VI – California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150): Defendants failed to provide opt‑out and sold personal information (2020‑2026).	eceptive trade practices (2009‑2026). Count VI – California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150): Defendants failed to provide opt‑out and sold pers
Count VII – GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Defendants failed to protect nonpublic personal information (2009‑2026).	old personal information (2020‑2026). Count VII – GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Defendants failed to protect nonpublic personal information (2009‑2026). Count VIII –
Count VIII – Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Defendants maintained records on individuals without lawful basis (2009‑2026).	lic personal information (2009‑2026). Count VIII – Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Defendants maintained records on individuals without lawful basis (2009‑2026).
Count IX – Bivens Constitutional Tort: Defendants acted under color of law to violate Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights (2009‑2026).	als without lawful basis (2009‑2026). Count IX – Bivens Constitutional Tort: Defendants acted under color of law to violate Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights (2
Count X – Common Law Invasion of Privacy: Intrusion, public disclosure, false light, and misappropriation (2009‑2026).	d Fifth Amendment rights (2009‑2026). Count X – Common Law Invasion of Privacy: Intrusion, public disclosure, false light, and misappropriation (2009‑2026). Pra

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C): Unauthorized access to protected computers via silent viewport fingerprinting, storage enumeration, and DOM injection.	ach entity named in Section 3 above Count I – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C): Unauthorized access to protected compute
Count II – Violation of the Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511: Unlawful interception of electronic communications through Zaraz telemetry, Cloudflare challenge iframe, and GTM noscript iframe.	orage enumeration, and DOM injection. Count II – Violation of the Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511: Unlawful interception of electronic communications through Zara
Count III – Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605: Unauthorized publication and use of intercepted communications.	enge iframe, and GTM noscript iframe. Count III – Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605: Unauthorized publication and use of intercepted communications. Count IV – Viola
Count IV – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud): Scheme to defraud users through misleading consent and hidden telemetry.	nd use of intercepted communications. Count IV – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud): Scheme to defraud users through misleading consent and hidden telem
Count V – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028 (Identity Fraud): Exposure of Facebook App ID and OAuth redirect surface as identity-theft vectors.	leading consent and hidden telemetry. Count V – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028 (Identity Fraud): Exposure of Facebook App ID and OAuth redirect surface as identi
Count VI – Violation of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45: Unfair and deceptive practices in data collection and disclosure.	ct surface as identity-theft vectors. Count VI – Violation of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45: Unfair and deceptive practices in data collection and disclosure. Cou
Count VII – Violation of GLBA, 15 U.S.C. § 6801: Failure to safeguard nonpublic personal information.	es in data collection and disclosure. Count VII – Violation of GLBA, 15 U.S.C. § 6801: Failure to safeguard nonpublic personal information. Count VIII – Violati
Count VIII – Violation of CCPA/CPRA, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.: Failure to provide notice, denial of right to know, denial of right to delete.	guard nonpublic personal information. Count VIII – Violation of CCPA/CPRA, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.: Failure to provide notice, denial of right to know
Count IX – Violation of Cal. Penal Code § 502: Unauthorized access to computer systems.	t to know, denial of right to delete. Count IX – Violation of Cal. Penal Code § 502: Unauthorized access to computer systems. Count X – Violation of Cal. Penal
Count X – Violation of Cal. Penal Code § 631: Wiretapping.	uthorized access to computer systems. Count X – Violation of Cal. Penal Code § 631: Wiretapping. Count XI – Violation of GDPR Art. 5,
Count XI – Violation of GDPR Art. 5, 6, 13, 25, 32, 44–49: Unlawful processing, lack of transparency, data protection by design failures, and unlawful cross-border transfer.	f Cal. Penal Code § 631: Wiretapping. Count XI – Violation of GDPR Art. 5, 6, 13, 25, 32, 44–49: Unlawful processing, lack of transparency, data protection by d
Count XII – Violation of ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC Art. 5(3): Device storage access without consent.	, and unlawful cross-border transfer. Count XII – Violation of ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC Art. 5(3): Device storage access without consent. Count XIII – Tort
Count XIII – Tort: Invasion of Privacy (Intrusion Upon Seclusion): Against all defendants.	evice storage access without consent. Count XIII – Tort: Invasion of Privacy (Intrusion Upon Seclusion): Against all defendants. Count XIV – Tort: Invasion of P
Count XIV – Tort: Invasion of Privacy (Public Disclosure of Private Facts): Against all defendants.	n Seclusion): Against all defendants. Count XIV – Tort: Invasion of Privacy (Public Disclosure of Private Facts): Against all defendants. Count XV – Tort: Invas
Count XV – Tort: Invasion of Privacy (False Light): Against all defendants.	ivate Facts): Against all defendants. Count XV – Tort: Invasion of Privacy (False Light): Against all defendants. Count XVI – Tort: Invasion of Privacy
Count XVI – Tort: Invasion of Privacy (Appropriation of Name or Likeness): Against all defendants.	False Light): Against all defendants. Count XVI – Tort: Invasion of Privacy (Appropriation of Name or Likeness): Against all defendants. Count XVII – Tort: Tres
Count XVII – Tort: Trespass to Chattels: Against all defendants for unauthorized use of user device resources.	or Likeness): Against all defendants. Count XVII – Tort: Trespass to Chattels: Against all defendants for unauthorized use of user device resources. Count XVIII
Count XVIII – Tort: Negligent Security: Against all defendants.	horized use of user device resources. Count XVIII – Tort: Negligent Security: Against all defendants. Count XIX – Tort: Breach of Implied C
Count XIX – Tort: Breach of Implied Contract / Covenant of Data Safeguarding: Against Link Development and Beyon Solutions.	ent Security: Against all defendants. Count XIX – Tort: Breach of Implied Contract / Covenant of Data Safeguarding: Against Link Development and Beyon Solutions
Count XX – Bivens Claim (Fourth Amendment): Against federal actors involved in any procurement or endorsement of the deployed systems.	Link Development and Beyon Solutions. Count XX – Bivens Claim (Fourth Amendment): Against federal actors involved in any procurement or endorsement of the deplo
Count XXI – Bivens Claim (Fifth Amendment – Due Process): Against federal actors.	endorsement of the deployed systems. Count XXI – Bivens Claim (Fifth Amendment – Due Process): Against federal actors. Count XXII – Bivens Claim (Sixth Amen
Count XXII – Bivens Claim (Sixth Amendment – Right to Counsel in Coerced Data Extraction Context): Against federal actors.	Due Process): Against federal actors. Count XXII – Bivens Claim (Sixth Amendment – Right to Counsel in Coerced Data Extraction Context): Against federal actors.
Count XXIII – Bivens Claim (Eighth Amendment – Cruel and Unusual Punishment via Technological Means): Against federal actors.	ion Context): Against federal actors. Count XXIII – Bivens Claim (Eighth Amendment – Cruel and Unusual Punishment via Technological Means): Against federal acto
Count XXIV – 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Against all state actors who procured, endorsed, or relied upon the deployed systems.	gical Means): Against federal actors. Count XXIV – 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Against all state actors who procured, endorsed, or relied upon the deployed systems. Count
Count XXV – 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights): Against all named defendants.	or relied upon the deployed systems. Count XXV – 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights): Against all named defendants. Count XXVI – 18 U.S.C. § 242 (Depriv
Count XXVI – 18 U.S.C. § 242 (Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law): Against all government-affiliated defendants.	ights): Against all named defendants. Count XXVI – 18 U.S.C. § 242 (Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law): Against all government-affiliated defendants. Cou
Count XXVII – 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (RICO): Against the enterprise comprised of Link Development, Beyon Solutions, Cloudflare, Google, and Meta for pattern of racketeering activity via wire fraud, identity fraud, and	all government-affiliated defendants. Count XXVII – 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (RICO): Against the enterprise comprised of Link Development, Beyon Solutions, Cloudflare,
Count XXVIII – Violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1836: Misappropriation of user data as trade secret.	identity fraud, and CFAA violations. Count XXVIII – Violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1836: Misappropriation of user data as trade secret.

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA): Unauthorized access to protected computers via 15 hidden form fields, CSRF omission, CDN script injection, inline JS without nonce, fingerprinting, PII exposur	and all deploying school districts Count I – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA): Unauthorized access to protected computers via 15 hidden form fields, CSRF om
Count II – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud): Scheme to defraud users of their personal data through deceptive login portal practices.	cookie consent, no terms of service. Count II – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud): Scheme to defraud users of their personal data through deceptive log
Count III – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act): Interception of electronic communications via browser fingerprinting, timezone detection, webview detection, and third-party data leaks.	ugh deceptive login portal practices. Count III – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act): Interception of electronic communications via browser fingerprint
Count IV – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2701 (Stored Communications Act): Unauthorized access to stored communications via hidden field exfiltration and session persistence.	etection, and third-party data leaks. Count IV – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2701 (Stored Communications Act): Unauthorized access to stored communications via hid
Count V – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028 (Identity Fraud): Identity theft via PII exposure and unauthorized data collection.	exfiltration and session persistence. Count V – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028 (Identity Fraud): Identity theft via PII exposure and unauthorized data collection
Count VI – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029 (Access Device Fraud): Unauthorized use of access devices via OAuth state exposure and PKCE challenge exposure.	ure and unauthorized data collection. Count VI – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029 (Access Device Fraud): Unauthorized use of access devices via OAuth state exposur
Count VII – Violation of 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act): Unfair and deceptive trade practices in the design and deployment of the login portal.	exposure and PKCE challenge exposure. Count VII – Violation of 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act): Unfair and deceptive trade practices in the design and deployment of th
Count VIII – Violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506 (COPPA): Collection of personal information from children under 13 without parental consent.	n and deployment of the login portal. Count VIII – Violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506 (COPPA): Collection of personal information from children under 13 withou
Count IX – Violation of 20 U.S.C. § 1232g (FERPA): Disclosure of student education records without consent.	en under 13 without parental consent. Count IX – Violation of 20 U.S.C. § 1232g (FERPA): Disclosure of student education records without consent. Count X – Viol
Count X – Violation of 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act): Unauthorized collection and disclosure of personal information.	nt education records without consent. Count X – Violation of 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act): Unauthorized collection and disclosure of personal information. Coun
Count XI – Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605: Unauthorized publication of communications.	d disclosure of personal information. Count XI – Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605: Unauthorized publication of communications. Count XII – Violation of 42 U.S.C. §
Count XII – Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Deprivation of rights under color of law.	orized publication of communications. Count XII – Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Deprivation of rights under color of law. Count XIII – Bivens Constitutional To
Count XIII – Bivens Constitutional Tort: Violation of Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment rights.	ivation of rights under color of law. Count XIII – Bivens Constitutional Tort: Violation of Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment rights. Count XIV – Viola
Count XIV – Violation of GDPR (EU) 2016/679: Unlawful processing of personal data of EU data subjects.	, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment rights. Count XIV – Violation of GDPR (EU) 2016/679: Unlawful processing of personal data of EU data subjects. Count XV – Violatio
Count XV – Violation of ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC: Unlawful storage and access to information on user devices.	of personal data of EU data subjects. Count XV – Violation of ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC: Unlawful storage and access to information on user devices. Count X
Count XVI – Violation of CCPA/CPRA: Failure to provide required disclosures and opt-out mechanisms.	ccess to information on user devices. Count XVI – Violation of CCPA/CPRA: Failure to provide required disclosures and opt-out mechanisms. Count XVII – Violation
Count XVII – Violation of State Computer Crime Statutes: California Penal Code § 502, New York Penal Law § 156, Texas Penal Code § 33.02, Florida Statutes § 815, Illinois 720 ILCS 5/16D, Pennsylvania 18 Pa.C.S.	d disclosures and opt-out mechanisms. Count XVII – Violation of State Computer Crime Statutes: California Penal Code § 502, New York Penal Law § 156, Texas Pena
Count XVIII – Tortious Invasion of Privacy: Intrusion upon seclusion, public disclosure of private facts, false light, appropriation.	/16D, Pennsylvania 18 Pa.C.S. § 5741. Count XVIII – Tortious Invasion of Privacy: Intrusion upon seclusion, public disclosure of private facts, false light, app
Count XIX – Negligence: Failure to implement reasonable security measures, CSRF protection, CSP, SRI, and consent mechanisms.	te facts, false light, appropriation. Count XIX – Negligence: Failure to implement reasonable security measures, CSRF protection, CSP, SRI, and consent mechanis
Count XX – Breach of Fiduciary Duty: Violation of the fiduciary duty owed to students, parents, and school districts.	on, CSP, SRI, and consent mechanisms. Count XX – Breach of Fiduciary Duty: Violation of the fiduciary duty owed to students, parents, and school districts. Coun
Count XXI – Fraud and Misrepresentation: Deceptive practices in the design of the login portal.	dents, parents, and school districts. Count XXI – Fraud and Misrepresentation: Deceptive practices in the design of the login portal. Count XXII – Civil Conspir
Count XXII – Civil Conspiracy: Agreement between LINC Technologies, FusionAuth, Google, Microsoft, and CDN providers to violate user privacy.	es in the design of the login portal. Count XXII – Civil Conspiracy: Agreement between LINC Technologies, FusionAuth, Google, Microsoft, and CDN providers to vi
Count XXIII – Violation of UCMJ Articles 92, 107, 121, 123, 131, 132, 133, 134: If any military personnel are involved in the deployment or use of the portal.	DN providers to violate user privacy. Count XXIII – Violation of UCMJ Articles 92, 107, 121, 123, 131, 132, 133, 134: If any military personnel are involved in
Count XXIV – Violation of International Treaties: Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, Council of Europe Convention 108, OECD Privacy Guidelines, APEC CBPR, UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.	the deployment or use of the portal. Count XXIV – Violation of International Treaties: Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, Council of Europe Convention 108, OECD
Count XXV – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 4 (Misprision of Felony): Failure to report known felonies.	nciples on Business and Human Rights. Count XXV – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 4 (Misprision of Felony): Failure to report known felonies. Count XXVI – Violation of
Count XXVI – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Conspiracy): Conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States.	y): Failure to report known felonies. Count XXVI – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Conspiracy): Conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States. Count XXV
Count XXVII – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights): Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights.	t offenses against the United States. Count XXVII – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights): Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights. Count X
Count XXVIII – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242 (Deprivation Under Color of Law): Deprivation of rights under color of law.	iracy to interfere with civil rights. Count XXVIII – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242 (Deprivation Under Color of Law): Deprivation of rights under color of law. Co
Count XXIX – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 245 (Federally Protected Activities): Interference with federally protected activities.	ivation of rights under color of law. Count XXIX – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 245 (Federally Protected Activities): Interference with federally protected activiti
Count XXX – Violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2071–2150 (False Statements, Records, Claims): False statements and records in connection with the login portal.	with federally protected activities. Count XXX – Violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2071–2150 (False Statements, Records, Claims): False statements and records in connec

Header	Source excerpt
Count Counts / Page	crolling. Violation Penalty / Count Counts / Page Sec Min Hr Day Wk Mo Qtr
Count I — Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA): Unauthorized access to protected computers via persistent machine ID, device fingerprinting, geolocation capture, HBA whitelist disclosure, CSRF exposure, miss	, executives, officers, directors). Count I — Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA): Unauthorized access to protected computers via persistent machine ID, device
Count II — Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act): Interception of electronic communications via telemetry, heartbeat, RBXReturn tracking, cross-tab communication, presence tracking, and Google Analytics	posure, missing SRI, and missing CSP. Count II — Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act): Interception of electronic communications via telemetry, heartbeat
Count III — Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud): Scheme to defraud users of their personal data and device identity through deceptive tracking.	sence tracking, and Google Analytics. Count III — Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud): Scheme to defraud users of their personal data and device identity
Count IV — Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028 (Identity Fraud): Identity theft via persistent machine ID and device fingerprinting.	identity through deceptive tracking. Count IV — Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028 (Identity Fraud): Identity theft via persistent machine ID and device fingerprinti
Count V — Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029 (Access Device Fraud): Unauthorized use of access devices via CSRF token exposure and persistent auth-token tracking.	machine ID and device fingerprinting. Count V — Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029 (Access Device Fraud): Unauthorized use of access devices via CSRF token exposure
Count VI — Violation of 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act): Unfair and deceptive trade practices in the collection and use of personal data.	e and persistent auth-token tracking. Count VI — Violation of 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act): Unfair and deceptive trade practices in the collection and use of person
Count VII — Violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506 (COPPA): Collection of personal information from children under 13 without verifiable parental consent.	collection and use of personal data. Count VII — Violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506 (COPPA): Collection of personal information from children under 13 without
Count VIII — Violation of 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act): Unauthorized collection and disclosure of personal information.	without verifiable parental consent. Count VIII — Violation of 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act): Unauthorized collection and disclosure of personal information. Co
Count IX — Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Deprivation of rights under color of law.	d disclosure of personal information. Count IX — Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Deprivation of rights under color of law. Count X — Bivens Constitutional Tort:
Count X — Bivens Constitutional Tort: Violation of Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment rights.	ivation of rights under color of law. Count X — Bivens Constitutional Tort: Violation of Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment rights. Count XI — Violation
Count XI — Violation of GDPR (EU) 2016/679: Unlawful processing, including child-data violations and cross-border transfers.	, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment rights. Count XI — Violation of GDPR (EU) 2016/679: Unlawful processing, including child-data violations and cross-border transfer
Count XII — Violation of ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC: Unlawful storage and access to information on user devices.	iolations and cross-border transfers. Count XII — Violation of ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC: Unlawful storage and access to information on user devices. Count
Count XIII — Violation of CCPA/CPRA: Failure to provide required disclosures, opt-outs, and Global Privacy Control enforcement.	ccess to information on user devices. Count XIII — Violation of CCPA/CPRA: Failure to provide required disclosures, opt-outs, and Global Privacy Control enforce
Count XIV — Violation of Vanuatu DPPA 2024, Cybercrime Act 2021, HDCA 2024: Unlawful processing, unauthorized access, and harmful digital communications.	d Global Privacy Control enforcement. Count XIV — Violation of Vanuatu DPPA 2024, Cybercrime Act 2021, HDCA 2024: Unlawful processing, unauthorized access, and
Count XV — Violation of Ukrainian Law No. 2297-VI: Unlawful personal data processing.	, and harmful digital communications. Count XV — Violation of Ukrainian Law No. 2297-VI: Unlawful personal data processing. Count XVI — Violation of Australia P
Count XVI — Violation of Australia Privacy Act 1988 (APPs 1–13): Failure to comply with Australian Privacy Principles.	I: Unlawful personal data processing. Count XVI — Violation of Australia Privacy Act 1988 (APPs 1–13): Failure to comply with Australian Privacy Principles. Cou
Count XVII — Violation of New Zealand Privacy Act 2020 (IPPs 1–13): Failure to comply with Information Privacy Principles.	y with Australian Privacy Principles. Count XVII — Violation of New Zealand Privacy Act 2020 (IPPs 1–13): Failure to comply with Information Privacy Principles.
Count XVIII — Violation of UK GDPR / DPA 2018: Unlawful processing and failure to comply with Children's Code.	with Information Privacy Principles. Count XVIII — Violation of UK GDPR / DPA 2018: Unlawful processing and failure to comply with Children's Code. Count XIX —
Count XIX — Violation of Hong Kong PDPO (Cap. 486): Failure to comply with Data Protection Principles 1–6.	ilure to comply with Children's Code. Count XIX — Violation of Hong Kong PDPO (Cap. 486): Failure to comply with Data Protection Principles 1–6. Count XX — Tort
Count XX — Tortious Invasion of Privacy: Intrusion upon seclusion, public disclosure of private facts, false light, appropriation.	with Data Protection Principles 1–6. Count XX — Tortious Invasion of Privacy: Intrusion upon seclusion, public disclosure of private facts, false light, appropr
Count XXI — Negligence: Failure to implement reasonable security measures, SRI, CSP, CSRF protection, and consent mechanisms.	te facts, false light, appropriation. Count XXI — Negligence: Failure to implement reasonable security measures, SRI, CSP, CSRF protection, and consent mechanis
Count XXII — Breach of Fiduciary Duty: Violation of fiduciary duty owed to users, including minor users.	F protection, and consent mechanisms. Count XXII — Breach of Fiduciary Duty: Violation of fiduciary duty owed to users, including minor users. Count XXIII — Fra
Count XXIII — Fraud and Misrepresentation: Deceptive practices in the design of the landing page.	owed to users, including minor users. Count XXIII — Fraud and Misrepresentation: Deceptive practices in the design of the landing page. Count XXIV — Civil Consp
Count XXIV — Civil Conspiracy: Agreement between Roblox, Google, Sentry, and CDN providers to violate user privacy.	es in the design of the landing page. Count XXIV — Civil Conspiracy: Agreement between Roblox, Google, Sentry, and CDN providers to violate user privacy. Count
Count XXV — Violation of UCMJ Articles 92, 107, 121, 123, 131, 132, 133, 134: If military personnel are involved in the deployment or processing.	DN providers to violate user privacy. Count XXV — Violation of UCMJ Articles 92, 107, 121, 123, 131, 132, 133, 134: If military personnel are involved in the de
Count XXVI — Violation of International Treaties: Budapest Convention, Council of Europe Convention 108, OECD Privacy Guidelines, APEC CBPR, UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.	lved in the deployment or processing. Count XXVI — Violation of International Treaties: Budapest Convention, Council of Europe Convention 108, OECD Privacy Guid
Count XXVII — Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 4 (Misprision of Felony): Failure to report known felonies.	nciples on Business and Human Rights. Count XXVII — Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 4 (Misprision of Felony): Failure to report known felonies. Count XXVIII — Violatio
Count XXVIII — Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Conspiracy): Conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States.	y): Failure to report known felonies. Count XXVIII — Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Conspiracy): Conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States. Count X
Count XXIX — Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights): Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights.	t offenses against the United States. Count XXIX — Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights): Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights. Count XX
Count XXX — Violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2071–2150: False statements, records, claims, and all related fraud against the government.	iracy to interfere with civil rights. Count XXX — Violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2071–2150: False statements, records, claims, and all related fraud against the gove

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA): Unauthorized access risk created by Leohil-MIS codename disclosure, route taxonomy disclosure, missing SRI, missing CSP, missing security headers, and no MFA.	, and contractors of the foregoing. Count I – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA): Unauthorized access risk created by Leohil-MIS codename disclosure, route ta
Count II – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act): Interception of electronic communications through unauthorized external resource loading.	missing security headers, and no MFA. Count II – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act): Interception of electronic communications through unauthorized ext
Count III – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud): Scheme to defraud the public of security assurances through deceptive portal configuration.	authorized external resource loading. Count III – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud): Scheme to defraud the public of security assurances through decept
Count IV – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (False Statements): Material misrepresentation of security posture.	rough deceptive portal configuration. Count IV – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (False Statements): Material misrepresentation of security posture. Count V – Vio
Count V – Violation of 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act): Unfair and deceptive trade practices in the design of the national FIU portal.	isrepresentation of security posture. Count V – Violation of 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act): Unfair and deceptive trade practices in the design of the national FIU po
Count VI – Violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506 (COPPA): No age verification or parental consent gate.	he design of the national FIU portal. Count VI – Violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506 (COPPA): No age verification or parental consent gate. Count VII – Violatio
Count VII – Violation of 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act): Unauthorized collection and disclosure of personal information.	erification or parental consent gate. Count VII – Violation of 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act): Unauthorized collection and disclosure of personal information. Co
Count VIII – Violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5318 (BSA): Failure to maintain adequate controls over AML/CTF reporting infrastructure.	d disclosure of personal information. Count VIII – Violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5318 (BSA): Failure to maintain adequate controls over AML/CTF reporting infrastruct
Count IX – Violation of the Vanuatu AML&CTF Act No. 13 of 2014: Failure to maintain adequate protections for the national FIU portal.	ver AML/CTF reporting infrastructure. Count IX – Violation of the Vanuatu AML&CTF Act No. 13 of 2014: Failure to maintain adequate protections for the national
Count X – Violation of the Vanuatu Data Protection and Privacy Act No. 13 of 2024: Unlawful processing and transborder data flows.	tections for the national FIU portal. Count X – Violation of the Vanuatu Data Protection and Privacy Act No. 13 of 2024: Unlawful processing and transborder dat
Count XI – Violation of the Vanuatu Cybercrime Act No. 22 of 2021: Security-configuration offences and disclosure of internal system information.	rocessing and transborder data flows. Count XI – Violation of the Vanuatu Cybercrime Act No. 22 of 2021: Security-configuration offences and disclosure of inter
Count XII – Violation of the Vanuatu Harmful Digital Communications Act No. 14 of 2024: Absence of protective measures for vulnerable users.	osure of internal system information. Count XII – Violation of the Vanuatu Harmful Digital Communications Act No. 14 of 2024: Absence of protective measures for
Count XIII – Violation of the Vanuatu Digital Safety Authority Act No. 15 of 2024: Non-compliance with regulatory oversight framework.	ective measures for vulnerable users. Count XIII – Violation of the Vanuatu Digital Safety Authority Act No. 15 of 2024: Non-compliance with regulatory oversigh
Count XIV – Violation of the FATF Recommendation 15 (New Technologies): Failure to maintain adequate controls over technology-based AML/CTF systems.	with regulatory oversight framework. Count XIV – Violation of the FATF Recommendation 15 (New Technologies): Failure to maintain adequate controls over technolo
Count XV – Violation of the FATF Recommendation 20 (STR Reporting): Failure to protect the confidentiality and integrity of the reporting channel.	ver technology-based AML/CTF systems. Count XV – Violation of the FATF Recommendation 20 (STR Reporting): Failure to protect the confidentiality and integrity o
Count XVI – Violation of the Egmont Group Principles for Information Exchange: Failure to maintain minimum security standards for FIU information systems.	d integrity of the reporting channel. Count XVI – Violation of the Egmont Group Principles for Information Exchange: Failure to maintain minimum security standa
Count XVII – Violation of GDPR (EU) 2016/679: Unlawful processing of EU-resident data subjects.	tandards for FIU information systems. Count XVII – Violation of GDPR (EU) 2016/679: Unlawful processing of EU-resident data subjects. Count XVIII – Violation of
Count XVIII – Violation of the ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC: Unlawful storage and access to information on user devices.	cessing of EU-resident data subjects. Count XVIII – Violation of the ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC: Unlawful storage and access to information on user devices.
Count XIX – Violation of the Australia Privacy Act 1988: Failure to comply with APPs for AU-resident data subjects.	ccess to information on user devices. Count XIX – Violation of the Australia Privacy Act 1988: Failure to comply with APPs for AU-resident data subjects. Count
Count XX – Violation of the New Zealand Privacy Act 2020: Failure to comply with IPPs for NZ-resident data subjects.	h APPs for AU-resident data subjects. Count XX – Violation of the New Zealand Privacy Act 2020: Failure to comply with IPPs for NZ-resident data subjects. Count
Count XXI – Violation of UK GDPR / DPA 2018: Unlawful processing of UK-resident data subjects.	h IPPs for NZ-resident data subjects. Count XXI – Violation of UK GDPR / DPA 2018: Unlawful processing of UK-resident data subjects. Count XXII – Violation of H
Count XXII – Violation of Hong Kong PDPO (Cap. 486): Failure to comply with Data Protection Principles.	cessing of UK-resident data subjects. Count XXII – Violation of Hong Kong PDPO (Cap. 486): Failure to comply with Data Protection Principles. Count XXIII – Tort
Count XXIII – Tortious Invasion of Privacy: Intrusion upon seclusion, public disclosure of private facts, false light, appropriation.	mply with Data Protection Principles. Count XXIII – Tortious Invasion of Privacy: Intrusion upon seclusion, public disclosure of private facts, false light, app
Count XXIV – Negligence: Failure to implement reasonable security measures, SRI, CSP, CSRF protection, and consent mechanisms.	te facts, false light, appropriation. Count XXIV – Negligence: Failure to implement reasonable security measures, SRI, CSP, CSRF protection, and consent mechani
Count XXV – Breach of Fiduciary Duty: Violation of fiduciary duty owed to reporting entities and the public.	F protection, and consent mechanisms. Count XXV – Breach of Fiduciary Duty: Violation of fiduciary duty owed to reporting entities and the public. Count XXVI –
Count XXVI – Fraud and Misrepresentation: Deceptive practices in the design of the FIU portal.	to reporting entities and the public. Count XXVI – Fraud and Misrepresentation: Deceptive practices in the design of the FIU portal. Count XXVII – Civil Conspir
Count XXVII – Civil Conspiracy: Agreement between the FIU, Microsoft, and CDN providers to violate data protection standards.	ices in the design of the FIU portal. Count XXVII – Civil Conspiracy: Agreement between the FIU, Microsoft, and CDN providers to violate data protection standar
Count XXVIII – Violation of UCMJ Articles 92, 107, 121, 123, 131, 132, 133, 134: If military personnel are affected.	to violate data protection standards. Count XXVIII – Violation of UCMJ Articles 92, 107, 121, 123, 131, 132, 133, 134: If military personnel are affected. Count
Count XXIX – Violation of the UN Convention Against Corruption and UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime: Failure to protect the integrity of the financial system.	: If military personnel are affected. Count XXIX – Violation of the UN Convention Against Corruption and UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime: Fa
Count XXX – Violation of UN Security Council Resolutions 1267, 1373, 1718, 2231: Failure to maintain adequate sanctions-list screening infrastructure.	he integrity of the financial system. Count XXX – Violation of UN Security Council Resolutions 1267, 1373, 1718, 2231: Failure to maintain adequate sanctions-li

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA): Unauthorized access to protected computers via exposed reCAPTCHA keys, CSRF nonce exposure, version disclosure, XML-RPC exposure, missing SRI, missing CSP, mis	ctors, and agents of the foregoing. Count I – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA): Unauthorized access to protected computers via exposed reCAPTCHA keys, CSRF
Count II – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act): Interception of electronic communications via Google Analytics, OneSignal push, Google Fonts, and any implied Facebook pixel integration.	issing CSP, missing security headers. Count II – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act): Interception of electronic communications via Google Analytics, On
Count III – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud): Scheme to defraud users of their personal data through deceptive configuration of a luxury real estate portal.	y implied Facebook pixel integration. Count III – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud): Scheme to defraud users of their personal data through deceptive c
Count IV – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028 (Identity Fraud): Identity exposure via agent PII, business contact disclosure.	ation of a luxury real estate portal. Count IV – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028 (Identity Fraud): Identity exposure via agent PII, business contact disclosure. C
Count V – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029 (Access Device Fraud): Unauthorized use of access devices via CSRF nonce exposure.	ent PII, business contact disclosure. Count V – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029 (Access Device Fraud): Unauthorized use of access devices via CSRF nonce exposure.
Count VI – Violation of 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act): Unfair and deceptive trade practices in the design and deployment of the portal.	cess devices via CSRF nonce exposure. Count VI – Violation of 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act): Unfair and deceptive trade practices in the design and deployment of the
Count VII – Violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506 (COPPA): Collection of personal information from children under 13 without parental consent (education-adjacent context).	design and deployment of the portal. Count VII – Violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506 (COPPA): Collection of personal information from children under 13 without
Count VIII – Violation of 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act): Unauthorized collection and disclosure of personal information (if federal nexus established).	consent (education-adjacent context). Count VIII – Violation of 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act): Unauthorized collection and disclosure of personal information (i
Count IX – Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Deprivation of rights under color of law (if state actors involved).	ation (if federal nexus established). Count IX – Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Deprivation of rights under color of law (if state actors involved). Count X – B
Count X – Bivens Constitutional Tort: Violation of Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment rights (if federal actors involved).	or of law (if state actors involved). Count X – Bivens Constitutional Tort: Violation of Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment rights (if federal actors in
Count XI – Violation of GDPR (EU) 2016/679: Unlawful processing, including cross-border transfers, without lawful basis.	rights (if federal actors involved). Count XI – Violation of GDPR (EU) 2016/679: Unlawful processing, including cross-border transfers, without lawful basis. Co
Count XII – Violation of ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC: Unlawful storage and access to information on user devices.	rder transfers, without lawful basis. Count XII – Violation of ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC: Unlawful storage and access to information on user devices. Count
Count XIII – Violation of CCPA/CPRA: Failure to provide required disclosures and opt-out mechanisms.	ccess to information on user devices. Count XIII – Violation of CCPA/CPRA: Failure to provide required disclosures and opt-out mechanisms. Count XIV – Violation
Count XIV – Violation of Vanuatu Data Protection and Privacy Act No. 13 of 2024: Unlawful processing, transborder data flows, and absence of consent.	d disclosures and opt-out mechanisms. Count XIV – Violation of Vanuatu Data Protection and Privacy Act No. 13 of 2024: Unlawful processing, transborder data flo
Count XV – Violation of Vanuatu Cybercrime Act No. 22 of 2021: Unauthorized access and configuration-based security offences.	r data flows, and absence of consent. Count XV – Violation of Vanuatu Cybercrime Act No. 22 of 2021: Unauthorized access and configuration-based security offenc
Count XVI – Violation of Vanuatu Harmful Digital Communications Act No. 14 of 2024: Absence of protective measures for vulnerable users.	onfiguration-based security offences. Count XVI – Violation of Vanuatu Harmful Digital Communications Act No. 14 of 2024: Absence of protective measures for vul
Count XVII – Violation of Vanuatu Digital Safety Authority Act No. 15 of 2024: Non-compliance with regulatory oversight framework.	ective measures for vulnerable users. Count XVII – Violation of Vanuatu Digital Safety Authority Act No. 15 of 2024: Non-compliance with regulatory oversight fr
Count XVIII – Violation of Australia Privacy Act 1988 (APPs 1–13): Failure to comply with Australian Privacy Principles for AU-resident data subjects.	with regulatory oversight framework. Count XVIII – Violation of Australia Privacy Act 1988 (APPs 1–13): Failure to comply with Australian Privacy Principles for
Count XIX – Violation of New Zealand Privacy Act 2020 (IPPs 1–13): Failure to comply with Information Privacy Principles for NZ-resident data subjects.	ciples for AU-resident data subjects. Count XIX – Violation of New Zealand Privacy Act 2020 (IPPs 1–13): Failure to comply with Information Privacy Principles f
Count XX – Violation of UK GDPR / DPA 2018: Unlawful processing for UK-resident data subjects.	ciples for NZ-resident data subjects. Count XX – Violation of UK GDPR / DPA 2018: Unlawful processing for UK-resident data subjects. Count XXI – Violation of Ho
Count XXI – Violation of Hong Kong PDPO (Cap. 486): Failure to comply with Data Protection Principles.	essing for UK-resident data subjects. Count XXI – Violation of Hong Kong PDPO (Cap. 486): Failure to comply with Data Protection Principles. Count XXII – Tortio
Count XXII – Tortious Invasion of Privacy: Intrusion upon seclusion, public disclosure of private facts, false light, appropriation.	mply with Data Protection Principles. Count XXII – Tortious Invasion of Privacy: Intrusion upon seclusion, public disclosure of private facts, false light, appr
Count XXIII – Negligence: Failure to implement reasonable security measures, SRI, CSP, CSRF protection, and consent mechanisms.	te facts, false light, appropriation. Count XXIII – Negligence: Failure to implement reasonable security measures, SRI, CSP, CSRF protection, and consent mechan
Count XXIV – Breach of Fiduciary Duty: Violation of fiduciary duty owed to prospective purchasers and their families.	F protection, and consent mechanisms. Count XXIV – Breach of Fiduciary Duty: Violation of fiduciary duty owed to prospective purchasers and their families. Coun
Count XXV – Fraud and Misrepresentation: Deceptive practices in the design and marketing of the portal.	ective purchasers and their families. Count XXV – Fraud and Misrepresentation: Deceptive practices in the design and marketing of the portal. Count XXVI – Civil
Count XXVI – Civil Conspiracy: Agreement between MyVanuatu, Ray White Vanuatu, Google, OneSignal, and CDN providers.	e design and marketing of the portal. Count XXVI – Civil Conspiracy: Agreement between MyVanuatu, Ray White Vanuatu, Google, OneSignal, and CDN providers. Count
Count XXVII – Violation of UCMJ Articles 92, 107, 121, 123, 131, 132, 133, 134: If military personnel are affected.	Google, OneSignal, and CDN providers. Count XXVII – Violation of UCMJ Articles 92, 107, 121, 123, 131, 132, 133, 134: If military personnel are affected. Count
Count XXVIII – Violation of International Treaties: Budapest Convention, Council of Europe Convention 108, OECD Privacy Guidelines, APEC CBPR, UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.	: If military personnel are affected. Count XXVIII – Violation of International Treaties: Budapest Convention, Council of Europe Convention 108, OECD Privacy Gu
Count XXIX – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Conspiracy): Conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States.	nciples on Business and Human Rights. Count XXIX – Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Conspiracy): Conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States. Count XXX
Count XXX – Violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2071–2150: False statements, records, claims, and all related fraud against the government.	t offenses against the United States. Count XXX – Violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2071–2150: False statements, records, claims, and all related fraud against the gove

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Unlawful interception of electronic communications (1997‑2026).	LC; Freshworks Inc.; and Does 1‑50. Count I – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Unlawful interception of electronic communications (1997‑2026). Count II – CFAA (1
Count II – CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers (1997‑2026).	lectronic communications (1997‑2026). Count II – CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers (1997‑2026). Count III – Wire Fraud (18 U.S
Count III – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Scheme to defraud by transmitting tracking data (1997‑2026).	s to protected computers (1997‑2026). Count III – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Scheme to defraud by transmitting tracking data (1997‑2026). Count IV – RICO (1
Count IV – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Pattern of racketeering activity (1997‑2026).	ansmitting tracking data (1997‑2026). Count IV – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Pattern of racketeering activity (1997‑2026). Count V – FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a))
Count V – FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair and deceptive trade practices (1997‑2026).	of racketeering activity (1997‑2026). Count V – FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair and deceptive trade practices (1997‑2026). Count VI – California Consumer Pr
Count VI – California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150): Failure to provide opt‑out, sale of personal information (2020‑2026).	eceptive trade practices (1997‑2026). Count VI – California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150): Failure to provide opt‑out, sale of personal infor
Count VII – GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Failure to protect nonpublic personal information (2025‑2026).	of personal information (2020‑2026). Count VII – GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Failure to protect nonpublic personal information (2025‑2026). Count VIII – Privacy Ac
Count VIII – Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Unauthorized maintenance of records on individuals (1997‑2026).	lic personal information (2025‑2026). Count VIII – Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Unauthorized maintenance of records on individuals (1997‑2026). Count IX – Biv
Count IX – Bivens Constitutional Tort: Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations (1997‑2026).	f records on individuals (1997‑2026). Count IX – Bivens Constitutional Tort: Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations (1997‑2026). Count X – Common Law Invasion of
Count X – Common Law Invasion of Privacy (all four branches) (1997‑2026).	fth Amendment violations (1997‑2026). Count X – Common Law Invasion of Privacy (all four branches) (1997‑2026). Damages Sought: Compensatory, statu
Count I – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants unlawfully intercepted electronic communications (1997‑2026).	s over the 29‑year period. Counts Count I – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants unlawfully intercepted electronic communications (1997‑2026). Count II –
Count II – Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants accessed protected computers without authorization (1997‑2026).	lectronic communications (1997‑2026). Count II – Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants accessed protected computers without authorization
Count III – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Defendants devised a scheme to defraud by collecting and selling data (1997‑2026).	rs without authorization (1997‑2026). Count III – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Defendants devised a scheme to defraud by collecting and selling data (1997‑202
Count IV – Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Defendants engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity (1997‑2026).	lecting and selling data (1997‑2026). Count IV – Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Defendants engaged in a pattern of racke
Count V – Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 45): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices (1997‑2026).	of racketeering activity (1997‑2026). Count V – Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 45): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices (1997‑
Count VI – California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150): Defendants failed to provide opt‑out and sold personal information (2020‑2026).	eceptive trade practices (1997‑2026). Count VI – California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150): Defendants failed to provide opt‑out and sold pers
Count VII – GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Defendants failed to protect nonpublic personal information (2025‑2026).	old personal information (2020‑2026). Count VII – GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Defendants failed to protect nonpublic personal information (2025‑2026). Count VIII –
Count VIII – Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Defendants maintained records on individuals without lawful basis (1997‑2026).	lic personal information (2025‑2026). Count VIII – Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Defendants maintained records on individuals without lawful basis (1997‑2026).
Count IX – Bivens Constitutional Tort: Defendants acted under color of law to violate Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights (1997‑2026).	als without lawful basis (1997‑2026). Count IX – Bivens Constitutional Tort: Defendants acted under color of law to violate Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights (1
Count X – Common Law Invasion of Privacy: Intrusion, public disclosure, false light, and misappropriation (1997‑2026).	d Fifth Amendment rights (1997‑2026). Count X – Common Law Invasion of Privacy: Intrusion, public disclosure, false light, and misappropriation (1997‑2026). Pra

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Unlawful interception of electronic communications (2020‑2026).	C; Cloudflare, Inc.; and Does 1‑50. Count I – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Unlawful interception of electronic communications (2020‑2026). Count II – CFAA (1
Count II – CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers (2020‑2026).	lectronic communications (2020‑2026). Count II – CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers (2020‑2026). Count III – Wire Fraud (18 U.S
Count III – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Scheme to defraud by transmitting tracking data (2020‑2026).	s to protected computers (2020‑2026). Count III – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Scheme to defraud by transmitting tracking data (2020‑2026). Count IV – RICO (1
Count IV – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Pattern of racketeering activity (2020‑2026).	ansmitting tracking data (2020‑2026). Count IV – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Pattern of racketeering activity (2020‑2026). Count V – FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a))
Count V – FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair and deceptive trade practices (2020‑2026).	of racketeering activity (2020‑2026). Count V – FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair and deceptive trade practices (2020‑2026). Count VI – California Consumer Pr
Count VI – California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150): Failure to provide opt‑out, sale of personal information (2020‑2026).	eceptive trade practices (2020‑2026). Count VI – California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150): Failure to provide opt‑out, sale of personal infor
Count VII – Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Unauthorized maintenance of records on individuals (2020‑2026).	of personal information (2020‑2026). Count VII – Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Unauthorized maintenance of records on individuals (2020‑2026). Count VIII – Biv
Count VIII – Bivens Constitutional Tort: Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations (2020‑2026).	f records on individuals (2020‑2026). Count VIII – Bivens Constitutional Tort: Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations (2020‑2026). Count IX – Common Law Invasion
Count IX – Common Law Invasion of Privacy (all four branches) (2020‑2026).	fth Amendment violations (2020‑2026). Count IX – Common Law Invasion of Privacy (all four branches) (2020‑2026). Count X – Negligence and Negligent Su
Count X – Negligence and Negligent Supervision (2020‑2026).	acy (all four branches) (2020‑2026). Count X – Negligence and Negligent Supervision (2020‑2026). Damages Sought: Compensatory, statu
Count I – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants unlawfully intercepted electronic communications (2020‑2026).	t over 72,000 individuals. Counts Count I – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants unlawfully intercepted electronic communications (2020‑2026). Count II –
Count II – Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants accessed protected computers without authorization (2020‑2026).	lectronic communications (2020‑2026). Count II – Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants accessed protected computers without authorization
Count III – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Defendants devised a scheme to defraud by collecting and selling data (2020‑2026).	rs without authorization (2020‑2026). Count III – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Defendants devised a scheme to defraud by collecting and selling data (2020‑202
Count IV – Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Defendants engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity (2020‑2026).	lecting and selling data (2020‑2026). Count IV – Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Defendants engaged in a pattern of racke
Count V – Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 45): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices (2020‑2026).	of racketeering activity (2020‑2026). Count V – Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 45): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices (2020‑
Count VI – California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150): Defendants failed to provide opt‑out and sold personal information (2020‑2026).	eceptive trade practices (2020‑2026). Count VI – California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150): Defendants failed to provide opt‑out and sold pers
Count VII – Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Defendants maintained records on individuals without lawful basis (2020‑2026).	old personal information (2020‑2026). Count VII – Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Defendants maintained records on individuals without lawful basis (2020‑2026).
Count VIII – Bivens Constitutional Tort: Defendants acted under color of law to violate Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights (2020‑2026).	als without lawful basis (2020‑2026). Count VIII – Bivens Constitutional Tort: Defendants acted under color of law to violate Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights
Count IX – Common Law Invasion of Privacy: Intrusion, public disclosure, false light, and misappropriation (2020‑2026).	d Fifth Amendment rights (2020‑2026). Count IX – Common Law Invasion of Privacy: Intrusion, public disclosure, false light, and misappropriation (2020‑2026). Co
Count X – Negligence: Defendants breached their duty to protect visitor data (2020‑2026).	ht, and misappropriation (2020‑2026). Count X – Negligence: Defendants breached their duty to protect visitor data (2020‑2026). Prayer for Relief Plaintiffs see

Header	Source excerpt
Count Crime Accounting	ce per se. 4.0 Deterministic Per-Count Crime Accounting 4.1 Methodology. A "count" is defined
Count Counts / Page	catively. Violation Class $ / Count Counts / Page Per Sec Per Min Per Hr Per Day
Count I — 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Interception of Electronic Communications): Pre-consent GA4 beacon; treble damages; $10,000 statutory minimum per violation.	rcel Inc., and John/Jane Does 1–20. Count I — 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Interception of Electronic Communications): Pre-consent GA4 beacon; treble damages; $10,000 stat
Count II — 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act): Unauthorized access via covert telemetry; $5,000 statutory minimum per violation; treble for pattern.	,000 statutory minimum per violation. Count II — 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act): Unauthorized access via covert telemetry; $5,000 statutory min
Count III — 18 U.S.C. § 1028 (Identity Fraud): Session, agent, and reviewer identity data leakage; statutory maxima.	um per violation; treble for pattern. Count III — 18 U.S.C. § 1028 (Identity Fraud): Session, agent, and reviewer identity data leakage; statutory maxima. Count
Count IV — 47 U.S.C. § 605 (Unauthorized Publication of Communications): Google Fonts and GA4 telemetry; $110,000 per count.	ntity data leakage; statutory maxima. Count IV — 47 U.S.C. § 605 (Unauthorized Publication of Communications): Google Fonts and GA4 telemetry; $110,000 per coun
Count V — 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act Unfair and Deceptive Practices): Consent-bypass; $50,120 per violation.	nd GA4 telemetry; $110,000 per count. Count V — 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act Unfair and Deceptive Practices): Consent-bypass; $50,120 per violation. Count VI — Cal.
Count VI — Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq. (CCPA/CPRA): $2,500 negligent; $7,500 intentional, per consumer.	onsent-bypass; $50,120 per violation. Count VI — Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq. (CCPA/CPRA): $2,500 negligent; $7,500 intentional, per consumer. Count VII —
Count VII — Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150 (Data Breach): $100–$750 per consumer per incident.	nt; $7,500 intentional, per consumer. Count VII — Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150 (Data Breach): $100–$750 per consumer per incident. Count VIII — GDPR Arts. 5, 6, 7,
Count VIII — GDPR Arts. 5, 6, 7, 44–49: €250,000 or 4% global annual turnover per violation.	$100–$750 per consumer per incident. Count VIII — GDPR Arts. 5, 6, 7, 44–49: €250,000 or 4% global annual turnover per violation. Count IX — Romanian Law 190/20
Count IX — Romanian Law 190/2018 Art. 3: National implementing measures; fines up to €20,000,000 or 4% of global turnover.	global annual turnover per violation. Count IX — Romanian Law 190/2018 Art. 3: National implementing measures; fines up to €20,000,000 or 4% of global turnover.
Count X — Invasion of Privacy (Four Branches): Intrusion, public disclosure, false light, appropriation.	€20,000,000 or 4% of global turnover. Count X — Invasion of Privacy (Four Branches): Intrusion, public disclosure, false light, appropriation. Count XI — Trespa
Count XI — Trespass to Chattels and Conversion: Unauthorized device resource use.	sclosure, false light, appropriation. Count XI — Trespass to Chattels and Conversion: Unauthorized device resource use. Count XII — Negligence and Negligence
Count XII — Negligence and Negligence Per Se: Failure to implement CSP, SRI, referrer-policy, cookie consent, and GDPR notices.	on: Unauthorized device resource use. Count XII — Negligence and Negligence Per Se: Failure to implement CSP, SRI, referrer-policy, cookie consent, and GDPR not
Count XIII — Bivens (Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth Amendments): Reserved for federal actors identified in discovery.	cy, cookie consent, and GDPR notices. Count XIII — Bivens (Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth Amendments): Reserved for federal actors identified in discovery. Count
Count XIV — 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Reserved for state actors identified in discovery.	deral actors identified in discovery. Count XIV — 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Reserved for state actors identified in discovery. Count XV — Civil Conspiracy: Reserved
Count XV — Civil Conspiracy: Reserved.	state actors identified in discovery. Count XV — Civil Conspiracy: Reserved. Count XVI — Declaratory and Injunctiv
Count XVI — Declaratory and Injunctive Relief: Immediate cessation of pre-consent GA4, mandatory cookie banner, mandatory CSP, SRI, referrer-policy, and full removal of the five reviewers' PII until consent is	ount XV — Civil Conspiracy: Reserved. Count XVI — Declaratory and Injunctive Relief: Immediate cessation of pre-consent GA4, mandatory cookie banner, mandatory

Header	Source excerpt
Count I through Count LVIII in Section 6. The count numbering in Section 2, Section 2.1, and Section 6 is now aligned one‑to‑one across all three sections. Section 6 contains 58 complaint counts, not 10.	d each is carried forward as a discrete Count I through Count LVIII in Section 6. The count numbering in Section 2, Section 2.1, and Section 6 is now aligned on
COUNT 1 Unauthorized Data Exfiltration via Google Tag Manager	2.1 Detailed Violation Expansions COUNT 1 Unauthorized Data Exfiltration via Google Tag Manager Evidence: GTM container GTM‑NDWF2L4F
COUNT 2 Cloudflare Insights Beacon Telemetry Without Disclosure	— €20M or 4%; ePrivacy — €250,000. COUNT 2 Cloudflare Insights Beacon Telemetry Without Disclosure Evidence: Beacon loads from Cloudflar
COUNT 3 Google Fonts Third‑Party Request Leak	ational: GDPR Art. 6 — €10M or 2%. COUNT 3 Google Fonts Third‑Party Request Leak Evidence: Roboto family requested fro
COUNT 4 Font Awesome v6.0.0‑beta3 Loaded in Production	(See LG München I, 3 O 17493/20.) COUNT 4 Font Awesome v6.0.0‑beta3 Loaded in Production Evidence: Beta pre‑release library lo
COUNT 5 No Cookie Consent Mechanism / Dark Pattern	AA — $5,000 + treble; FTC Act § 5. COUNT 5 No Cookie Consent Mechanism / Dark Pattern Evidence: No consent banner, no opt‑i
COUNT 6 localhost Hostname Disclosure	— €10M or 2%; ePrivacy — €250,000. COUNT 6 localhost Hostname Disclosure Evidence: Full hostname array transmi
COUNT 7 127.0.0.1 Hostname Disclosure	,000,000. Tort: Negligence per se. COUNT 7 127.0.0.1 Hostname Disclosure Evidence: Localhost loopback IP discl
COUNT 8 kwsanantonio.local Hostname Disclosure	0. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 8 kwsanantonio.local Hostname Disclosure Evidence: Local development hostname
COUNT 9 kwsanantonio.dev Hostname Disclosure	A. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 9 kwsanantonio.dev Hostname Disclosure Evidence: Development hostname disclo
COUNT 10 kwsanantonio.test Hostname Disclosure	A. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 10 kwsanantonio.test Hostname Disclosure Evidence: Test hostname disclosed in
COUNT 11 kwsanantonio.ddev.site Hostname Disclosure	A. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 11 kwsanantonio.ddev.site Hostname Disclosure Evidence: DDEV local container hostna
COUNT 12 Platform.sh Staging Host Disclosure	A. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 12 Platform.sh Staging Host Disclosure Evidence: Exact staging hostname reve
COUNT 13 Drupal JSON:API Node Endpoint Disclosure	— Felony. Tort: Negligence per se. COUNT 13 Drupal JSON:API Node Endpoint Disclosure Evidence: JSON:API node endpoint with
COUNT 14 Drupal URI Scheme asset2: Disclosure (50+ Occurrences)	A. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 14 Drupal URI Scheme asset2: Disclosure (50+ Occurrences) Evidence: Every image, logo, JSON:API
COUNT 15 Drupal URI Scheme asset5: Disclosure	A. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 15 Drupal URI Scheme asset5: Disclosure Evidence: Second internal Drupal URI
COUNT 16 /oauth2callback Endpoint Disclosure via GTM Exclusion List	A. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 16 /oauth2callback Endpoint Disclosure via GTM Exclusion List Evidence: GTM exclusion path list rev
COUNT 17 /recaptcha/* Endpoint Disclosure via GTM Exclusion List	d. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 17 /recaptcha/* Endpoint Disclosure via GTM Exclusion List Evidence: reCAPTCHA endpoint pattern
COUNT 18 /api/* Endpoint Disclosure via GTM Exclusion List	A. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 18 /api/* Endpoint Disclosure via GTM Exclusion List Evidence: Internal API surface disclo
COUNT 19 /preview/* Endpoint Disclosure via GTM Exclusion List	A. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 19 /preview/* Endpoint Disclosure via GTM Exclusion List Evidence: Preview endpoint disclosed
COUNT 20 Missing CSRF Token on Site Search Form	A. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 20 Missing CSRF Token on Site Search Form Evidence: Search form contains no hid
COUNT 21 Search Form Default GET Method Leaks Query Parameters	§ 33.02. Tort: Negligence per se. COUNT 21 Search Form Default GET Method Leaks Query Parameters Evidence: No method attribute, so bro
COUNT 22 TREC Brokerage Services Disclosure Hosted on Google Drive	: Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 501.001. COUNT 22 TREC Brokerage Services Disclosure Hosted on Google Drive Evidence: TREC Information About Brok
COUNT 23 TREC Consumer Protection Notice Hosted on Google Drive	tional: GDPR Art. 44 — €20M or 4%. COUNT 23 TREC Consumer Protection Notice Hosted on Google Drive Evidence: TREC Consumer Protection No
COUNT 24 Keyword‑Stuffing Meta Keywords Tag (18 Phrases)	§ 5. International: GDPR Art. 44. COUNT 24 Keyword‑Stuffing Meta Keywords Tag (18 Phrases) Evidence: Eighteen‑phrase keyword‑stu
COUNT 25 Next.js Build Manifest Disclosure	s. & Com. Code § 501.001 — $7,500. COUNT 25 Next.js Build Manifest Disclosure Evidence: Build manifest script asset
COUNT 26 Next.js SSG Manifest Disclosure	0. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 26 Next.js SSG Manifest Disclosure Evidence: Static‑site generation mani
COUNT 27 Twenty‑Three Webpack Chunk Hash Disclosures	0. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 27 Twenty‑Three Webpack Chunk Hash Disclosures Evidence: Every JavaScript chunk file
COUNT 28 Drupal Node UUID Disclosure	A. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 28 Drupal Node UUID Disclosure Evidence: Node UUID exposed in __NEXT
COUNT 29 Drupal Node nid/vid Disclosure	0. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 29 Drupal Node nid/vid Disclosure Evidence: Node internal ID and revisi
COUNT 30 Fourteen Paragraph Entity UUID Disclosures	A. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 30 Fourteen Paragraph Entity UUID Disclosures Evidence: Paragraph entity UUIDs for
COUNT 31 Seven Media Entity UUID Disclosures	A. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 31 Seven Media Entity UUID Disclosures Evidence: Media entity UUIDs for medi
COUNT 32 Seven File Entity UUID Disclosures	A. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 32 Seven File Entity UUID Disclosures Evidence: File entity UUIDs for fids
COUNT 33 Logo Media Entity UUID Disclosure	A. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 33 Logo Media Entity UUID Disclosure Evidence: Header and footer logo medi
COUNT 34 Taxonomy Term UUID Disclosure	A. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 34 Taxonomy Term UUID Disclosure Evidence: Drupal taxonomy term UUID d
COUNT 35 Content Type UUID Disclosure	A. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 35 Content Type UUID Disclosure Evidence: Content type (home_page) UU
COUNT 36 Three Paragraph Type UUID Disclosures	A. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 36 Three Paragraph Type UUID Disclosures Evidence: Paragraph type UUIDs disclo
COUNT 37 Media Type UUID Disclosure	A. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 37 Media Type UUID Disclosure Evidence: Media type (image) UUID dis
COUNT 38 Fourteen Drupal Internal Target ID Disclosures	A. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 38 Fourteen Drupal Internal Target ID Disclosures Evidence: Drupal internal target IDs
COUNT 39 Drupal File URI Scheme public:// Disclosure	A. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 39 Drupal File URI Scheme public:// Disclosure Evidence: Internal Drupal file URI sc
COUNT 40 Drupal Image Style URI Disclosures	A. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 40 Drupal Image Style URI Disclosures Evidence: All seven image style URIs
COUNT 41 Drupal Working‑Copy Link Disclosure	A. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 41 Drupal Working‑Copy Link Disclosure Evidence: Working‑copy revision endpo
COUNT 42 Node Path Alias Disclosure ( /home , pid 94)	A. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 42 Node Path Alias Disclosure ( /home , pid 94) Evidence: Node path alias and interna
COUNT 43 Complete Drupal Menu Tree with per‑Item UUIDs Disclosed (27 UUIDs)	A. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 43 Complete Drupal Menu Tree with per‑Item UUIDs Disclosed (27 UUIDs) Evidence: Twenty‑seven menu_link_cont
COUNT 44 Site Configuration Disclosure	A. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 44 Site Configuration Disclosure Evidence: Complete site configuration
COUNT 45 Missing Content-Security-Policy	A. State: Tex. Penal Code § 33.02. COUNT 45 Missing Content-Security-Policy Evidence: No CSP meta tag, no CSP hea
COUNT 46 Missing X-Frame-Options / frame-ancestors	: Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 501.001. COUNT 46 Missing X-Frame-Options / frame-ancestors Evidence: Site is embeddable in any a
COUNT 47 Missing Referrer-Policy	: Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 501.001. COUNT 47 Missing Referrer-Policy Evidence: Full referrer URL leaked to
COUNT 48 Missing Permissions-Policy	§ 5. International: GDPR Art. 44. COUNT 48 Missing Permissions-Policy Evidence: No restrictions on camera,
COUNT 49 Inline style Attributes Throughout DOM	: Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 501.001. COUNT 49 Inline style Attributes Throughout DOM Evidence: Inline styles defeat strict
COUNT 50 Hidden Fixed‑Position Div (Potential Tracking Container)	§ 33.02. Tort: Negligence per se. COUNT 50 Hidden Fixed‑Position Div (Potential Tracking Container) Evidence: A hidden fixed‑position div
COUNT 51 GTM Data Attributes Exposing Tracking Taxonomy on All Navigation Links	ational: GDPR Art. 6 — €10M or 2%. COUNT 51 GTM Data Attributes Exposing Tracking Taxonomy on All Navigation Links Evidence: Eight distinct GTM navigati
COUNT 52 Search Form "Buy" Radio Default‑Checked (Default Opt‑In Bias)	ational: GDPR Art. 6 — €10M or 2%. COUNT 52 Search Form "Buy" Radio Default‑Checked (Default Opt‑In Bias) Evidence: Site search form pre‑select
COUNT 53 Missing rel="noopener noreferrer" on External target="_blank" Links	. Tort: Deceptive trade practices. COUNT 53 Missing rel="noopener noreferrer" on External target="_blank" Links Evidence: Three external links open i
COUNT 54 Truncated Alt Text "Luxu" on Luxury Category Image	00; FTC Act § 5. Tort: Negligence. COUNT 54 Truncated Alt Text "Luxu" on Luxury Category Image Evidence: Image alt text truncated to
COUNT 55 Generic title="Image" Tooltip on All Card Images	te: Tex. Hum. Res. Code § 121.001. COUNT 55 Generic title="Image" Tooltip on All Card Images Evidence: Every content card image us
COUNT 56 Duplicate Inline SVG ID "Layer_1" in Header and Footer	te: Tex. Hum. Res. Code § 121.001. COUNT 56 Duplicate Inline SVG ID "Layer_1" in Header and Footer Evidence: Header and footer each cont
COUNT 57 Inline <style> Inside SVG <defs>	121.001. Tort: Negligence per se. COUNT 57 Inline <style> Inside SVG <defs> Evidence: Both inline SVGs embed a no
COUNT 58 Contradictory Meta Description (Populated Head vs. Empty Next.js Data)	Act § 5. Tort: Negligence per se. COUNT 58 Contradictory Meta Description (Populated Head vs. Empty Next.js Data) Evidence: The rendered <head> contain
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intercepted, used, and disclosed electronic communications containing personally identifiable information without consent, via GTM contai	ified in Section 2 and Section 2.1. Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intercepted, used, and disclosed electronic communicat

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Unlawful interception of electronic communications.	it.site; Google LLC; and Does 1‑50. Count I – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Unlawful interception of electronic communications. Count II – CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1
Count II – CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers.	ception of electronic communications. Count II – CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers. Count III – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1
Count III – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Scheme to defraud by transmitting tracking data.	orized access to protected computers. Count III – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Scheme to defraud by transmitting tracking data. Count IV – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1
Count IV – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Pattern of racketeering activity.	efraud by transmitting tracking data. Count IV – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Pattern of racketeering activity. Count V – FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a))
Count V – FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair and deceptive trade practices.	1): Pattern of racketeering activity. Count V – FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair and deceptive trade practices. Count VI – California Consumer Privac
Count VI – California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150): Failure to provide opt‑out, sale of personal information.	Unfair and deceptive trade practices. Count VI – California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150): Failure to provide opt‑out, sale of personal infor
Count VII – Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Unauthorized maintenance of records on individuals.	pt‑out, sale of personal information. Count VII – Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Unauthorized maintenance of records on individuals. Count VIII – Bivens Constit
Count VIII – Bivens Constitutional Tort: Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations.	aintenance of records on individuals. Count VIII – Bivens Constitutional Tort: Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations. Count IX – Common Law Invasion of Pri
Count IX – Common Law Invasion of Privacy (all four branches).	ourth and Fifth Amendment violations. Count IX – Common Law Invasion of Privacy (all four branches). Count X – Negligence and Negligent Su
Count X – Negligence and Negligent Supervision.	sion of Privacy (all four branches). Count X – Negligence and Negligent Supervision. Damages Sought: Compensatory, statu
Count I – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants unlawfully intercepted electronic communications.	at over 4,800 individuals. Counts Count I – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants unlawfully intercepted electronic communications. Count II – Computer Fra
Count II – Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants accessed protected computers without authorization.	ntercepted electronic communications. Count II – Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants accessed protected computers without authorization.
Count III – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Defendants devised a scheme to defraud by collecting and selling data.	cted computers without authorization. Count III – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Defendants devised a scheme to defraud by collecting and selling data. Count IV
Count IV – Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Defendants engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity.	fraud by collecting and selling data. Count IV – Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Defendants engaged in a pattern of racke
Count V – Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 45): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices.	n a pattern of racketeering activity. Count V – Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 45): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices. Count
Count VI – California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150): Defendants failed to provide opt‑out and sold personal information.	unfair and deceptive trade practices. Count VI – California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150): Defendants failed to provide opt‑out and sold pers
Count VII – Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Defendants maintained records on individuals without lawful basis.	pt‑out and sold personal information. Count VII – Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Defendants maintained records on individuals without lawful basis. Count VIII –
Count VIII – Bivens Constitutional Tort: Defendants acted under color of law to violate Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.	on individuals without lawful basis. Count VIII – Bivens Constitutional Tort: Defendants acted under color of law to violate Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.
Count IX – Common Law Invasion of Privacy: Intrusion, public disclosure, false light, and misappropriation.	te Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. Count IX – Common Law Invasion of Privacy: Intrusion, public disclosure, false light, and misappropriation. Count X – Negl
Count X – Negligence: Defendants breached their duty to protect visitor data.	e, false light, and misappropriation. Count X – Negligence: Defendants breached their duty to protect visitor data. Prayer for Relief Plaintiffs see

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Unconscionable Arbitration Clause (Cal. Civ. Code § 1670.5).	nc.; Coinbase, Inc.; and Does 1‑50. Count I – Unconscionable Arbitration Clause (Cal. Civ. Code § 1670.5). Count II – Unconscionable Class Actio
Count II – Unconscionable Class Action Waiver (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23).	on Clause (Cal. Civ. Code § 1670.5). Count II – Unconscionable Class Action Waiver (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23). Count III – Unconscionable Liability
Count III – Unconscionable Liability Limitation (Cal. Civ. Code § 1670.5).	Action Waiver (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23). Count III – Unconscionable Liability Limitation (Cal. Civ. Code § 1670.5). Count IV – Unfair IP Assignment (15 U
Count IV – Unfair IP Assignment (15 U.S.C. § 45).	imitation (Cal. Civ. Code § 1670.5). Count IV – Unfair IP Assignment (15 U.S.C. § 45). Count V – Unilateral Modification (Ca
Count V – Unilateral Modification (Cal. Civ. Code § 1670.5).	fair IP Assignment (15 U.S.C. § 45). Count V – Unilateral Modification (Cal. Civ. Code § 1670.5). Count VI – PDPA Violation (Singapore
Count VI – PDPA Violation (Singapore PDPA § 13, 15).	ification (Cal. Civ. Code § 1670.5). Count VI – PDPA Violation (Singapore PDPA § 13, 15). Count VII – GDPR Violation (Art. 7).
Count VII – GDPR Violation (Art. 7).	Violation (Singapore PDPA § 13, 15). Count VII – GDPR Violation (Art. 7). Count VIII – Unfair Competition (Cal.
Count VIII – Unfair Competition (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200).	Count VII – GDPR Violation (Art. 7). Count VIII – Unfair Competition (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200). Count IX – Restraint of Trade (15 U.S
Count IX – Restraint of Trade (15 U.S.C. § 1).	on (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200). Count IX – Restraint of Trade (15 U.S.C. § 1). Count X – Due Process Violation (U.S.
Count X – Due Process Violation (U.S. Const. amend. V, XIV).	Restraint of Trade (15 U.S.C. § 1). Count X – Due Process Violation (U.S. Const. amend. V, XIV). Damages Sought: Compensatory, statu
Count I – Unconscionable Arbitration Clause (Cal. Civ. Code § 1670.5).	ver 1,000,000 individuals. Counts Count I – Unconscionable Arbitration Clause (Cal. Civ. Code § 1670.5). Count II – Unconscionable Class Actio
Count II – Unconscionable Class Action Waiver (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23).	on Clause (Cal. Civ. Code § 1670.5). Count II – Unconscionable Class Action Waiver (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23). Count III – Unconscionable Liability
Count III – Unconscionable Liability Limitation (Cal. Civ. Code § 1670.5).	Action Waiver (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23). Count III – Unconscionable Liability Limitation (Cal. Civ. Code § 1670.5). Count IV – Unfair IP Assignment (15 U
Count IV – Unfair IP Assignment (15 U.S.C. § 45).	imitation (Cal. Civ. Code § 1670.5). Count IV – Unfair IP Assignment (15 U.S.C. § 45). Count V – Unilateral Modification (Ca
Count V – Unilateral Modification (Cal. Civ. Code § 1670.5).	fair IP Assignment (15 U.S.C. § 45). Count V – Unilateral Modification (Cal. Civ. Code § 1670.5). Count VI – PDPA Violation (Singapore
Count VI – PDPA Violation (Singapore PDPA § 13, 15).	ification (Cal. Civ. Code § 1670.5). Count VI – PDPA Violation (Singapore PDPA § 13, 15). Count VII – GDPR Violation (Art. 7).
Count VII – GDPR Violation (Art. 7).	Violation (Singapore PDPA § 13, 15). Count VII – GDPR Violation (Art. 7). Count VIII – Unfair Competition (Cal.
Count VIII – Unfair Competition (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200).	Count VII – GDPR Violation (Art. 7). Count VIII – Unfair Competition (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200). Count IX – Restraint of Trade (15 U.S
Count IX – Restraint of Trade (15 U.S.C. § 1).	on (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200). Count IX – Restraint of Trade (15 U.S.C. § 1). Count X – Due Process Violation (U.S.
Count X – Due Process Violation (U.S. Const. amend. V, XIV).	Restraint of Trade (15 U.S.C. § 1). Count X – Due Process Violation (U.S. Const. amend. V, XIV). Prayer for Relief Plaintiffs see

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Unlawful interception of electronic communications (1998‑2026).	Akamai Technologies; and Does 1‑50. Count I – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Unlawful interception of electronic communications (1998‑2026). Count II – CFAA (1
Count II – CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers (1998‑2026).	lectronic communications (1998‑2026). Count II – CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers (1998‑2026). Count III – Wire Fraud (18 U.S
Count III – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Scheme to defraud by transmitting tracking data (1998‑2026).	s to protected computers (1998‑2026). Count III – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Scheme to defraud by transmitting tracking data (1998‑2026). Count IV – RICO (1
Count IV – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Pattern of racketeering activity (1998‑2026).	ansmitting tracking data (1998‑2026). Count IV – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Pattern of racketeering activity (1998‑2026). Count V – FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a))
Count V – FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair and deceptive trade practices (1998‑2026).	of racketeering activity (1998‑2026). Count V – FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair and deceptive trade practices (1998‑2026). Count VI – California Consumer Pr
Count VI – California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150): Failure to provide opt‑out, sale of personal information (2020‑2026).	eceptive trade practices (1998‑2026). Count VI – California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150): Failure to provide opt‑out, sale of personal infor
Count VII – Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Unauthorized maintenance of records on individuals (1998‑2026).	of personal information (2020‑2026). Count VII – Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Unauthorized maintenance of records on individuals (1998‑2026). Count VIII – Biv
Count VIII – Bivens Constitutional Tort: Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations (1998‑2026).	f records on individuals (1998‑2026). Count VIII – Bivens Constitutional Tort: Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations (1998‑2026). Count IX – Common Law Invasion
Count IX – Common Law Invasion of Privacy (all four branches) (1998‑2026).	fth Amendment violations (1998‑2026). Count IX – Common Law Invasion of Privacy (all four branches) (1998‑2026). Count X – Negligence and Negligent Su
Count X – Negligence and Negligent Supervision (1998‑2026).	acy (all four branches) (1998‑2026). Count X – Negligence and Negligent Supervision (1998‑2026). Damages Sought: Compensatory, statu
Count I – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants unlawfully intercepted electronic communications (1998‑2026).	s over the 28‑year period. Counts Count I – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants unlawfully intercepted electronic communications (1998‑2026). Count II –
Count II – Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants accessed protected computers without authorization (1998‑2026).	lectronic communications (1998‑2026). Count II – Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants accessed protected computers without authorization
Count III – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Defendants devised a scheme to defraud by collecting and selling data (1998‑2026).	rs without authorization (1998‑2026). Count III – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Defendants devised a scheme to defraud by collecting and selling data (1998‑202
Count IV – Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Defendants engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity (1998‑2026).	lecting and selling data (1998‑2026). Count IV – Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Defendants engaged in a pattern of racke
Count V – Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 45): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices (1998‑2026).	of racketeering activity (1998‑2026). Count V – Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 45): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices (1998‑
Count VI – California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150): Defendants failed to provide opt‑out and sold personal information (2020‑2026).	eceptive trade practices (1998‑2026). Count VI – California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150): Defendants failed to provide opt‑out and sold pers
Count VII – Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Defendants maintained records on individuals without lawful basis (1998‑2026).	old personal information (2020‑2026). Count VII – Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Defendants maintained records on individuals without lawful basis (1998‑2026).
Count VIII – Bivens Constitutional Tort: Defendants acted under color of law to violate Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights (1998‑2026).	als without lawful basis (1998‑2026). Count VIII – Bivens Constitutional Tort: Defendants acted under color of law to violate Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights
Count IX – Common Law Invasion of Privacy: Intrusion, public disclosure, false light, and misappropriation (1998‑2026).	d Fifth Amendment rights (1998‑2026). Count IX – Common Law Invasion of Privacy: Intrusion, public disclosure, false light, and misappropriation (1998‑2026). Co
Count X – Negligence: Defendants breached their duty to protect visitor data (1998‑2026).	ht, and misappropriation (1998‑2026). Count X – Negligence: Defendants breached their duty to protect visitor data (1998‑2026). Prayer for Relief Plaintiffs see

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Unlawful interception of electronic communications (2002‑2026).	e LLC; OneTrust LLC; and Does 1‑50. Count I – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Unlawful interception of electronic communications (2002‑2026). Count II – CFAA (1
Count II – CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers (2002‑2026).	lectronic communications (2002‑2026). Count II – CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers (2002‑2026). Count III – Wire Fraud (18 U.S
Count III – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Scheme to defraud by transmitting tracking data (2002‑2026).	s to protected computers (2002‑2026). Count III – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Scheme to defraud by transmitting tracking data (2002‑2026). Count IV – RICO (1
Count IV – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Pattern of racketeering activity (2002‑2026).	ansmitting tracking data (2002‑2026). Count IV – RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Pattern of racketeering activity (2002‑2026). Count V – FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a))
Count V – FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair and deceptive trade practices (2002‑2026).	of racketeering activity (2002‑2026). Count V – FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair and deceptive trade practices (2002‑2026). Count VI – California Consumer Pr
Count VI – California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150): Failure to provide opt‑out, sale of personal information (2020‑2026).	eceptive trade practices (2002‑2026). Count VI – California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150): Failure to provide opt‑out, sale of personal infor
Count VII – Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Unauthorized maintenance of records on individuals (2002‑2026).	of personal information (2020‑2026). Count VII – Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Unauthorized maintenance of records on individuals (2002‑2026). Count VIII – Biv
Count VIII – Bivens Constitutional Tort: Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations (2002‑2026).	f records on individuals (2002‑2026). Count VIII – Bivens Constitutional Tort: Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations (2002‑2026). Count IX – Common Law Invasion
Count IX – Common Law Invasion of Privacy (all four branches) (2002‑2026).	fth Amendment violations (2002‑2026). Count IX – Common Law Invasion of Privacy (all four branches) (2002‑2026). Count X – Negligence and Negligent Su
Count X – Negligence and Negligent Supervision (2002‑2026).	acy (all four branches) (2002‑2026). Count X – Negligence and Negligent Supervision (2002‑2026). Damages Sought: Compensatory, statu
Count I – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants unlawfully intercepted electronic communications (2002‑2026).	s over the 24‑year period. Counts Count I – Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants unlawfully intercepted electronic communications (2002‑2026). Count II –
Count II – Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants accessed protected computers without authorization (2002‑2026).	lectronic communications (2002‑2026). Count II – Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Defendants accessed protected computers without authorization
Count III – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Defendants devised a scheme to defraud by collecting and selling data (2002‑2026).	rs without authorization (2002‑2026). Count III – Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Defendants devised a scheme to defraud by collecting and selling data (2002‑202
Count IV – Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Defendants engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity (2002‑2026).	lecting and selling data (2002‑2026). Count IV – Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Defendants engaged in a pattern of racke
Count V – Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 45): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices (2002‑2026).	of racketeering activity (2002‑2026). Count V – Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 45): Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices (2002‑
Count VI – California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150): Defendants failed to provide opt‑out and sold personal information (2020‑2026).	eceptive trade practices (2002‑2026). Count VI – California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150): Defendants failed to provide opt‑out and sold pers
Count VII – Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Defendants maintained records on individuals without lawful basis (2002‑2026).	old personal information (2020‑2026). Count VII – Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Defendants maintained records on individuals without lawful basis (2002‑2026).
Count VIII – Bivens Constitutional Tort: Defendants acted under color of law to violate Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights (2002‑2026).	als without lawful basis (2002‑2026). Count VIII – Bivens Constitutional Tort: Defendants acted under color of law to violate Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights
Count IX – Common Law Invasion of Privacy: Intrusion, public disclosure, false light, and misappropriation (2002‑2026).	d Fifth Amendment rights (2002‑2026). Count IX – Common Law Invasion of Privacy: Intrusion, public disclosure, false light, and misappropriation (2002‑2026). Co
Count X – Negligence: Defendants breached their duty to protect visitor data (2002‑2026).	ht, and misappropriation (2002‑2026). Count X – Negligence: Defendants breached their duty to protect visitor data (2002‑2026). Prayer for Relief Plaintiffs see

Header	Source excerpt
Count Crime Accounting	mendments. 4.0 Deterministic Per-Count Crime Accounting 4.1 Methodology. A "count" is defined
Count Counts / Page	catively. Violation Class $ / Count Counts / Page Per Sec Per Min Per Hr Per Day
Count I — 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Interception of Electronic Communications): Pre-consent GA, GTM, Sentry, Shareaholic, and CloudFront beacons; treble damages; $10,000 statutory minimum per violation.	ices Inc., and John/Jane Does 1–10. Count I — 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Interception of Electronic Communications): Pre-consent GA, GTM, Sentry, Shareaholic, and CloudF
Count II — 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act): Unauthorized access exceeding authorized access via covert beacons; $5,000 statutory minimum per violation; treble for pattern.	,000 statutory minimum per violation. Count II — 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act): Unauthorized access exceeding authorized access via covert bea
Count III — 18 U.S.C. § 1028 (Identity Fraud): Session and IP leakage; statutory maxima.	um per violation; treble for pattern. Count III — 18 U.S.C. § 1028 (Identity Fraud): Session and IP leakage; statutory maxima. Count IV — 47 U.S.C. § 605 (Unaut
Count IV — 47 U.S.C. § 605 (Unauthorized Publication of Communications): Shareaholic and CloudFront; $110,000 per count.	ion and IP leakage; statutory maxima. Count IV — 47 U.S.C. § 605 (Unauthorized Publication of Communications): Shareaholic and CloudFront; $110,000 per count. C
Count V — 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act Unfair and Deceptive Practices): Consent-bypass; $50,120 per violation.	c and CloudFront; $110,000 per count. Count V — 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act Unfair and Deceptive Practices): Consent-bypass; $50,120 per violation. Count VI — Cal.
Count VI — Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq. (CCPA/CPRA): $2,500 negligent; $7,500 intentional, per consumer.	onsent-bypass; $50,120 per violation. Count VI — Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq. (CCPA/CPRA): $2,500 negligent; $7,500 intentional, per consumer. Count VII —
Count VII — Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150 (Data Breach): $100–$750 per consumer per incident; statutory damages.	nt; $7,500 intentional, per consumer. Count VII — Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150 (Data Breach): $100–$750 per consumer per incident; statutory damages. Count VIII —
Count VIII — GDPR Arts. 5, 6, 7, 44–49: €250,000 or 4% global annual turnover per violation.	umer per incident; statutory damages. Count VIII — GDPR Arts. 5, 6, 7, 44–49: €250,000 or 4% global annual turnover per violation. Count IX — Invasion of Privac
Count IX — Invasion of Privacy (Four Branches): Intrusion, public disclosure, false light, appropriation.	global annual turnover per violation. Count IX — Invasion of Privacy (Four Branches): Intrusion, public disclosure, false light, appropriation. Count X — Trespa
Count X — Trespass to Chattels and Conversion: Unauthorized device resource use.	sclosure, false light, appropriation. Count X — Trespass to Chattels and Conversion: Unauthorized device resource use. Count XI — Negligence and Negligence
Count XI — Negligence and Negligence Per Se: Failure to implement CSP, SRI, CSRF, and consent gating.	on: Unauthorized device resource use. Count XI — Negligence and Negligence Per Se: Failure to implement CSP, SRI, CSRF, and consent gating. Count XII — Bivens (
Count XII — Bivens (Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth Amendments): Reserved for federal actors identified in discovery.	t CSP, SRI, CSRF, and consent gating. Count XII — Bivens (Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth Amendments): Reserved for federal actors identified in discovery. Count X
Count XIII — 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Reserved for state actors identified in discovery.	deral actors identified in discovery. Count XIII — 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Reserved for state actors identified in discovery. Count XIV — Civil Conspiracy: Reserve
Count XIV — Civil Conspiracy: Reserved.	state actors identified in discovery. Count XIV — Civil Conspiracy: Reserved. Count XV — Declaratory and Injunctive
Count XV — Declaratory and Injunctive Relief: Immediate cessation of pre-consent beacons; mandatory CSP, SRI, CSRF, and consent-state enforcement.	unt XIV — Civil Conspiracy: Reserved. Count XV — Declaratory and Injunctive Relief: Immediate cessation of pre-consent beacons; mandatory CSP, SRI, CSRF, and co

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Breach of Australian Privacy Principle 3: Unlawful collection via GTM, Adobe Launch, Adobe RUM, ReadSpeaker, Google Translate, Google Fonts, reCAPTCHA, and social media trackers.	, and contractors of the foregoing. Count I – Breach of Australian Privacy Principle 3: Unlawful collection via GTM, Adobe Launch, Adobe RUM, ReadSpeaker, Googl
Count II – Breach of Australian Privacy Principle 5: Failure to notify at the point of collection.	reCAPTCHA, and social media trackers. Count II – Breach of Australian Privacy Principle 5: Failure to notify at the point of collection. Count III – Breach of A
Count III – Breach of Australian Privacy Principle 6: Unlawful use and disclosure to third parties.	to notify at the point of collection. Count III – Breach of Australian Privacy Principle 6: Unlawful use and disclosure to third parties. Count IV – Breach of A
Count IV – Breach of Australian Privacy Principle 8: Unauthorised disclosure to US-based and EU-based cloud providers.	use and disclosure to third parties. Count IV – Breach of Australian Privacy Principle 8: Unauthorised disclosure to US-based and EU-based cloud providers. Coun
Count V – Breach of Australian Privacy Principle 11: Failure to implement CSP, SRI, security headers, and other reasonable security controls.	S-based and EU-based cloud providers. Count V – Breach of Australian Privacy Principle 11: Failure to implement CSP, SRI, security headers, and other reasonable
Count VI – Breach of PPIPA 1998 (NSW) ss 8–11 and s 18.	d other reasonable security controls. Count VI – Breach of PPIPA 1998 (NSW) ss 8–11 and s 18. Count VII – Breach of Criminal Code A
Count VII – Breach of Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) Part 10.7.	f PPIPA 1998 (NSW) ss 8–11 and s 18. Count VII – Breach of Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) Part 10.7. Count VIII – Breach of Security of Cr
Count VIII – Breach of Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 (Cth).	minal Code Act 1995 (Cth) Part 10.7. Count VIII – Breach of Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 (Cth). Count IX – Breach of Court Informatio
Count IX – Breach of Court Information Act 2010 (NSW).	tical Infrastructure Act 2018 (Cth). Count IX – Breach of Court Information Act 2010 (NSW). Count X – Breach of State Records Act
Count X – Breach of State Records Act 1998 (NSW).	of Court Information Act 2010 (NSW). Count X – Breach of State Records Act 1998 (NSW). Count XI – Breach of Disability Discr
Count XI – Breach of Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth).	ach of State Records Act 1998 (NSW). Count XI – Breach of Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth). Count XII – Breach of Australian Cons
Count XII – Breach of Australian Consumer Law.	ility Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth). Count XII – Breach of Australian Consumer Law. Count XIII – Misfeasance in public of
Count XIII – Misfeasance in public office.	– Breach of Australian Consumer Law. Count XIII – Misfeasance in public office. Count XIV – Negligence. Count XV –
Count XIV – Negligence.	XIII – Misfeasance in public office. Count XIV – Negligence. Count XV – Invasion of privacy (intru
Count XV – Invasion of privacy (intrusion upon seclusion).	c office. Count XIV – Negligence. Count XV – Invasion of privacy (intrusion upon seclusion). Count XVI – Breach of confidence.
Count XVI – Breach of confidence.	privacy (intrusion upon seclusion). Count XVI – Breach of confidence. Count XVII – Contempt of court (const
Count XVII – Contempt of court (constructive).	Count XVI – Breach of confidence. Count XVII – Contempt of court (constructive). Count XVIII – Breach of GDPR (EU) 201
Count XVIII – Breach of GDPR (EU) 2016/679.	– Contempt of court (constructive). Count XVIII – Breach of GDPR (EU) 2016/679. Count XIX – Breach of UK GDPR / DPA 2
Count XIX – Breach of UK GDPR / DPA 2018.	VIII – Breach of GDPR (EU) 2016/679. Count XIX – Breach of UK GDPR / DPA 2018. Count XX – Breach of ePrivacy Directi
Count XX – Breach of ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC.	XIX – Breach of UK GDPR / DPA 2018. Count XX – Breach of ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC. Count XXI – Breach of Budapest Conven
Count XXI – Breach of Budapest Convention on Cybercrime.	ch of ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC. Count XXI – Breach of Budapest Convention on Cybercrime. Count XXII – Breach of Council of Eur
Count XXII – Breach of Council of Europe Convention 108 (modernised).	f Budapest Convention on Cybercrime. Count XXII – Breach of Council of Europe Convention 108 (modernised). Count XXIII – Breach of UN Basic Prin
Count XXIII – Breach of UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary (1985).	Europe Convention 108 (modernised). Count XXIII – Breach of UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary (1985). Count XXIV – Breach of Bangalore Pr
Count XXIV – Breach of Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct (2002).	ndependence of the Judiciary (1985). Count XXIV – Breach of Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct (2002). Count XXV – Breach of Article 12 UDHR
Count XXV – Breach of Article 12 UDHR and Article 17 ICCPR.	inciples of Judicial Conduct (2002). Count XXV – Breach of Article 12 UDHR and Article 17 ICCPR. Count XXVI – Breach of Convention on
Count XXVI – Breach of Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Art. 21.	rticle 12 UDHR and Article 17 ICCPR. Count XXVI – Breach of Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Art. 21. Count XXVII – Breach of OECD Privacy
Count XXVII – Breach of OECD Privacy Guidelines 2013.	f Persons with Disabilities Art. 21. Count XXVII – Breach of OECD Privacy Guidelines 2013. Count XXVIII – Breach of APEC Cross-B
Count XXVIII – Breach of APEC Cross-Border Privacy Rules.	ach of OECD Privacy Guidelines 2013. Count XXVIII – Breach of APEC Cross-Border Privacy Rules. Count XXIX – Breach of G20 Digital Ec
Count XXIX – Breach of G20 Digital Economy Principles.	of APEC Cross-Border Privacy Rules. Count XXIX – Breach of G20 Digital Economy Principles. Count XXX – Breach of the Law Enforce
Count XXX – Breach of the Law Enforcement and National Security (Assumed Identities) Act 2010 (NSW) and analogous judicial-protection legislation.	h of G20 Digital Economy Principles. Count XXX – Breach of the Law Enforcement and National Security (Assumed Identities) Act 2010 (NSW) and analogous judicial-

Master Forensic Audit Report

Master Forensic Report

Executive Summary

Statistical Summary

Index of Source Documents

Top Parties Across All Source Documents

Top Statutes Cited Across All Source Documents

Section 1 — Forensic Audit Report — Lanier Properties IDX Kestrel Real Estate Portal — LDT-FAR-2026-1003-LANIER-PROPERTIES-REV2

1.1 Parties (2)

1.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (26)

1.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (18)

1.4 Dollar Figures (16)

1.5 Dates (1)

Section 2 — Forensic Audit Report – NYSE Quote Page (XNYS:CXW)

2.1 Parties (2)

2.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (40)

2.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (20)

2.4 Dollar Figures (171)

2.5 Dates (0)

Section 3 — Forensic Audit Report — FinCEN Power Pages Contact Us Portal — LDT-FAR-2026-1003-FINCEN-PORTAL-REV3

3.1 Parties (2)

3.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (23)

3.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (18)

3.4 Dollar Figures (14)

3.5 Dates (1)

Section 4 — Forensic Audit Report – levinlaw.com (Revision 2)

4.1 Parties (0)

4.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (12)

4.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (59)

4.4 Dollar Figures (86)

4.5 Dates (1)

Section 5 — Forensic Audit Report – Bijeli Slon Real Estate (belij-slon.me)

5.1 Parties (3)

5.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (23)

5.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (20)

5.4 Dollar Figures (94)

5.5 Dates (2)

Section 6 — Forensic Legal Audit: Housing Instability & Voter Disenfranchisement (1999–2026)

6.1 Parties (0)

6.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (3)

6.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

6.4 Dollar Figures (0)

6.5 Dates (0)

Section 7 — Forensic Audit Report – linkdevelopment.com

7.1 Parties (2)

7.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (51)

7.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (28)

7.4 Dollar Figures (161)

7.5 Dates (5)

Section 8 — Forensic Audit: Algorithmic Failure Analysis

8.1 Parties (0)

8.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (0)

8.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

8.4 Dollar Figures (0)

8.5 Dates (0)

Section 9 — Forensic Analysis: Italian PEC Provider Ecosystem (2005–2025)

9.1 Parties (0)

9.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (0)

9.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (1)

9.4 Dollar Figures (1)

9.5 Dates (1)

Section 10 — Forensic Analysis: Bain Capital, Namirial, and the Italian PEC Market

10.1 Parties (0)

10.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (0)

10.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

10.4 Dollar Figures (1)

10.5 Dates (0)

Section 11 — Forensic Analysis: Bain Capital, Romney, and Italian Digital Infrastructure (1998–2026)

11.1 Parties (0)

11.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (0)

11.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (0)

11.4 Dollar Figures (5)

11.5 Dates (7)

Section 12 — Forensic Audit Report – beyonsolutions.com

12.1 Parties (2)

12.2 Statutes, Rules, and Regulations Cited (45)

12.3 Counts and Enumerated Violations (29)

12.4 Dollar Figures (145)

12.5 Dates (6)

Section 13 — Forensic Audit Report – Hero by LINC-ED / FusionAuth 1.69.2 Login Portal

Header	Source excerpt
Count I — Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Unlawful interception of electronic communications (2001–2026).	Serve / OpenTech; and Does 1-50. Count I — Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Unlawful interception of electronic communications (2001–2026). Count II — CFAA (18 U
Count II — CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers (2001–2026).	lectronic communications (2001–2026). Count II — CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers (2001–2026). Count III — Wire Fraud (18 U.S
Count III — Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Scheme to defraud by transmitting tracking data (2001–2026).	s to protected computers (2001–2026). Count III — Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Scheme to defraud by transmitting tracking data (2001–2026). Count IV — RICO (1
Count IV — RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Pattern of racketeering activity (2001–2026).	ansmitting tracking data (2001–2026). Count IV — RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961): Pattern of racketeering activity (2001–2026). Count V — FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a))
Count V — FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair and deceptive trade practices (2001–2026).	of racketeering activity (2001–2026). Count V — FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair and deceptive trade practices (2001–2026). Count VI — CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code §
Count VI — CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150): Failure to provide opt-out, sale of personal information (2020–2026).	eceptive trade practices (2001–2026). Count VI — CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150): Failure to provide opt-out, sale of personal information (2020–2026). Count V
Count VII — Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Unauthorized maintenance of records on individuals (2001–2026).	of personal information (2020–2026). Count VII — Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Unauthorized maintenance of records on individuals (2001–2026). Count VIII — Biv
Count VIII — Bivens Constitutional Tort: Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations (2001–2026).	f records on individuals (2001–2026). Count VIII — Bivens Constitutional Tort: Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations (2001–2026). Count IX — Common Law Invasion
Count IX — Common Law Invasion of Privacy: All four branches (2001–2026).	fth Amendment violations (2001–2026). Count IX — Common Law Invasion of Privacy: All four branches (2001–2026). Count X — Violation of GDPR (EU) 2016
Count X — Violation of GDPR (EU) 2016/679 Arts. 5, 6, 13, 32, 44–49 (2018–2026).	ivacy: All four branches (2001–2026). Count X — Violation of GDPR (EU) 2016/679 Arts. 5, 6, 13, 32, 44–49 (2018–2026). Count XI — Violation of ePrivacy Dire
Count XI — Violation of ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC Art. 5(3) (2002–2026).	ts. 5, 6, 13, 32, 44–49 (2018–2026). Count XI — Violation of ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC Art. 5(3) (2002–2026). Count XII — Violation of Budapest Con
Count XII — Violation of Budapest Convention Arts. 2, 4, 5 (2004–2026).	ve 2002/58/EC Art. 5(3) (2002–2026). Count XII — Violation of Budapest Convention Arts. 2, 4, 5 (2004–2026). Count XIII — Violation of Ukraine Law
Count XIII — Violation of Ukraine Law on Personal Data Protection (2010–2026).	onvention Arts. 2, 4, 5 (2004–2026). Count XIII — Violation of Ukraine Law on Personal Data Protection (2010–2026). Count XIV — Tort: Negligent Security
Count XIV — Tort: Negligent Security (2001–2026).	ersonal Data Protection (2010–2026). Count XIV — Tort: Negligent Security (2001–2026). Count XV — Tort: Breach of Fiduciary
Count XV — Tort: Breach of Fiduciary Duty of Data Custodian (2001–2026).	ort: Negligent Security (2001–2026). Count XV — Tort: Breach of Fiduciary Duty of Data Custodian (2001–2026). Damages Sought: Compensatory, stat

Header	Source excerpt
count integrity for the deterministic per-count accounting.	separately for each target to preserve count integrity for the deterministic per-count accounting. 3.1 Target 1 — Corporation Service Co
count is consolidated at the statute level for federal filing purposes and cross-referenced to the specific target sub-audits. This consolidated draft is intended for multi-jurisdictional filing.	s violated across multiple targets, the count is consolidated at the statute level for federal filing purposes and cross-referenced to the specific target sub-a
Count I — Breach of GDPR Art. 5, 6, 7 (Lawfulness and Consent). Unlawful processing of EU-resident data subjects across all five targets.	tors of the foregoing. Consolidated Count I — Breach of GDPR Art. 5, 6, 7 (Lawfulness and Consent). Unlawful processing of EU-resident data subjects across all
Count II — Breach of GDPR Art. 44–49 (Cross-Border Transfers). Unauthorized transfer to U.S.-based Google, Meta, X Corp, Microsoft Azure, Optimizely, AddEvent, and Sitecore infrastructure.	across all five targets. Consolidated Count II — Breach of GDPR Art. 44–49 (Cross-Border Transfers). Unauthorized transfer to U.S.-based Google, Meta, X Corp, M
Count III — Breach of ePrivacy Directive Art. 5(3). Terminal equipment access without consent across all five targets.	Sitecore infrastructure. Consolidated Count III — Breach of ePrivacy Directive Art. 5(3). Terminal equipment access without consent across all five targets. Con
Count IV — Breach of UK GDPR / DPA 2018 / PECR reg 6.	across all five targets. Consolidated Count IV — Breach of UK GDPR / DPA 2018 / PECR reg 6. Consolidated Count V — Breach of 18 U
Count V — Breach of 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA).	DPA 2018 / PECR reg 6. Consolidated Count V — Breach of 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA). Consolidated Count VI — Breach of 18
Count VI — Breach of 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act).	8 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA). Consolidated Count VI — Breach of 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act). Consolidated Count VII — Breach of 18
Count VII — Breach of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud).	. § 2511 (Wiretap Act). Consolidated Count VII — Breach of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud). Consolidated Count VIII — Breach of 1
Count VIII — Breach of 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act).	C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud). Consolidated Count VIII — Breach of 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act). Consolidated Count IX — Breach of 15
Count IX — Breach of 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506 (COPPA).	U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act). Consolidated Count IX — Breach of 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506 (COPPA). Consolidated Count X — Breach of 5 U.
Count X — Breach of 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act).	. §§ 6501–6506 (COPPA). Consolidated Count X — Breach of 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act). Consolidated Count XI — Breach of Cal
Count XI — Breach of California CCPA/CPRA.	. § 552a (Privacy Act). Consolidated Count XI — Breach of California CCPA/CPRA. Consolidated Count XII — Breach of Ca
Count XII — Breach of Cal. Penal Code § 631 (CIPA).	f California CCPA/CPRA. Consolidated Count XII — Breach of Cal. Penal Code § 631 (CIPA). Consolidated Count XIII — Breach of C
Count XIII — Breach of Cal. Penal Code § 638.51 (CIPA pen register).	enal Code § 631 (CIPA). Consolidated Count XIII — Breach of Cal. Penal Code § 638.51 (CIPA pen register). Consolidated Count XIV — Breach of Ca
Count XIV — Breach of Canadian PIPEDA.	51 (CIPA pen register). Consolidated Count XIV — Breach of Canadian PIPEDA. Consolidated Count XV — Breach of Can
Count XV — Breach of Canada CASL.	ach of Canadian PIPEDA. Consolidated Count XV — Breach of Canada CASL. Consolidated Count XVI — Breach of Ca
Count XVI — Breach of Canadian Criminal Code s 342.1.	Breach of Canada CASL. Consolidated Count XVI — Breach of Canadian Criminal Code s 342.1. Consolidated Count XVII — Breach of A
Count XVII — Breach of Australia Privacy Act 1988 (APPs 1–13).	Criminal Code s 342.1. Consolidated Count XVII — Breach of Australia Privacy Act 1988 (APPs 1–13). Consolidated Count XVIII — Breach of
Count XVIII — Breach of New Zealand Privacy Act 2020 (IPPs 1–13).	y Act 1988 (APPs 1–13). Consolidated Count XVIII — Breach of New Zealand Privacy Act 2020 (IPPs 1–13). Consolidated Count XIX — Breach of Va
Count XIX — Breach of Vanuatu Data Protection and Privacy Act No. 13 of 2024.	y Act 2020 (IPPs 1–13). Consolidated Count XIX — Breach of Vanuatu Data Protection and Privacy Act No. 13 of 2024. Consolidated Count XX — Breach of Van
Count XX — Breach of Vanuatu Cybercrime Act No. 22 of 2021.	acy Act No. 13 of 2024. Consolidated Count XX — Breach of Vanuatu Cybercrime Act No. 22 of 2021. Consolidated Count XXI — Negligence.
Count XXI — Negligence. Failure to implement CSP, SRI, security headers, consent mechanisms, and DPA references across all five targets.	ime Act No. 22 of 2021. Consolidated Count XXI — Negligence. Failure to implement CSP, SRI, security headers, consent mechanisms, and DPA references across all
Count XXII — Breach of fiduciary duty. Board, CISO, DPO, and supervisory-officer mandate violations.	across all five targets. Consolidated Count XXII — Breach of fiduciary duty. Board, CISO, DPO, and supervisory-officer mandate violations. Consolidated Count XX
Count XXIII — Invasion of privacy (intrusion upon seclusion).	icer mandate violations. Consolidated Count XXIII — Invasion of privacy (intrusion upon seclusion). Consolidated Count XXIV — Breach of c
Count XXIV — Breach of confidence.	rusion upon seclusion). Consolidated Count XXIV — Breach of confidence. Consolidated Count XXV — Unjust enric
Count XXV — Unjust enrichment.	— Breach of confidence. Consolidated Count XXV — Unjust enrichment. Consolidated Count XXVI — Civil consp
Count XXVI — Civil conspiracy.	XV — Unjust enrichment. Consolidated Count XXVI — Civil conspiracy. Consolidated Count XXVII — Breach of
Count XXVII — Breach of the Egmont Group Charter and Principles for Information Exchange (Target 2).	XVI — Civil conspiracy. Consolidated Count XXVII — Breach of the Egmont Group Charter and Principles for Information Exchange (Target 2). Consolidated Count XXV
Count XXVIII — Breach of FATF Recommendation 15 (New Technologies).	on Exchange (Target 2). Consolidated Count XXVIII — Breach of FATF Recommendation 15 (New Technologies). Consolidated Count XXIX — Breach of B
Count XXIX — Breach of Budapest Convention on Cybercrime.	15 (New Technologies). Consolidated Count XXIX — Breach of Budapest Convention on Cybercrime. Consolidated Count XXX — Breach of UD
Count XXX — Breach of UDHR Art. 12 and ICCPR Art. 17.	nvention on Cybercrime. Consolidated Count XXX — Breach of UDHR Art. 12 and ICCPR Art. 17. Consolidated Count XXXI — Next.js CVE
Count XXXI — Next.js CVE-2026-44573 authorization bypass (IMF; 18 U.S.C. § 1030).	. 12 and ICCPR Art. 17. Consolidated Count XXXI — Next.js CVE-2026-44573 authorization bypass (IMF; 18 U.S.C. § 1030). Consolidated Count XXXII — Disclosure
Count XXXII — Disclosure of CMS / CDN infrastructure identifiers across all targets.	IMF; 18 U.S.C. § 1030). Consolidated Count XXXII — Disclosure of CMS / CDN infrastructure identifiers across all targets. Consolidated Count XXXIII — Automatic
Count XXXIII — Automatic enhanced-conversions PII harvesting without consent (GTM AW-1068215855).	ers across all targets. Consolidated Count XXXIII — Automatic enhanced-conversions PII harvesting without consent (GTM AW-1068215855). Consolidated Count XXXIV
Count XXXIV — Dead / sunset legacy tracking scripts (Universal Analytics UA-2238649-1) transmitting visitor telemetry without benefit.	nt (GTM AW-1068215855). Consolidated Count XXXIV — Dead / sunset legacy tracking scripts (Universal Analytics UA-2238649-1) transmitting visitor telemetry witho
Count XXXV — First-party cookie tracking without consent across multiple targets.	emetry without benefit. Consolidated Count XXXV — First-party cookie tracking without consent across multiple targets. Consolidated Count XXXVI — Failure to
Count XXXVI — Failure to provide server-side consent banner across all five targets.	cross multiple targets. Consolidated Count XXXVI — Failure to provide server-side consent banner across all five targets. Consolidated Count XXXVII — Failure t
Count XXXVII — Failure to provide DPA references for Google, Microsoft, Optimizely, AddEvent, Sitecore, OneTrust, and AddToAny.	cross all five targets. Consolidated Count XXXVII — Failure to provide DPA references for Google, Microsoft, Optimizely, AddEvent, Sitecore, OneTrust, and AddTo
Count XXXVIII — Misrepresentation under Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law and analogous statutes in 140+ jurisdictions.	OneTrust, and AddToAny. Consolidated Count XXXVIII — Misrepresentation under Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law and analogous statutes in 140+ jurisdicti
Count XXXIX — Bank Secrecy Act / USA PATRIOT Act § 326 violations (CSC Registered Agent context).	in 140+ jurisdictions. Consolidated Count XXXIX — Bank Secrecy Act / USA PATRIOT Act § 326 violations (CSC Registered Agent context). Consolidated Count XL — IM
Count XL — IMF Articles of Agreement and Transparency Policy violations (Target 5).	istered Agent context). Consolidated Count XL — IMF Articles of Agreement and Transparency Policy violations (Target 5). Damages Sought. Compensatory damage

Header	Source excerpt
Count I — Breach of GDPR Art. 5, 6, 7. Unlawful processing of EU-resident data subjects via container AW-1068215855.	, and contractors of the foregoing. Count I — Breach of GDPR Art. 5, 6, 7. Unlawful processing of EU-resident data subjects via container AW-1068215855. Count I
Count II — Breach of GDPR Art. 44–49. Unauthorized transfer to U.S.-based Google infrastructure.	subjects via container AW-1068215855. Count II — Breach of GDPR Art. 44–49. Unauthorized transfer to U.S.-based Google infrastructure. Count III — Breach of ePr
Count III — Breach of ePrivacy Directive Art. 5(3). Terminal equipment access without consent.	to U.S.-based Google infrastructure. Count III — Breach of ePrivacy Directive Art. 5(3). Terminal equipment access without consent. Count IV — Breach of UK GDPR
Count IV — Breach of UK GDPR / DPA 2018 / PECR reg 6.	nal equipment access without consent. Count IV — Breach of UK GDPR / DPA 2018 / PECR reg 6. Count V — Breach of 18 U.S.C. § 1030
Count V — Breach of 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA).	of UK GDPR / DPA 2018 / PECR reg 6. Count V — Breach of 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA). Count VI — Breach of 18 U.S.C. § 2511
Count VI — Breach of 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act).	— Breach of 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA). Count VI — Breach of 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act). Count VII — Breach of 18 U.S.C. § 134
Count VII — Breach of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud).	h of 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act). Count VII — Breach of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud). Count VIII — Breach of 15 U.S.C. § 45
Count VIII — Breach of 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act).	ch of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud). Count VIII — Breach of 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act). Count IX — Breach of 15 U.S.C. §§ 650
Count IX — Breach of 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506 (COPPA).	Breach of 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act). Count IX — Breach of 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506 (COPPA). Count X — Breach of 5 U.S.C. § 552a (
Count X — Breach of 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act).	h of 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506 (COPPA). Count X — Breach of 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act). Count XI — Breach of California CCPA/
Count XI — Breach of California CCPA/CPRA.	ch of 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act). Count XI — Breach of California CCPA/CPRA. Count XII — Breach of Cal. Penal Code
Count XII — Breach of Cal. Penal Code § 631 (CIPA).	XI — Breach of California CCPA/CPRA. Count XII — Breach of Cal. Penal Code § 631 (CIPA). Count XIII — Breach of Cal. Penal Cod
Count XIII — Breach of Cal. Penal Code § 638.51 (CIPA pen register).	ach of Cal. Penal Code § 631 (CIPA). Count XIII — Breach of Cal. Penal Code § 638.51 (CIPA pen register). Count XIV — Breach of Australia Priva
Count XIV — Breach of Australia Privacy Act 1988 (APPs 1–13).	l Code § 638.51 (CIPA pen register). Count XIV — Breach of Australia Privacy Act 1988 (APPs 1–13). Count XV — Breach of Canada PIPEDA /
Count XV — Breach of Canada PIPEDA / CASL.	tralia Privacy Act 1988 (APPs 1–13). Count XV — Breach of Canada PIPEDA / CASL. Count XVI — Negligence. Failure to im
Count XVI — Negligence. Failure to implement a consent gate for auto-PII harvesting over the 25.73-year operational lifespan of the conversion tracking technology.	XV — Breach of Canada PIPEDA / CASL. Count XVI — Negligence. Failure to implement a consent gate for auto-PII harvesting over the 25.73-year operational lifespa
Count XVII — Breach of fiduciary duty.	f the conversion tracking technology. Count XVII — Breach of fiduciary duty. Count XVIII — Invasion of privacy (in
Count XVIII — Invasion of privacy (intrusion upon seclusion).	unt XVII — Breach of fiduciary duty. Count XVIII — Invasion of privacy (intrusion upon seclusion). Count XIX — Breach of confidence.
Count XIX — Breach of confidence.	privacy (intrusion upon seclusion). Count XIX — Breach of confidence. Count XX — Unjust enrichment. Coun
Count XX — Unjust enrichment.	Count XIX — Breach of confidence. Count XX — Unjust enrichment. Count XXI — Civil conspiracy. Coun
Count XXI — Civil conspiracy.	ce. Count XX — Unjust enrichment. Count XXI — Civil conspiracy. Count XXII — Breach of FATF Recommend
Count XXII — Breach of FATF Recommendation 15 (New Technologies).	nt. Count XXI — Civil conspiracy. Count XXII — Breach of FATF Recommendation 15 (New Technologies). Count XXIII — Breach of UDHR Art. 12
Count XXIII — Breach of UDHR Art. 12 and ICCPR Art. 17.	ecommendation 15 (New Technologies). Count XXIII — Breach of UDHR Art. 12 and ICCPR Art. 17. Damages Sought. Compensatory damage

Header	Source excerpt
Count 186 jurisdictions (stated in visible HTML)	oany.com/menu/page.js FIU Membership Count 186 jurisdictions (stated in visible HTML) Primary Jurisdiction Global — Secreta
Count I — Breach of PIPEDA s 7. Unlawful collection via dual Google Analytics, Google Translate, Google Fonts, Twitter feed, and AddToAny.	, and contractors of the foregoing. Count I — Breach of PIPEDA s 7. Unlawful collection via dual Google Analytics, Google Translate, Google Fonts, Twitter feed,
Count II — Breach of PIPEDA Schedule 1 Clause 4.3. No meaningful consent obtained.	le Fonts, Twitter feed, and AddToAny. Count II — Breach of PIPEDA Schedule 1 Clause 4.3. No meaningful consent obtained. Count III — Breach of CASL s 6. Analy
Count III — Breach of CASL s 6. Analytics without consent.	4.3. No meaningful consent obtained. Count III — Breach of CASL s 6. Analytics without consent. Count IV — Breach of GDPR Art. 5, 6,
Count IV — Breach of GDPR Art. 5, 6, 7. Unlawful processing of EU-resident data subjects.	CASL s 6. Analytics without consent. Count IV — Breach of GDPR Art. 5, 6, 7. Unlawful processing of EU-resident data subjects. Count V — Breach of GDPR Art. 44–
Count V — Breach of GDPR Art. 44–49. Unauthorized transfer to U.S.-based Google, Meta, and X Corp. infrastructure.	cessing of EU-resident data subjects. Count V — Breach of GDPR Art. 44–49. Unauthorized transfer to U.S.-based Google, Meta, and X Corp. infrastructure. Count V
Count VI — Breach of ePrivacy Directive Art. 5(3). Terminal equipment access without consent.	le, Meta, and X Corp. infrastructure. Count VI — Breach of ePrivacy Directive Art. 5(3). Terminal equipment access without consent. Count VII — Breach of UK GDP
Count VII — Breach of UK GDPR / DPA 2018.	nal equipment access without consent. Count VII — Breach of UK GDPR / DPA 2018. Count VIII — Breach of 18 U.S.C. § 10
Count VIII — Breach of 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA).	VII — Breach of UK GDPR / DPA 2018. Count VIII — Breach of 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA). Count IX — Breach of 18 U.S.C. § 2511
Count IX — Breach of 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act).	— Breach of 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (CFAA). Count IX — Breach of 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act). Count X — Breach of 15 U.S.C. § 45 (F
Count X — Breach of 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act).	h of 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Wiretap Act). Count X — Breach of 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act). Count XI — Breach of 15 U.S.C. §§ 650
Count XI — Breach of 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506 (COPPA).	Breach of 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act). Count XI — Breach of 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506 (COPPA). Count XII — Breach of 5 U.S.C. § 552a
Count XII — Breach of 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act).	h of 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–6506 (COPPA). Count XII — Breach of 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act). Count XIII — Breach of California CCP
Count XIII — Breach of California CCPA/CPRA.	ch of 5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act). Count XIII — Breach of California CCPA/CPRA. Count XIV — Breach of Cal. Penal Code
Count XIV — Breach of Cal. Penal Code § 631 (CIPA).	II — Breach of California CCPA/CPRA. Count XIV — Breach of Cal. Penal Code § 631 (CIPA). Count XV — Breach of Australia Privac
Count XV — Breach of Australia Privacy Act 1988 (APPs 1–13).	ach of Cal. Penal Code § 631 (CIPA). Count XV — Breach of Australia Privacy Act 1988 (APPs 1–13). Count XVI — Breach of New Zealand Pri
Count XVI — Breach of New Zealand Privacy Act 2020 (IPPs 1–13).	tralia Privacy Act 1988 (APPs 1–13). Count XVI — Breach of New Zealand Privacy Act 2020 (IPPs 1–13). Count XVII — Breach of Vanuatu Data P
Count XVII — Breach of Vanuatu Data Protection and Privacy Act No. 13 of 2024.	ealand Privacy Act 2020 (IPPs 1–13). Count XVII — Breach of Vanuatu Data Protection and Privacy Act No. 13 of 2024. Count XVIII — Breach of Vanuatu Cyber
Count XVIII — Breach of Vanuatu Cybercrime Act No. 22 of 2021.	tion and Privacy Act No. 13 of 2024. Count XVIII — Breach of Vanuatu Cybercrime Act No. 22 of 2021. Count XIX — Breach of Canadian Crimin
Count XIX — Breach of Canadian Criminal Code s 342.1.	nuatu Cybercrime Act No. 22 of 2021. Count XIX — Breach of Canadian Criminal Code s 342.1. Count XX — Breach of Canadian Crimina
Count XX — Breach of Canadian Criminal Code s 380 (fraud).	h of Canadian Criminal Code s 342.1. Count XX — Breach of Canadian Criminal Code s 380 (fraud). Count XXI — Negligence. Failure to im
Count XXI — Negligence. Failure to implement CSP, SRI, security headers, and consent mechanisms.	anadian Criminal Code s 380 (fraud). Count XXI — Negligence. Failure to implement CSP, SRI, security headers, and consent mechanisms. Count XXII — Breach of fid
Count XXII — Breach of fiduciary duty.	rity headers, and consent mechanisms. Count XXII — Breach of fiduciary duty. Count XXIII — Invasion of privacy (in
Count XXIII — Invasion of privacy (intrusion upon seclusion).	unt XXII — Breach of fiduciary duty. Count XXIII — Invasion of privacy (intrusion upon seclusion). Count XXIV — Breach of confidence.
Count XXIV — Breach of confidence.	privacy (intrusion upon seclusion). Count XXIV — Breach of confidence. Count XXV — Unjust enrichment. Cou
Count XXV — Unjust enrichment.	Count XXIV — Breach of confidence. Count XXV — Unjust enrichment. Count XXVI — Civil conspiracy. Cou
Count XXVI — Civil conspiracy.	e. Count XXV — Unjust enrichment. Count XXVI — Civil conspiracy. Count XXVII — Breach of the Egmont Gr
Count XXVII — Breach of the Egmont Group Charter and Principles for Information Exchange.	t. Count XXVI — Civil conspiracy. Count XXVII — Breach of the Egmont Group Charter and Principles for Information Exchange. Count XXVIII — Breach of FATF Recomm
Count XXVIII — Breach of FATF Recommendation 15 (New Technologies).	Principles for Information Exchange. Count XXVIII — Breach of FATF Recommendation 15 (New Technologies). Count XXIX — Breach of Budapest Conve
Count XXIX — Breach of Budapest Convention on Cybercrime.	ecommendation 15 (New Technologies). Count XXIX — Breach of Budapest Convention on Cybercrime. Count XXX — Breach of UDHR Art. 12 an
Count XXX — Breach of UDHR Art. 12 and ICCPR Art. 17.	f Budapest Convention on Cybercrime. Count XXX — Breach of UDHR Art. 12 and ICCPR Art. 17. Damages Sought. Compensatory damage

Header	Source excerpt
count V118–V121	nvention International cooperation, per-count V118–V121 OECD, APEC, UNGP, G20, CoE 108+ Per-v
Count I — Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Intentional interception via Akamai behavioral telemetry, XHR override, GTM, and GA4.	r entities identified in discovery. Count I — Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Intentional interception via Akamai behavioral telemetry, XHR override, GTM, and G
Count II — Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. § 2701, § 2707): Unauthorized access to stored electronic communications via responseURL extraction.	elemetry, XHR override, GTM, and GA4. Count II — Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. § 2701, § 2707): Unauthorized access to stored electronic communications v
Count III — Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers.	nications via responseURL extraction. Count III — Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers. Count IV — Wire F
Count IV — Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Scheme to defraud through undisclosed behavioral and device collection.	orized access to protected computers. Count IV — Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Scheme to defraud through undisclosed behavioral and device collection. Count V
Count V — Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Disclosure without consent.	sed behavioral and device collection. Count V — Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Disclosure without consent. Count VI — FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)
Count VI — FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair or deceptive acts.	§ 552a): Disclosure without consent. Count VI — FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair or deceptive acts. Count VII — GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801):
Count VII — GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Failure to protect financial privacy.	. § 45(a)): Unfair or deceptive acts. Count VII — GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Failure to protect financial privacy. Count VIII — DTSA (18 U.S.C. § 1836):
Count VIII — DTSA (18 U.S.C. § 1836): Trade secret misappropriation (exposed GraphQL JWT, exposed Apollo state).	Failure to protect financial privacy. Count VIII — DTSA (18 U.S.C. § 1836): Trade secret misappropriation (exposed GraphQL JWT, exposed Apollo state). Count IX
Count IX — RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961–1962): Pattern of racketeering activity.	d GraphQL JWT, exposed Apollo state). Count IX — RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961–1962): Pattern of racketeering activity. Count X — Conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371
Count X — Conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371).	2): Pattern of racketeering activity. Count X — Conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371). Count XI — Fla. Stat. § 501.701 et se
Count XI — Fla. Stat. § 501.701 et seq. (FDBR): Unauthorized processing of consumer personal data.	nt X — Conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371). Count XI — Fla. Stat. § 501.701 et seq. (FDBR): Unauthorized processing of consumer personal data. Count XII — Fla. Stat. §
Count XII — Fla. Stat. § 501.201 et seq. (FDUTPA): Unfair or deceptive acts.	processing of consumer personal data. Count XII — Fla. Stat. § 501.201 et seq. (FDUTPA): Unfair or deceptive acts. Count XIII — Fla. Stat. § 501.171 (FI
Count XIII — Fla. Stat. § 501.171 (FIPA): Failure to safeguard and notify.	. (FDUTPA): Unfair or deceptive acts. Count XIII — Fla. Stat. § 501.171 (FIPA): Failure to safeguard and notify. Count XIV — Fla. Stat. § 934.01 et se
Count XIV — Fla. Stat. § 934.01 et seq.: Interception.	PA): Failure to safeguard and notify. Count XIV — Fla. Stat. § 934.01 et seq.: Interception. Count XV — Cal. Penal Code § 631 (CIP
Count XV — Cal. Penal Code § 631 (CIPA): Wiretapping.	Stat. § 934.01 et seq.: Interception. Count XV — Cal. Penal Code § 631 (CIPA): Wiretapping. Count XVI — Cal. Penal Code § 632 (CI
Count XVI — Cal. Penal Code § 632 (CIPA): Eavesdropping.	Penal Code § 631 (CIPA): Wiretapping. Count XVI — Cal. Penal Code § 632 (CIPA): Eavesdropping. Count XVII — Cal. Penal Code § 637.2:
Count XVII — Cal. Penal Code § 637.2: Statutory damages.	nal Code § 632 (CIPA): Eavesdropping. Count XVII — Cal. Penal Code § 637.2: Statutory damages. Count XVIII — Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.1
Count XVIII — Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq. (CCPA/CPRA): Failure to provide notice and opt-out.	enal Code § 637.2: Statutory damages. Count XVIII — Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq. (CCPA/CPRA): Failure to provide notice and opt-out. Count XIX — Cal. Bus.
Count XIX — Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 (UCL): Unfair competition.	ailure to provide notice and opt-out. Count XIX — Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 (UCL): Unfair competition. Count XX — Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272 §
Count XX — Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272 § 99: Secret recording.	de § 17200 (UCL): Unfair competition. Count XX — Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272 § 99: Secret recording. Count XXI — Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A:
Count XXI — Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A: Unfair or deceptive acts.	Laws ch. 272 § 99: Secret recording. Count XXI — Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A: Unfair or deceptive acts. Count XXII — N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 899
Count XXII — N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 899-bb (SHIELD): Failure to implement reasonable safeguards.	ws ch. 93A: Unfair or deceptive acts. Count XXII — N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 899-bb (SHIELD): Failure to implement reasonable safeguards. Count XXIII — ePrivacy Dire
Count XXIII — ePrivacy Directive Art. 5(3): Storage/access without consent.	e to implement reasonable safeguards. Count XXIII — ePrivacy Directive Art. 5(3): Storage/access without consent. Count XXIV — GDPR Arts. 5, 6, 7, 13,
Count XXIV — GDPR Arts. 5, 6, 7, 13, 25, 44–49.	5(3): Storage/access without consent. Count XXIV — GDPR Arts. 5, 6, 7, 13, 25, 44–49. Count XXV — Common Law Invasion of Pr
Count XXV — Common Law Invasion of Privacy (all four branches).	— GDPR Arts. 5, 6, 7, 13, 25, 44–49. Count XXV — Common Law Invasion of Privacy (all four branches). Count XXVI — Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Count XXVI — Breach of Fiduciary Duty.	sion of Privacy (all four branches). Count XXVI — Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Count XXVII — Negligence and Gross Ne
Count XXVII — Negligence and Gross Negligence.	unt XXVI — Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Count XXVII — Negligence and Gross Negligence. Count XXVIII — Violation of Budapest
Count XXVIII — Violation of Budapest Convention Arts. 2–5.	I — Negligence and Gross Negligence. Count XXVIII — Violation of Budapest Convention Arts. 2–5. Count XXIX — Violation of ICCPR Art.
Count XXIX — Violation of ICCPR Art. 17 and UDHR Art. 12.	on of Budapest Convention Arts. 2–5. Count XXIX — Violation of ICCPR Art. 17 and UDHR Art. 12. Count XXX — Violation of VCDR Art. 24
Count XXX — Violation of VCDR Art. 24 and Geneva Common Article 3.	n of ICCPR Art. 17 and UDHR Art. 12. Count XXX — Violation of VCDR Art. 24 and Geneva Common Article 3. Damages Sought: Statutory damages;

Header	Source excerpt
count V83, V84	nvention International cooperation, per-count V83, V84 OECD, APEC, UNGP, G20, CoE 108+ Per-v
Count I — Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Intentional interception via behavioral challenge telemetry and XHR override.	r entities identified in discovery. Count I — Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Intentional interception via behavioral challenge telemetry and XHR override. Coun
Count II — Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. § 2701, § 2707): Unauthorized access to stored electronic communications through responseURL extraction.	challenge telemetry and XHR override. Count II — Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. § 2701, § 2707): Unauthorized access to stored electronic communications t
Count III — Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers.	tions through responseURL extraction. Count III — Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers. Count IV — Wire F
Count IV — Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Scheme to defraud through undisclosed behavioral and device collection.	orized access to protected computers. Count IV — Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Scheme to defraud through undisclosed behavioral and device collection. Count V
Count V — Massachusetts Wiretap Statute (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272 § 99): Secret recording of communications.	sed behavioral and device collection. Count V — Massachusetts Wiretap Statute (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272 § 99): Secret recording of communications. Count VI — Mas
Count VI — Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A): Unfair or deceptive acts.	: Secret recording of communications. Count VI — Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A): Unfair or deceptive acts. Count VII — Massachu
Count VII — Massachusetts Data Breach Notification Law (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93H): Failure to disclose.	s ch. 93A): Unfair or deceptive acts. Count VII — Massachusetts Data Breach Notification Law (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93H): Failure to disclose. Count VIII — Califo
Count VIII — California Invasion of Privacy Act (Cal. Penal Code § 631): Wiretapping.	. Laws ch. 93H): Failure to disclose. Count VIII — California Invasion of Privacy Act (Cal. Penal Code § 631): Wiretapping. Count IX — California Invasion of Pr
Count IX — California Invasion of Privacy Act (Cal. Penal Code § 632): Eavesdropping on confidential communications.	(Cal. Penal Code § 631): Wiretapping. Count IX — California Invasion of Privacy Act (Cal. Penal Code § 632): Eavesdropping on confidential communications. Count
Count X — California Invasion of Privacy Act (Cal. Penal Code § 637.2): Statutory damages.	pping on confidential communications. Count X — California Invasion of Privacy Act (Cal. Penal Code § 637.2): Statutory damages. Count XI — CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ.
Count XI — CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Failure to provide notice and opt-out.	nal Code § 637.2): Statutory damages. Count XI — CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Failure to provide notice and opt-out. Count XII — California UC
Count XII — California UCL (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200): Unfair competition.	ailure to provide notice and opt-out. Count XII — California UCL (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200): Unfair competition. Count XIII — Florida Digital Bill of
Count XIII — Florida Digital Bill of Rights (Fla. Stat. § 501.701 et seq.): Unauthorized processing.	f. Code § 17200): Unfair competition. Count XIII — Florida Digital Bill of Rights (Fla. Stat. § 501.701 et seq.): Unauthorized processing. Count XIV — Florida D
Count XIV — Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (Fla. Stat. § 501.201 et seq.): Unfair or deceptive acts.	01 et seq.): Unauthorized processing. Count XIV — Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (Fla. Stat. § 501.201 et seq.): Unfair or deceptive acts. Cou
Count XV — Florida Security of Communications Act (Fla. Stat. § 934.01 et seq.): Interception.	1 et seq.): Unfair or deceptive acts. Count XV — Florida Security of Communications Act (Fla. Stat. § 934.01 et seq.): Interception. Count XVI — FTC Act (15 U.S
Count XVI — FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair or deceptive acts.	tat. § 934.01 et seq.): Interception. Count XVI — FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45(a)): Unfair or deceptive acts. Count XVII — DTSA (18 U.S.C. § 1836):
Count XVII — DTSA (18 U.S.C. § 1836): Trade secret misappropriation.	. § 45(a)): Unfair or deceptive acts. Count XVII — DTSA (18 U.S.C. § 1836): Trade secret misappropriation. Count XVIII — RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961–
Count XVIII — RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961–1962): Pattern of racketeering activity.	1836): Trade secret misappropriation. Count XVIII — RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961–1962): Pattern of racketeering activity. Count XIX — Conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 3
Count XIX — Conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371).	2): Pattern of racketeering activity. Count XIX — Conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371). Count XX — ePrivacy Directive Art. 5(
Count XX — ePrivacy Directive Art. 5(3): Storage/access without consent.	XIX — Conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371). Count XX — ePrivacy Directive Art. 5(3): Storage/access without consent. Count XXI — GDPR Arts. 5, 6, 7, 13, 2
Count XXI — GDPR Arts. 5, 6, 7, 13, 25, 44–49.	5(3): Storage/access without consent. Count XXI — GDPR Arts. 5, 6, 7, 13, 25, 44–49. Count XXII — Common Law Invasion of P
Count XXII — Common Law Invasion of Privacy (all four branches).	— GDPR Arts. 5, 6, 7, 13, 25, 44–49. Count XXII — Common Law Invasion of Privacy (all four branches). Count XXIII — Breach of Fiduciary Dut
Count XXIII — Breach of Fiduciary Duty.	sion of Privacy (all four branches). Count XXIII — Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Count XXIV — Negligence and Gross Neg
Count XXIV — Negligence and Gross Negligence.	nt XXIII — Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Count XXIV — Negligence and Gross Negligence. Count XXV — Violation of Budapest Con
Count XXV — Violation of Budapest Convention Arts. 2–5.	V — Negligence and Gross Negligence. Count XXV — Violation of Budapest Convention Arts. 2–5. Count XXVI — Violation of ICCPR Art.
Count XXVI — Violation of ICCPR Art. 17 and UDHR Art. 12.	on of Budapest Convention Arts. 2–5. Count XXVI — Violation of ICCPR Art. 17 and UDHR Art. 12. Damages Sought: Statutory damages;

Header	Source excerpt
count V155–V158	nvention International cooperation, per-count V155–V158 OECD, APEC, UNGP, G20, CoE 108+ Per-v
Count I — Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Intentional interception of electronic communications via GTM, GA4, RevenueCloudFX session recorder, Datadog RUM, HubSpot, and Cloudflare, without consent.	r entities identified in discovery. Count I — Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Intentional interception of electronic communications via GTM, GA4, RevenueCloudFX
Count II — Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. § 2701, § 2707): Unauthorized access to stored electronic communications through form-field injection and session capture.	pot, and Cloudflare, without consent. Count II — Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. § 2701, § 2707): Unauthorized access to stored electronic communications t
Count III — Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers.	-field injection and session capture. Count III — Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Unauthorized access to protected computers. Count IV — Wire F
Count IV — Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Scheme to defraud through undisclosed collection and transfer of financial PII.	orized access to protected computers. Count IV — Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Scheme to defraud through undisclosed collection and transfer of financial PII.
Count V — Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Disclosure without consent.	ection and transfer of financial PII. Count V — Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Disclosure without consent. Count VI — NY GBL § 349: Deceptive, u
Count VI — NY GBL § 349: Deceptive, unfair, and abusive acts and practices (post-FAIR amendment).	§ 552a): Disclosure without consent. Count VI — NY GBL § 349: Deceptive, unfair, and abusive acts and practices (post-FAIR amendment). Count VII — NY GBL § 350
Count VII — NY GBL § 350 and § 350-a: False advertising.	and practices (post-FAIR amendment). Count VII — NY GBL § 350 and § 350-a: False advertising. Count VIII — NY GBL § 350-e: Automobi
Count VIII — NY GBL § 350-e: Automobile broker statutory damages (if applicable).	§ 350 and § 350-a: False advertising. Count VIII — NY GBL § 350-e: Automobile broker statutory damages (if applicable). Count IX — NY GBL § 899-bb (SHIELD Ac
Count IX — NY GBL § 899-bb (SHIELD Act): Failure to implement reasonable safeguards.	er statutory damages (if applicable). Count IX — NY GBL § 899-bb (SHIELD Act): Failure to implement reasonable safeguards. Count X — NY GBL § 899-aa: Failure to
Count X — NY GBL § 899-aa: Failure to disclose breach notification procedures.	e to implement reasonable safeguards. Count X — NY GBL § 899-aa: Failure to disclose breach notification procedures. Count XI — NY RPL § 440-a, § 441-c, §
Count XI — NY RPL § 440-a, § 441-c, § 442-k: Brokerage license and supervision violations.	close breach notification procedures. Count XI — NY RPL § 440-a, § 441-c, § 442-k: Brokerage license and supervision violations. Count XII — 19 NYCRR Parts 175,
Count XII — 19 NYCRR Parts 175, 176: Advertising regulation violations.	e license and supervision violations. Count XII — 19 NYCRR Parts 175, 176: Advertising regulation violations. Count XIII — NY Exec. Law § 63(12): P
Count XIII — NY Exec. Law § 63(12): Persistent fraud or illegality.	6: Advertising regulation violations. Count XIII — NY Exec. Law § 63(12): Persistent fraud or illegality. Count XIV — NY GBL § 622: Business op
Count XIV — NY GBL § 622: Business opportunity sales disclosure violations.	(12): Persistent fraud or illegality. Count XIV — NY GBL § 622: Business opportunity sales disclosure violations. Count XV — NY GBL § 460 et seq.: Fran
Count XV — NY GBL § 460 et seq.: Franchise sales disclosure violations.	ortunity sales disclosure violations. Count XV — NY GBL § 460 et seq.: Franchise sales disclosure violations. Count XVI — NY GOL § 5-501 et seq.: U
Count XVI — NY GOL § 5-501 et seq.: Usury (if applicable).	ranchise sales disclosure violations. Count XVI — NY GOL § 5-501 et seq.: Usury (if applicable). Count XVII — NY Labor Law § 190 et se
Count XVII — NY Labor Law § 190 et seq.: Commission handling (if applicable).	5-501 et seq.: Usury (if applicable). Count XVII — NY Labor Law § 190 et seq.: Commission handling (if applicable). Count XVIII — NYC Admin Code § 20-700
Count XVIII — NYC Admin Code § 20-700 et seq.: NYC consumer protection.	Commission handling (if applicable). Count XVIII — NYC Admin Code § 20-700 et seq.: NYC consumer protection. Count XIX — GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801):
Count XIX — GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Failure to protect financial privacy.	700 et seq.: NYC consumer protection. Count XIX — GLBA (15 U.S.C. § 6801): Failure to protect financial privacy. Count XX — FCRA (15 U.S.C. § 1681): C
Count XX — FCRA (15 U.S.C. § 1681): Credit information collection without permissible purpose.	Failure to protect financial privacy. Count XX — FCRA (15 U.S.C. § 1681): Credit information collection without permissible purpose. Count XXI — CCPA/CPRA: Fail
Count XXI — CCPA/CPRA: Failure to provide notice and opt-out.	llection without permissible purpose. Count XXI — CCPA/CPRA: Failure to provide notice and opt-out. Count XXII — ePrivacy Directive Art.
Count XXII — ePrivacy Directive Art. 5(3): Storage/access without consent.	ailure to provide notice and opt-out. Count XXII — ePrivacy Directive Art. 5(3): Storage/access without consent. Count XXIII — GDPR Arts. 5, 6, 7, 13,
Count XXIII — GDPR Arts. 5, 6, 7, 13, 25, 28, 32, 33, 44–49.	5(3): Storage/access without consent. Count XXIII — GDPR Arts. 5, 6, 7, 13, 25, 28, 32, 33, 44–49. Count XXIV — DTSA (18 U.S.C. § 1836):
Count XXIV — DTSA (18 U.S.C. § 1836): Trade secret misappropriation.	5, 6, 7, 13, 25, 28, 32, 33, 44–49. Count XXIV — DTSA (18 U.S.C. § 1836): Trade secret misappropriation. Count XXV — RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961–19
Count XXV — RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961–1962): Pattern of racketeering activity.	1836): Trade secret misappropriation. Count XXV — RICO (18 U.S.C. § 1961–1962): Pattern of racketeering activity. Count XXVI — Conspiracy (18 U.S.C. §
Count XXVI — Conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371).	2): Pattern of racketeering activity. Count XXVI — Conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371). Count XXVII — Common Law Invasion of
Count XXVII — Common Law Invasion of Privacy (all four branches).	XXVI — Conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371). Count XXVII — Common Law Invasion of Privacy (all four branches). Count XXVIII — Fraud / Deceptive Prac
Count XXVIII — Fraud / Deceptive Practices.	sion of Privacy (all four branches). Count XXVIII — Fraud / Deceptive Practices. Count XXIX — Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Count XXIX — Breach of Fiduciary Duty.	XVIII — Fraud / Deceptive Practices. Count XXIX — Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Count XXX — Negligence and Gross Negl
Count XXX — Negligence and Gross Negligence.	unt XXIX — Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Count XXX — Negligence and Gross Negligence. Count XXXI — Civil Conspiracy (42 U.S
Count XXXI — Civil Conspiracy (42 U.S.C. § 1985).	X — Negligence and Gross Negligence. Count XXXI — Civil Conspiracy (42 U.S.C. § 1985). Count XXXII — Violation of 18 U.S.C.
Count XXXII — Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1372 (critical infrastructure).	Civil Conspiracy (42 U.S.C. § 1985). Count XXXII — Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1372 (critical infrastructure). Count XXXIII — Violation of ITU Radio
Count XXXIII — Violation of ITU Radio Regulations Art. 18.	C. § 1372 (critical infrastructure). Count XXXIII — Violation of ITU Radio Regulations Art. 18. Count XXXIV — Violation of Budapest C
Count XXXIV — Violation of Budapest Convention Arts. 2–5.	on of ITU Radio Regulations Art. 18. Count XXXIV — Violation of Budapest Convention Arts. 2–5. Count XXXV — Violation of OECD, APEC,
Count XXXV — Violation of OECD, APEC, UNGP, G20, CoE 108+.	on of Budapest Convention Arts. 2–5. Count XXXV — Violation of OECD, APEC, UNGP, G20, CoE 108+. Count XXXVI — Violation of ICCPR Art.
Count XXXVI — Violation of ICCPR Art. 17 and UDHR Art. 12.	of OECD, APEC, UNGP, G20, CoE 108+. Count XXXVI — Violation of ICCPR Art. 17 and UDHR Art. 12. Count XXXVII — Violation of EU–US DPF
Count XXXVII — Violation of EU–US DPF, Swiss–US DPF, UK Extension.	n of ICCPR Art. 17 and UDHR Art. 12. Count XXXVII — Violation of EU–US DPF, Swiss–US DPF, UK Extension. Count XXXVIII — Violation of VCDR Art
Count XXXVIII — Violation of VCDR Art. 24 and Geneva Common Article 3.	–US DPF, Swiss–US DPF, UK Extension. Count XXXVIII — Violation of VCDR Art. 24 and Geneva Common Article 3. Count XXXIX — ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12181)
Count XXXIX — ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12181) / Section 508.	Art. 24 and Geneva Common Article 3. Count XXXIX — ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12181) / Section 508. Damages Sought: Statutory damages;

Header	Source excerpt
Count Crime Accounting	1)(f), 32. 4.0 Deterministic Per-Count Crime Accounting 4.1 Methodology. A "count" is defined
Count Counts / Page	res once. Violation Class $ / Count Counts / Page Per Sec Per Min Per Hr Per Day
Count I — 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Interception of Electronic Communications): Pre-consent beacon and hidden iframe; treble damages; $10,000 statutory minimum per violation.	oogle LLC, and John/Jane Does 1–20. Count I — 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Interception of Electronic Communications): Pre-consent beacon and hidden iframe; treble damages
Count II — 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act): Unauthorized access via hidden iframe injection and cross-origin postMessage; $5,000 statutory minimum per violation.	,000 statutory minimum per violation. Count II — 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act): Unauthorized access via hidden iframe injection and cross-orig
Count III — 18 U.S.C. § 1028 (Identity Fraud): Session identifier leakage; statutory maxima.	,000 statutory minimum per violation. Count III — 18 U.S.C. § 1028 (Identity Fraud): Session identifier leakage; statutory maxima. Count IV — 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (
Count IV — 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud): Hidden redirect to strongrockholdings.com; $1,000,000 per count; up to 20 years.	identifier leakage; statutory maxima. Count IV — 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud): Hidden redirect to strongrockholdings.com; $1,000,000 per count; up to 20 years.
Count V — 47 U.S.C. § 605 (Unauthorized Publication of Communications): Beacons and referrer leakage; $110,000 per count.	$1,000,000 per count; up to 20 years. Count V — 47 U.S.C. § 605 (Unauthorized Publication of Communications): Beacons and referrer leakage; $110,000 per count.
Count VI — 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act Unfair and Deceptive Practices): Ad-blocker detection probe and TCF stub misrepresentation; $50,120 per violation.	referrer leakage; $110,000 per count. Count VI — 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act Unfair and Deceptive Practices): Ad-blocker detection probe and TCF stub misrepresentat
Count VII — Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq. (CCPA/CPRA): $2,500 negligent; $7,500 intentional, per consumer.	epresentation; $50,120 per violation. Count VII — Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq. (CCPA/CPRA): $2,500 negligent; $7,500 intentional, per consumer. Count VIII
Count VIII — Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.135 (Opt-Out Link Requirements): Hidden "Do Not Sell" link; $2,500 per violation.	nt; $7,500 intentional, per consumer. Count VIII — Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.135 (Opt-Out Link Requirements): Hidden "Do Not Sell" link; $2,500 per violation. Count
Count IX — Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150 (Data Breach): $100–$750 per consumer per incident.	Not Sell" link; $2,500 per violation. Count IX — Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150 (Data Breach): $100–$750 per consumer per incident. Count X — GDPR Arts. 5, 6, 7, 44–
Count X — GDPR Arts. 5, 6, 7, 44–49: €250,000 or 4% global annual turnover per violation.	$100–$750 per consumer per incident. Count X — GDPR Arts. 5, 6, 7, 44–49: €250,000 or 4% global annual turnover per violation. Count XI — UK DPA 2018 / UK GDPR:
Count XI — UK DPA 2018 / UK GDPR: £17,500,000 or 4% global annual turnover.	global annual turnover per violation. Count XI — UK DPA 2018 / UK GDPR: £17,500,000 or 4% global annual turnover. Count XII — Va. Code § 59.1-575 et se
Count XII — Va. Code § 59.1-575 et seq. (VCDPA): Statutory damages per consumer.	500,000 or 4% global annual turnover. Count XII — Va. Code § 59.1-575 et seq. (VCDPA): Statutory damages per consumer. Count XIII — Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-1
Count XIII — Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-1301 et seq. (CPA): Statutory damages per consumer.	DPA): Statutory damages per consumer. Count XIII — Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-1301 et seq. (CPA): Statutory damages per consumer. Count XIV — Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-
Count XIV — Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-515 et seq. (CTDPA): Statutory damages per consumer.	CPA): Statutory damages per consumer. Count XIV — Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-515 et seq. (CTDPA): Statutory damages per consumer. Count XV — Invasion of Privacy (Fou
Count XV — Invasion of Privacy (Four Branches): Intrusion, public disclosure, false light, appropriation.	DPA): Statutory damages per consumer. Count XV — Invasion of Privacy (Four Branches): Intrusion, public disclosure, false light, appropriation. Count XVI — Tres
Count XVI — Trespass to Chattels and Conversion: Unauthorized device resource use.	sclosure, false light, appropriation. Count XVI — Trespass to Chattels and Conversion: Unauthorized device resource use. Count XVII — Negligence and Negligenc
Count XVII — Negligence and Negligence Per Se: Failure to implement CSP, SRI, referrer-policy, and origin checks on postMessage.	on: Unauthorized device resource use. Count XVII — Negligence and Negligence Per Se: Failure to implement CSP, SRI, referrer-policy, and origin checks on postMe
Count XVIII — Bivens (Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth Amendments): Reserved for federal actors.	cy, and origin checks on postMessage. Count XVIII — Bivens (Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth Amendments): Reserved for federal actors. Count XIX — 42 U.S.C. § 1983:
Count XIX — 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Reserved for state actors.	dments): Reserved for federal actors. Count XIX — 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Reserved for state actors. Count XX — Civil Conspiracy: Reserved
Count XX — Civil Conspiracy: Reserved.	C. § 1983: Reserved for state actors. Count XX — Civil Conspiracy: Reserved. Count XXI — Declaratory and Injunctiv
Count XXI — Declaratory and Injunctive Relief: Immediate cessation of pre-consent beacons, hidden iframe injection, and ad-blocker detection. Mandatory disclosure of the OLA ad-delivery chain. Mandatory implem	ount XX — Civil Conspiracy: Reserved. Count XXI — Declaratory and Injunctive Relief: Immediate cessation of pre-consent beacons, hidden iframe injection, and ad

Header	Source excerpt
Count I — Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications via GTM, gtag, and noscript iframe without consent.	r entities identified in discovery. Count I — Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications via GTM, gtag, and
Count II — CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Exceeded authorized access to protected computers via ViewState, form digest, and _spPageContextInfo exploitation vectors.	and noscript iframe without consent. Count II — CFAA (18 U.S.C. § 1030): Exceeded authorized access to protected computers via ViewState, form digest, and _spPa
Count III — Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Scheme to defraud through coercive consent dark pattern and undisclosed third-party data exfiltration.	PageContextInfo exploitation vectors. Count III — Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343): Scheme to defraud through coercive consent dark pattern and undisclosed third-p
Count IV — Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Disclosure of records without consent and failure to provide § 552a(e)(3) notice.	closed third-party data exfiltration. Count IV — Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a): Disclosure of records without consent and failure to provide § 552a(e)(3) notice
Count V — CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Failure to provide notice, opt-out, and honor Global Privacy Control signals.	ilure to provide § 552a(e)(3) notice. Count V — CCPA/CPRA (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.): Failure to provide notice, opt-out, and honor Global Privacy Cont
Count VI — ePrivacy Directive (Art. 5(3)): Storage and access to terminal equipment without consent.	honor Global Privacy Control signals. Count VI — ePrivacy Directive (Art. 5(3)): Storage and access to terminal equipment without consent. Count VII — GDPR (Art
Count VII — GDPR (Arts. 5, 6, 7, 13, 28, 32, 44): Processing without lawful basis and cross-border transfer without safeguards.	o terminal equipment without consent. Count VII — GDPR (Arts. 5, 6, 7, 13, 28, 32, 44): Processing without lawful basis and cross-border transfer without safegu
Count VIII — Turkish KVKK (Arts. 5, 7, 9, 10, 12): Unlawful processing, cross-border transfer, and failure to provide notice.	s-border transfer without safeguards. Count VIII — Turkish KVKK (Arts. 5, 7, 9, 10, 12): Unlawful processing, cross-border transfer, and failure to provide noti
Count IX — Turkish Penal Code Art. 136: Unlawful disclosure of personal data.	nsfer, and failure to provide notice. Count IX — Turkish Penal Code Art. 136: Unlawful disclosure of personal data. Count X — DTSA (18 U.S.C. § 1836): Tr
Count X — DTSA (18 U.S.C. § 1836): Trade secret misappropriation of internal SharePoint topology and InternalValidAuthorities.	Unlawful disclosure of personal data. Count X — DTSA (18 U.S.C. § 1836): Trade secret misappropriation of internal SharePoint topology and InternalValidAuthorit
Count XI — Common Law Invasion of Privacy (Intrusion upon Seclusion).	opology and InternalValidAuthorities. Count XI — Common Law Invasion of Privacy (Intrusion upon Seclusion). Count XII — Public Disclosure of Priv
Count XII — Public Disclosure of Private Facts.	Privacy (Intrusion upon Seclusion). Count XII — Public Disclosure of Private Facts. Count XIII — Fraud / Deceptive Practi
Count XIII — Fraud / Deceptive Practices.	Public Disclosure of Private Facts. Count XIII — Fraud / Deceptive Practices. Count XIV — Breach of Fiduciary Duty.
Count XIV — Breach of Fiduciary Duty.	XIII — Fraud / Deceptive Practices. Count XIV — Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Count XV — Negligence and Gross Negli
Count XV — Negligence and Gross Negligence.	ount XIV — Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Count XV — Negligence and Gross Negligence. Count XVI — Civil Conspiracy (42 U.S.
Count XVI — Civil Conspiracy (42 U.S.C. § 1985).	V — Negligence and Gross Negligence. Count XVI — Civil Conspiracy (42 U.S.C. § 1985). Count XVII — Violation of 18 U.S.C. §
Count XVII — Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1372 (critical infrastructure).	Civil Conspiracy (42 U.S.C. § 1985). Count XVII — Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1372 (critical infrastructure). Count XVIII — Violation of ITU Radio
Count XVIII — Violation of ITU Radio Regulations Art. 18.	C. § 1372 (critical infrastructure). Count XVIII — Violation of ITU Radio Regulations Art. 18. Count XIX — Violation of ADA (42 U.S.
Count XIX — Violation of ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12181) / Section 508.	on of ITU Radio Regulations Art. 18. Count XIX — Violation of ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12181) / Section 508. Damages Sought: (a) Statutory damag

Header	Source excerpt
Count I – Violation of Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. §2511): Defendants intercepted electronic communications (user interactions, form data) without consent.	aitapp.com, jsDelivr, Font Awesome. Count I – Violation of Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. §2511): Defendants intercepted electronic communications (user interactions, f
Count II – Violation of CFAA (18 U.S.C. §1030): Unauthorized access to user computers via tracking scripts and data exfiltration.	ractions, form data) without consent. Count II – Violation of CFAA (18 U.S.C. §1030): Unauthorized access to user computers via tracking scripts and data exfilt
Count III – Violation of CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code §1798.100 et seq.): Failure to provide notice, opt‑out, and selling personal information without consent.	acking scripts and data exfiltration. Count III – Violation of CCPA (Cal. Civ. Code §1798.100 et seq.): Failure to provide notice, opt‑out, and selling personal
Count IV – Unfair/Deceptive Practices (FTC Act §5, 15 U.S.C. §45): Misleading privacy practices, dark patterns, and failure to disclose tracking.	personal information without consent. Count IV – Unfair/Deceptive Practices (FTC Act §5, 15 U.S.C. §45): Misleading privacy practices, dark patterns, and failur
Count V – Breach of Contract (Terms of Service): Defendants breached their own terms by violating privacy promises.	ns, and failure to disclose tracking. Count V – Breach of Contract (Terms of Service): Defendants breached their own terms by violating privacy promises. Count
Count VI – Invasion of Privacy (Common Law Tort): Intrusion upon seclusion and public disclosure of private facts.	terms by violating privacy promises. Count VI – Invasion of Privacy (Common Law Tort): Intrusion upon seclusion and public disclosure of private facts. Count VI
Count VII – TCPA Violations (47 U.S.C. §227): Inadequate consent for SMS communications.	d public disclosure of private facts. Count VII – TCPA Violations (47 U.S.C. §227): Inadequate consent for SMS communications. Count VIII – GLBA Violations (15
Count VIII – GLBA Violations (15 U.S.C. §6801): Failure to safeguard customer information.	quate consent for SMS communications. Count VIII – GLBA Violations (15 U.S.C. §6801): Failure to safeguard customer information. Count IX – RICO (18 U.S.C. §196
Count IX – RICO (18 U.S.C. §1961 et seq.): Pattern of racketeering activity (wire fraud, mail fraud, money laundering) in connection with data collection and referral fees.	re to safeguard customer information. Count IX – RICO (18 U.S.C. §1961 et seq.): Pattern of racketeering activity (wire fraud, mail fraud, money laundering) in
Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. §2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications (user interactions and form submissions) without consent.	cting millions of users. Counts Count I – Violation of the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. §2511): Defendants intentionally intercepted electronic communications (user i
Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. §1030): Defendants accessed computers without authorization or exceeded authorized access by deploying tracking scripts and exfiltrating dat	nd form submissions) without consent. Count II – Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. §1030): Defendants accessed computers without authoriz
Count III – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code §1798.100 et seq.): Defendants failed to provide notice, opt‑out, and sale disclosure, and failed to honor consumer rights.	acking scripts and exfiltrating data. Count III – Violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code §1798.100 et seq.): Defendants failed to prov
Count IV – Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices (FTC Act §5, 15 U.S.C. §45): Defendants misrepresented their privacy practices, used dark patterns, and failed to disclose tracking and data sharing.	and failed to honor consumer rights. Count IV – Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices (FTC Act §5, 15 U.S.C. §45): Defendants misrepresented their privacy pract
Count V – Breach of Contract (Terms of Service): Defendants breached the terms of service by violating their own privacy promises and engaging in unfair data practices.	o disclose tracking and data sharing. Count V – Breach of Contract (Terms of Service): Defendants breached the terms of service by violating their own privacy p
Count VI – Invasion of Privacy (Common Law Tort): Defendants intruded upon the seclusion of users and publicly disclosed private facts without consent.	nd engaging in unfair data practices. Count VI – Invasion of Privacy (Common Law Tort): Defendants intruded upon the seclusion of users and publicly disclosed p
Count VII – TCPA Violations (47 U.S.C. §227): Defendants failed to obtain proper express consent for SMS communications.	closed private facts without consent. Count VII – TCPA Violations (47 U.S.C. §227): Defendants failed to obtain proper express consent for SMS communications. C
Count VIII – GLBA Violations (15 U.S.C. §6801): Defendants failed to safeguard customer information.	press consent for SMS communications. Count VIII – GLBA Violations (15 U.S.C. §6801): Defendants failed to safeguard customer information. Count IX – RICO (18 U
Count IX – RICO (18 U.S.C. §1961 et seq.): Defendants engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity (wire fraud, mail fraud, money laundering) through the systematic collection and sale of personal informatio	ed to safeguard customer information. Count IX – RICO (18 U.S.C. §1961 et seq.): Defendants engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity (wire fraud, mail frau