Blog | Tauler Smith LLP

Trap & Trace Claim Against Rad Power Bikes

May 29, 2025/in Consumer Protection /by taulersmith

Tauler Smith LLP secured a major courtroom win in a California trap & trace claim against Rad Power Bikes. The plaintiff, a California consumer, filed a class action lawsuit alleging that the e-bike company utilized TikTok tracking code on its website to deanonymize users by trapping and tracing their personal information. The digital privacy case is being heard in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, which recently ruled on a pre-trial motion filed by the Defendant. The federal court denied the motion to dismiss, which means that the case could move forward to trial. Significantly, the court found that the plaintiff “plausibly alleged” that the TikTok software embedded on the Rad Power Bikes website can qualify as a trap and trace device under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA).

To learn more about the invasion of privacy lawsuit against Rad Power Bikes, keep reading this blog.

Rad Power Bikes Accused of Using TikTok Software to Collect Personal Data from Website Visitors

Rad Power Bikes Inc. is an electric bicycle company that operates in the United States. The company sells e-bikes that typically use rechargeable batteries to generate power and travel at higher speeds than normal bicycles. Rad Power Bikes sells its bicycles and related accessories primarily at retail showrooms and on the company’s website at radpowerbikes.com.

According to the civil suit in the California Central District Court, the TikTok software on the Rad Power Bikes website instantly collects visitors’ personal data, including device information, browser information, and geographic location. This information is then sent back to TikTok, which allegedly matches the new data to existing data that the social media app already has on hundreds of millions of individual users. The result is that TikTok is able to identify individual users who visit the Rad Power Bikes site.

Lawsuit: Rad Power Bikes Violated Trap & Trace Law in California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA)

The plaintiff in the CIPA class action suit is a California consumer who visited the Rad Power Bikes website. The lawsuit alleges that the website embedded advertising-related TikTok software to deanonymize and identify visitors for marketing and surveillance purposes. This was allegedly done for the benefit of both Rad Power Bikes and social media company TikTok.

According to the complaint, the TikTok software on radpowerbikes.com “gathers device and browser information, geographic information, referral tracking, and URL tracking by running code of scripts to send user details to TikTok.” Moreover, this unauthorized collection of visitors’ personal data allegedly occurs as soon as a visitor accesses the website; visitors do not have an opportunity to consent to the gathering of their data.

TikTok “Fingerprinting”

TikTok allegedly benefits from the collection of user information on the Rad Power Bikes site by comparing the data to its own massive database. This allows TikTok to “fingerprint” and identify website visitors. Since TikTok is currently owned by the communist Chinese government, this kind of data breach could pose significant security risks to American citizens.

CIPA Lawsuit

The legal basis for the lawsuit against Rad Power Bikes is the California Trap and Trace Law, which is codified as Cal. Penal Code § 638.51 in the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA).

The plaintiff in the Rad Power Bikes lawsuit is seeking several types of damages: declaratory relief, statutory damages, and attorney’s fees. Additionally, the plaintiff is seeking to certify the lawsuit as a class action applicable to anyone in California who visited the Rad Power Bikes website.

Court Denies Motion to Dismiss, Allows Trap and Trace Lawsuit Against Rad Power Bikes to Proceed

Rad Power Bikes filed a motion to dismiss before trial. The U.S. district court issued a ruling and denied the motion, which means that the consumer protection case may now go to trial.

The Defendant made three arguments in support of its motion to dismiss the case during the pre-trial stage:

The Defendant argued that the plaintiff in the class action lacked personal jurisdiction.
The Defendant argued that the plaintiff lacked standing to sue.
The Defendant argued that California’s invasion of privacy statute only applies to the interception of telephone calls, not websites.

The court rejected all of these arguments, finding in favor of the plaintiff.

Personal Jurisdiction

Personal jurisdiction is a legal term that means the court has authority to hear a case involving a party with a sufficient connection to the state where the court is located. In this case, the lawsuit was filed in a federal court located in California. That means the plaintiff must show that the Defendant, Rad Power Bikes, does business in California.

In the plaintiff’s response to the motion to dismiss, he alleged that Rad Power Bikes purposefully directed its activities to California “by regularly engaging with California residents through its website and its retail stores.” Moreover, argued the plaintiff, the e-bike company also shared website visitors’ data with TikTok in California.

In its ruling on the motion to dismiss, the court found that Rad Power Bikes did, in fact, intentionally direct its activities to California by allegedly gathering personal information from California visitors to the company’s website. Additionally, the court noted that the electric bike company has a “substantial presence” in the state with four retail stores. Beyond that, Rad Power Bikes has also contracted with TikTok to send user data to California. Therefore, said the court, there are more than enough contacts between Rad Power Bikes and California to establish personal jurisdiction in the state.

Standing to Sue

The court also found that the plaintiff in the case has Article III standing to sue. That’s because the plaintiff adequately alleged an injury caused by the use of TikTok software on the Rad Power Bikes website.

Article III standing is a constitutional requirement that only individuals who have suffered an injury in fact – or a particularized injury – may bring a case in federal court.

Under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), it is illegal for a person or business to use devices to capture “dialing, routing, addressing, or signaling information from a wire or electronic communication.” In the lawsuit against Rad Power Bikes, the plaintiff alleged that his statutory privacy rights were infringed – and that this constituted a clear violation of the CIPA. In rejecting the motion to dismiss, the U.S. district court concluded that a violation of privacy rights protected by California law “is sufficient injury for standing purposes.”

CIPA Applies to Websites

The last argument made by the Defendant in its motion to dismiss was that the California Trap and Trace Law does not apply to websites. The court strongly rejected this argument. That’s because the Trap & Trace Law, contained in the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), applies to any device that records or captures information from a wire or electronic communication. While the Defendant wants the law to apply solely to communications via telephone lines, numerous courts have found that the statute applies to website communications.

With respect to the application of California’s digital privacy laws to websites, Rad Power Bikes also made a sweepingly broad argument that the CIPA claim should be dismissed because it “effectively seeks to criminalize the Internet.” The Defendant’s contention is that most websites use tools like the TikTok software, so a finding in favor of the consumer-plaintiff would have severe implications for all consumer-facing websites. The court rejected this argument on its face. Moreover, the court noted that any questions about the scope of the CIPA should be addressed to the California Legislature, which enacted the consumer privacy law in the first place.

Contact the Los Angeles Consumer Protection Lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP

Are you a California resident? Did you visit the Rad Power Bikes website? Then you might be eligible to join a consumer class action lawsuit to recover damages for violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA). The Los Angeles consumer protection attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP have extensive experience representing plaintiffs in trap & trace claims and invasion of privacy lawsuits in both federal and state courts.

Call 310-590-3927 or email us today to discuss your legal options.

Trap and Trace Class Action Against HoMedics

May 28, 2025/in Consumer Protection /by taulersmith

A federal court in California recently ruled on a trap and trace class action against HoMedics and FKA Distributing Co. – and the ruling was fantastic news for the consumer protection attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP. The plaintiff in the case is a California resident who visited the HoMedics website. According to the legal complaint, the website utilized TikTok software to unlawfully collect personal information from the plaintiff and other consumers who visited the site. Now the court has issued a pre-trial ruling in favor of the plaintiff to deny the Defendant’s motion to dismiss.

For more information about the TikTok trap & trace complaint against HoMedics, and to find out if you might be eligible to join the class action, keep reading.

Lawsuit: HoMedics Used TikTok Software to Collect Personal Data of Website Visitors

FKA Distributing Co., or FKA Brands, is a personal care product company. FKA Distributing sells its products across the U.S. and globally in major department stores, specialty stores, and drugstores. Some of the main FKA brands include HoMedics, House of Marley, Revamp Professional, Obus Forme, Ellia, JAM Audio, HMDX Audio, and Sol Republic. FKA primarily does business as HoMedics, which specializes in products related to health and wellness.

HoMedics sells a number of personal care items for the medical and spa industries, including hot/cold compression wraps, dental appliances, magnetic therapy products, electronic back and body massagers, humidifiers, air purifiers, and water purification systems. HoMedics also sells therapeutic bedding products: pillows, mattresses, and protective bedding. Additionally, HoMedics makes products for Sharper Image and Stanley Black & Decker. Many of these products are sold on the Homedics.com website.

Digital Privacy Lawsuit Against HoMedics

The plaintiff alleged that when she visited the Defendant’s website, Homedics.com, her personal data was unlawfully collected with TikTok-created deanonymization software. According to the complaint, the TikTok software instantly gathered data about the plaintiff as soon as she visited the website, including her geographic location and other personal identifying information.

The purpose of this data collection was allegedly to match it with TikTok’s existing data, which could then be used to identify individual visitors. This has legal implications because the collection of a website visitor’s personal data without consent is a direct violation of California’s Trap and Trace Law. That law is codified in Cal. Penal Code § 638.51.

Class Action Lawsuit Against HoMedics in California Central District Court

The plaintiff, a California resident, filed a class action against FKA Distributing Co. on behalf of all persons living in California whose identifying information was sent to TikTok through the use of the HoMedics website. The lawsuit was initiated in the Los Angeles Superior Court and was later removed to a federal court: the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

The class action alleged that FKA Distributing violated California’s Trap and Trace Law. When the case was moved to federal court, FKA Distributing filed a motion to dismiss. That motion was rejected by the court, which means that the claim may now move forward.

HoMedics Accused of Violating the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA)

The California Invasion of Privacy Act, also known as the CIPA, is codified in Cal. Penal Code § 630. The law imposes both civil and criminal penalties against offenders who engage in electronic interception, recording, or eavesdropping on private communications.

Section 638.51 of the statute prohibits the installation of a pen register or trap & trace device unless the party has obtained a court order to do so.

Under section 637.2 of the statute, a plaintiff can bring a private right of action for violations of the CIPA. This means that consumers can file a lawsuit and recover statutory damages if their personal data has been collected without consent.

Court: FKA Distributing and HoMedics May Have Violated California’s Trap & Trace Law

The first court order in the FKA Distributing TikTok complaint was issued in response to a motion to dismiss. The Defendant argued that the TikTok software allegedly used on the HoMedics website does not constitute a “trap and trace device” within the meaning of § 638.50(c). However, the court found the Defendant’s argument “unpersuasive,” stating that the TikTok software could plausibly constitute a “trap and trace device” and therefore could be a violation of the statute.

HoMedics TikTok Trap & Trace Software

The TikTok software allegedly utilized by the HoMedics website works by gathering the device information, browser information, and geographic information of site visitors, which then allows TikTok to identify individual users.

The California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) defines a trap and trace device as any “device or process that captures the incoming electronic or other impulses” identifying the source of the communication. The federal court in this case noted that the statute’s reference to a “device or process” implies that it is the result of the information gathering that matters: the use of an AutoAdvanced Matching feature on the HoMedics website to identify the source of website visitors does fall within the scope of the Trap & Trace Law.

No Consumer Consent for Data Gathering

FKA Distributing Co. also argued that consent for the tracking of visitors’ data was granted by the Defendant, which was also a party to all communications on its website. The court rejected this absurd argument on its face since the person who needs to provide consent is clearly the website user whose personal data is being tracked by the website.

The Defendant attempted to argue that, by definition, a person cannot “intercept” communications to which they were already a party. But the court found that this narrow reading of the law only applies to allegations of wiretapping violations, not cases like this one that go beyond wiretapping and involve broader allegations of electronic interception.

No Automatic Consent for Data Collection

The court also rejected the Defendant’s argument that website visitors automatically consent to the data collection practices simply by visiting HoMedics.com.

The Defendant claimed that its website Privacy Policy provided notice of the site’s use of a trap and trace device, including a warning to site visitors that the Defendant may collect personal data like the user’s name, email, phone number, and postal address. But the court said that this was not sufficient to prove that a reasonable user reading the Privacy Policy would definitely understand it – or that it would necessarily involve the use of TikTok software to monitor and essentially spy on the user.

Federal Court Denies Dismissal of TikTok Trap & Trace Claim Against HoMedics

The California Central District Court recently issued a second court order in the digital privacy complaint against FKA Distributing Co. and HoMedics. FKA Distributing argued that the complaint should be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, failure to allege a concrete injury, and failure to allege an actual violation of the Trap & Trace Law. The court rejected all of these arguments, finding them “unavailing.”

Personal Jurisdiction

The federal court quickly found that the Defendant waived personal jurisdiction when they failed to raise it as an issue in an earlier motion to dismiss the invasion of privacy complaint.

Consumers Harmed by HoMedics Privacy Violations

The court also found that the plaintiff adequately alleged concrete and particularized injury to her privacy rights. Specifically, the court said that the plaintiff provided the facts necessary for a trap & trace complaint, such as the number of times she visited the HoMedics website, exactly what information she provided on the site, what information the Defendant captured, and the fact that she was not aware of the Defendant’s tracking practices.

The plaintiff showed that she visited the HoMedics website in March 2024. The plaintiff also clearly alleged that the Defendant operates TikTok software on the website for the purpose of collecting users’ personal identifying information, including:

Device and browser types.
Geographic locations.
Referral URLs.

Moreover, the plaintiff alleged that the Defendant unlawfully collects this information from everyone who visits the website, and that this happens automatically as soon as anyone lands on the site.

TikTok Software Violates Consumer Privacy Interests

FKA Distributing Co. argued that the plaintiff failed to show that any private or personal identifying information had been collected by the Defendant’s website. The court rejected this argument as well. According to the court, the plaintiff alleges that the Defendant’s TikTok software “effectively de-anonymizes the website user” to collect tracking information. Additionally, this data collection allegedly happens regardless of whether the user has a TikTok account.

The court concluded that the plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to establish a concrete injury from visiting HoMedics.com. This injury would be a direct harm to the plaintiff’s privacy interests because the compilation and collection of users’ personal data occurs without consent.

Did You Visit the HoMedics Website? Contact the Los Angeles Consumer Protection Lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP

If you visited the HoMedics website for any reason, it’s possible that your data was unlawfully collected and sent to TikTok. This could make you eligible to join a class action lawsuit to receive monetary compensation for the violation of your privacy rights. The legal team at Tauler Smith LLP represents plaintiffs in California trap & trace claims, consumer fraud complaints, and other types of consumer protection lawsuits. We can help you get justice.

Call 310-590-3927 or send an email to talk with one of our experienced California consumer protection attorneys today.

California Invasion of Privacy Act Lawsuit Against IHOP

December 12, 2024/in Consumer Protection /by taulersmith

The Los Angeles consumer protection lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP recently won a pre-trial demurrer hearing in a trap & trace complaint against IHOP. The California Invasion of Privacy Act lawsuit against IHOP was filed by a California consumer who alleged that the restaurant chain installed a trap and trace device on its website to unlawfully monitor website visitors without consent. IHOP argued that the case should be dismissed before trial, but the court overruled the Defendant’s demurrer and said that the case against IHOP can proceed.

To learn more about the lawsuit against IHOP, keep reading this blog.

Trap & Trace Lawsuit Against IHOP Heard in California Court

The Defendant in the recent digital privacy lawsuit is IHOP Restaurants, LLC. IHOP, or International House of Pancakes, is a popular pancake house restaurant chain with nearly 2,000 locations in the United States and internationally.

The civil suit against IHOP is being adjudicated in the Los Angeles County Superior Court and presided over by Judge Michael Small. A California consumer filed the lawsuit because IHOP allegedly installed a trap & trace device on their website to effectively spy on site visitors. This would constitute a clear violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), which is codified in California Penal Code Section 638.51.

Cal. Penal Code § 638.51 is known as the “trap and trace” provision because it prohibits companies from utilizing trap & trace devices to collect data from consumers without permission. The statute explicitly states that a person or company “may not install or use a pen register or a trap and trace device without first obtaining a court order.”

TikTok Software

According to the legal complaint, IHOP’s website uses a trap & trace device created by TikTok to gather private information about site visitors without their consent. As soon as consumers access IHOP’s website, their personal information is allegedly collected via the TikTok software.

Demurrer Hearing

The Defendant filed a demurrer to dismiss the lawsuit, with an additional motion to strike a request for punitive damages.

The lawsuit against IHOP alleges that IHOP installed TikTok software on its website and that IHOP uses this software to “trap and trace” private information about consumers. The Los Angeles County Superior Court rejected IHOP’s demurrer and ruled that the allegations against IHOP are sufficient to state a cause of action for a violation of the CIPA.

Lawsuit: IHOP’s Website Software Is a Trap & Trace Device

What exactly is a trap & trace device? The California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) defines a trap and trace device as “a device or process that captures the incoming electronic or other impulses that identify the originating number or other dialing, routing, addressing, or signaling information reasonably likely to identify the source of a wire or electronic communication.”

The precedent in these cases is clear: courts have repeatedly held that communications or chat features on websites do qualify as “electronic communications” for the purposes of the Trap & Trace Statute. In this case, the court also ruled that the TikTok software allegedly installed by IHOP on its website “falls within the ambit of the definition of a ‘trap and trace device’ in Section 638.50.” That’s because the TikTok software is a device that captures identifying information about visitors to the IHOP website.

Telephone Lines and Websites

In its demurrer, IHOP argued that the reach of the CIPA should be limited to devices that are capable of being physically attached to telephone lines, which relies on a definition of “trap and trace device” that would exclude the invasive TikTok software allegedly installed on the IHOP website.

The court rejected IHOP’s interpretation of the statute because the definition of “trap and trace devices” found in the CIPA is extremely broad: it encompasses more than just devices that capture an originating phone number, and therefore applies to more than just telephone lines.

TikTok Software = Trap & Trace Device

The L.A. County Superior Court went even further than many previous courts to rule that the California Legislature contemplated that the CIPA might cover “the development of new devices and techniques for the purpose of eavesdropping upon private communications.” The court added that the TikTok software allegedly utilized by IHOP is precisely such a “new technique” for capturing the confidential information of consumers without their consent.

IHOP Not Exempt from Liability for Utilizing Trap and Trace Devices

There are a few exceptions to the CIPA prohibition against the use of trap & trace devices. A company may utilize trap & trace devices if:

The device is being used to operate, maintain, and test a wire or electronic communication service.
The consent of the user has been obtained prior to use.

In its ruling on the demurrer, the L.A. County Superior Court found that neither of these exceptions applies to IHOP’s use of TikTok trap & trace software on the company website.

Court Rejects IHOP’s Arguments for Exemption

IHOP attempted to argue that it should be exempt from liability under Section 638.51(b)(5) as a “provider of electronic or wire communication services,” with the website being the service it provides. The court found this argument unpersuasive because IHOP failed to show how it might need the TikTok software to operate and maintain its website.

IHOP also tried to argue that it should be exempt from liability because the company has consented to the use of the trap & trace software installed on its website. The court quickly rejected this argument because the consent exception of the CIPA obviously applies to website visitors, not to the owners and operators of a website.

Private Right of Action Against IHOP for Violating the CIPA

In its demurrer, IHOP also argued that there is no private right of action under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA). If true, this would mean that consumers would not be able to file civil suits against companies that violate the CIPA. But the court rejected this argument because the CIPA specifically provides for statutory damages.

In fact, the CIPA allows victims to file suit against a company that violated the CIPA for either:

$5,000 per violation; or
Treble damages equaling three times the amount of actual damages sustained by the victim.

Significantly, the statute calls for plaintiffs who bring trap & trace complaints to be awarded whichever amount is greater.

Plaintiffs Eligible for Punitive Damages in California Invasion of Privacy Cases

Buried within IHOP’s demurrer was also a motion to strike the punitive damages part of the complaint and essentially deny any request for a punitive damages award at the conclusion of the trial.

Although the court granted the motion to strike, it also reiterated that the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) does allow for punitive damages to be awarded against a defendant. To receive punitive damages for a violation of the Trap and Trace Law, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted maliciously or fraudulently when using trap and trace software to collect customer information.

Contact an Experienced Los Angeles Consumer Protection Lawyer

Are you a California resident who visited the IHOP website? Did you visit any other websites operated by companies that might be using trap & trace devices to monitor users? If so, you may be eligible to file a lawsuit in a California court to receive monetary compensation. The Los Angeles consumer protection attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP represent plaintiffs in invasion of privacy claims, and we can help you.

Call 310-590-3927 or email us to schedule a free consultation and learn about your legal options.

Entravision Sued for Trap & Trace Violation

Entravision Sued for Violating California Trap & Trace Law

December 11, 2024/in Consumer Protection /by taulersmith

International media company Entravision was sued for violating the California Trap & Trace Law. The plaintiff in the lawsuit is a California consumer who alleged that her data was unlawfully collected when she visited the Entravision website. According to the complaint, Entravision uses TikTok software to record and gather personal data from every person who visits the website, which exposes this confidential information to the communist Chinese government.

The plaintiff is being represented by the Los Angeles consumer protection attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP. Entravision’s defense attorneys tried to get the lawsuit dismissed, but the L.A. County Superior Court overruled the Defendant’s demurrer motion. As a result, the invasion of privacy claim against Entravision may now be heard at trial.

Entravision Accused of Using TikTok Software to Collect Data from Website Visitors

Entravision Communications Corporation is a global media, marketing, and technology company. Entravision’s headquarters is located in Santa Monica, California, and the company owns several television and radio stations in many of the top Hispanic markets throughout the country. Entravision is also the largest affiliate group of Univision, with Univision owning television stations operated by Entravision.

The digital privacy lawsuit was filed against Entravision Communications Corporation in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. The judge in the case, the Honorable Elaine W. Mandel, recently presided over a pre-trial demurrer hearing.

The plaintiff, a California consumer, sued Entravision Communications for allegedly violating the California Trap and Trace Law. Entravision was accused of using TikTok software on its company website to unlawfully collect the personal data of website visitors. Moreover, the plaintiff alleged that Entravision utilized the trap and trace software with willful and conscious disregard of the privacy rights of site visitors.

Cal. Penal Code § 638.51: California Trap and Trace Law

The California Trap and Trace Law is codified in Cal. Penal Code Section 638.51, which is part of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA). The CIPA broadly applies to two types of technology commonly used on some websites: pen registers and trap & trace devices. These devices are often used to record information that identifies the source of an electronic communication, including online communications on websites.

In this case, Entravision is accused of using TikTok software to identify website users through browser information, geographic information, and URL tracking data. That personal information is then sent to TikTok. Moreover, all of this is allegedly done without the consent of website visitors.

Court Rejects Demurrer: Privacy Lawsuit Against Entravision Can Proceed

A demurrer tests the sufficiency of a complaint and ensures that courts do not waste time hearing a complaint that does not allege essential facts about the case. In this case, Entravision filed a demurrer and argued that the lawsuit against the media company should be dismissed during the pre-trial stage. The Los Angeles County Superior Court rejected the Defendant’s demurrer and ruled that the case should proceed.

Entravision made five (5) arguments in support of its demurrer motion, all of which were rejected by the court.

Failure to Allege Facts to Support Cause of Action

Entravision argued that the plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed for failing to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The court ruled that the plaintiff sufficiently showed that Entravision collects data from every visitor to its website. Along with the plaintiff’s evidence that she visited the website, this was enough to establish her claim for unlawful collection of private data.

Websites Are Not “Pen Registers”

Entravision argued that the plaintiff did not show that Entravision used a pen register as defined by Section 638.51 of the Cal. Penal Code. Specifically, the Defendant contended that only physical telephone lines qualify as “pen registers” under the statute.

The court rejected the Defendant’s argument and held that both federal and state law on trap & trace devices may apply to websites, not just telephones. The court pointed to the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), which does not limit the definition of either “pen register” or “trap and trace” device to physical devices attached to telephone lines. This broad interpretation of the statute means that the plaintiff in this case did not need to allege the use of a physical pen register device by Entravision.

Exemption from Liability

Entravision argued that it should be exempt from liability under the California Trap and Trace Law because the company is an electronic communications service provider. Cal. Penal Code § 638.51(b)(1) states that a provider of electronic or wire communication service is allowed to use a pen register or a trap and trace device to operate, maintain, and test its service.

The court rejected the Defendant’s argument because the question of whether Entravision is exempt under the law should be determined at trial, not during the pre-trial demurrer stage.

Not a Prohibited “Device” or “Process”

Entravision argued that the plaintiff failed to plead that the Defendant used a device or process prohibited by the California Trap and Trace Law.

The court rejected the Defendant’s argument because the TikTok software allegedly used by Entravision does qualify as a “process” that captures incoming electronic impulses to identify the source of an electronic communication on the company’s website. Moreover, since users are never informed that the Entravision website is collecting their private data and sharing it with the Chinese government, this would be considered a violation of the Trap & Trace Law.

Failure to Plead “Oppression, Fraud, or Malice”

Entravision argued that punitive damages in the case should be dismissed because the plaintiff failed to plead “oppression, fraud, or malice.”

The court rejected this argument because the plaintiff alleged that a reasonable jury might find the Defendant’s conduct so “vile or contemptible” that it justifies punitive damages. This aligned with the plaintiff’s contention that Entravision intentionally invaded consumers’ privacy without their knowledge or consent and that this conduct constituted “criminal activity.”

The court also held that punitive damages are not subject to demurrers.

Call the Los Angeles Consumer Protection Attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP

Do you live in California? Did you visit the Entravision website for any reason? If so, it’s possible that your personal information was unlawfully collected. The Los Angeles consumer protection lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP represent individuals whose privacy has been invaded by California companies. Call 310-590-3927 or email us today.

What Should I Wear to Court?

December 7, 2024/in Litigation /by taulersmith

What you do before your trial could impact the ultimate outcome. If you have a trial that is about to start, you may be asking yourself, “What should I wear to court?” It’s very possible that you haven’t put much thought into what type of clothes you will wear. After all, there are certainly far more pressing issues as you and your attorneys prepare for trial. But the simple truth is that what you wear, and how you look, is going to matter because the judge and the jury will start forming their opinions about you the moment you set foot in the courtroom.

Read this blog to learn how you can prepare for your trial, including what type of clothes you should wear to court.

What Your Clothes Say About You to the Jury

Think of the clothes you wear in the courtroom on the first day of the trial as an opportunity for you to make a good first impression. Before you’ve even had a chance to make an argument, testify on the witness stand, or introduce evidence, you can already show the jurors that you are a serious-minded individual, that you are professional, and that you are someone who respects the legal process.

Your clothing could very well affect the outcome of the trial. Although we like to think that judges and juries decide cases and render verdicts based solely on the law, the reality is that cases are often won or lost based on a host of other factors. One of those factors is what the judge or jury thinks about the litigants, and that may very well be determined by your clothes, your demeanor, and your general appearance.

The Importance of Clothes & Storytelling in a Trial

Throughout the trial, your attorney is going to tell the judge and jury a story with a particular narrative about statutes, legal precedent, and the facts of the case – and hopefully this story will persuade the judge and jurors that they should rule in your favor because that’s what justice demands. But your clothes also tell a story about you, even if you don’t put much thought into your attire. And that story could be just as important as anything else that happens during the trial.

Of course, your attorneys also need to be able to communicate a fact-based story to the jury. Skilled trial lawyers know that a determining factor in most trials is the story that the jury hears. That’s why it is so important for a trial lawyer to possess storytelling skills. For a last-minute trial attorney who takes over the case in the 11^th hour, crafting an effective story for trial can be difficult because there just isn’t a lot of time to weave in various facts and elements of the case. Additionally, developing a good trial story means finding a way to summarize all the case facts for the jury.

How to Choose Your Clothes for Court

One helpful tip for choosing what to wear to court is to dress the same way you would for a very important job interview. Men should probably wear collared dress shirts and slacks, while women may want to wear a nice blouse. Do not wear shorts or any attire that is too exposing. Additionally, make sure that any words, slogans, logos, or symbols on your clothing are court-appropriate – no slurs or offensive language.

Here are a few other tips for what to wear and how to act in court:

Dress conservatively. You should expect the judge and jurors in your case to be traditional, which means that they will expect the parties to dress conservatively and always appear professional.
Grooming matters. In addition to the clothing that you wear, you should also make sure that your hair is well-groomed. You want to look clean and professional, not messy and unkempt. Along those same lines, you should probably do your best to cover any tattoos that might otherwise be visible to people in the courtroom.
Be respectful. What you wear to court matters, and so does how you act. Always be respectful of court officials, jurors, and anyone else in the courtroom on the day of your trial. Be polite when the judge addresses you, and always show respect by addressing him or her as “Your Honor.” Additionally, don’t bring food or drinks into the courtroom, and don’t chew gum either. And make sure that your phone is turned off or silent so that it cannot ring and disrupt the trial, which would reflect poorly on you.

Contact the California Trial Lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP Today

At Tauler Smith LLP, we have the kind of trial experience that most other attorneys aren’t even close to. Our Los Angeles trial attorneys routinely represent both plaintiffs and defendants in courts across the country, including California, New York, Texas, and Florida. Whether your case involves business fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, intellectual property, employment defense, or criminal defense, we can help you.

Call 310-590-3927 or email us today to schedule a free consultation about your case.

Asking for a Continuance

December 3, 2024/in Litigation /by taulersmith

What should you do if you need a new lawyer before your trial? Asking for a continuance may be your best option, especially if you are no longer confident that your current attorney can effectively represent you at trial. You need a lawyer who is prepared to step in and immediately take over your case. The last-minute trial lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP represent both plaintiffs and defendants in California, Texas, New York, and Florida courts, as well as federal courts throughout the U.S. We can examine the evidence, review the case litigation history, and prepare strong legal arguments for trial in your case – and we can do all of this at a moment’s notice.

Keep reading this blog to find out how you can ask the court for a continuance to get replacement counsel.

What Is a Continuance?

A continuance allows the parties in a legal dispute to postpone a hearing until a later date. When you request a continuance, it means that you are asking the court to change the trial date to a different date in the future.

The process for requesting a continuance can vary, depending on whether it’s a criminal case, a civil case, an arbitration hearing, etc. That’s because different courts or forums have different rules for continuance requests.

Continuance for a Hearing

As a general rule, it is easier to convince judges to issue a continuance for a hearing than a trial. That’s because trials come at the end of the case when all pre-trial documents have been filed, permanent orders have been issued, and everything has already been set in motion. Moreover, judges are loathe to issue continuances for trial dates because both sides have already had a lot of time to prepare and clear their schedules.

How to Request a Continuance in Your California Trial

There are rules and procedures for how to formally request a continuance, and these rules and procedures are usually specific to the courtroom handling the case.

A party in a legal dispute typically requests a continuance in writing: they or their attorney must file a motion with the court. This is almost always done well in advance of the actual trial date. The later your request for a continuance, the less likely the court is to grant it. If you have to request a continuance in person, you should be fully prepared for the court to say, “No.”

Continuances Are at the Judge’s Discretion

Just because a person requests a continuance does not mean that it will be granted by the court. Continuances are discretionary, which means that the judge in your case has a great deal of flexibility when it comes to granting your request for a continuance. Never assume that a continuance will be granted. Until you know for sure that the court has granted a continuance, you need to be fully prepared to show up to court and argue your case.

Judges can be reluctant to grant continuances because they don’t want to allow one party to excessively delay the trial for their own benefit. When deciding whether to issue a continuance, the judge will probably consider the degree to which the other side in the case will be hurt by delaying the trial.

Showing “Good Cause” for a Continuance

Sometimes, a continuance can be agreed upon by both parties, which makes it more likely that the court will grant the continuance request. If the other side does not agree to a continuance, then you will need to convince the judge.

Basically, the judge in your case needs a good reason, or “good cause,” to issue a continuance so that the hearing can be continued later. It is important to keep in mind that you need a better reason than “I’m just not ready for trial.”

Some of the reasons that might necessitate a continuance include:

You need additional time to secure an attorney to represent you in court.
You need more time to gather evidence because the other side has been stalling on discovery requests.
You need more time to locate witnesses who are critical to your case.
You can’t show up to the scheduled trial date because you have a medical procedure scheduled or there was some kind of medical emergency.
One of the parties is unavailable on the scheduled trial date due to death or illness.
One of the attorneys is unavailable due to death or illness.
You have a conflicting legal hearing scheduled for the same date.
There was a significant and unexpected change in the status of the case.
Trial counsel had to be substituted.

Replacing Your Current Attorney with a Skilled California Trial Attorney

If you need time to find emergency counsel to handle your business fraud case, breach of fiduciary duty complaint, intellectual property claim, employment litigation, or any other type of legal matter, you may want to request a continuance. It’s possible that your current lawyer simply isn’t getting the job done. Maybe they are pushing you to accept a bad settlement offer because they are afraid of having to win at trial. Maybe they aren’t returning your phone calls or keeping you informed about what is happening with your case. Regardless of the reason, you need a new lawyer – and you need one fast, especially if your next court hearing or trial is coming up.

Judges expect the party who is requesting a continuance to have been diligent in preparing for trial. If you have not made a reasonable effort to obtain replacement counsel, the judge may deny your continuance request. Additionally, the judge will likely ask you why you failed to inform the court about any problems you were having with your previous counsel. That’s why you need to stay on top of things and act quickly when you realize that your current attorney is unprepared for trial.

Need Last-Minute Trial Representation in a California Court? Contact Us Today

Do you have a court hearing or trial that is about to start in California? It is imperative that you take immediate action and reach out to the Tauler Smith last-minute trial team. Do not wait! The reality is that the judge in your case may not grant an extension, and you could find it difficult to move on from your current attorneys if you delay. You need to speak with an experienced litigator ASAP.

Call 310-590-3927 or send an email now.

Tips to Prepare for a Jury Trial

November 29, 2024/in Litigation /by taulersmith

A lot of lawyers don’t take their cases all the way to trial, so they never get the experience in front of jurors that is needed to actually win at trial. It’s very possible that your previous lawyer developed the case without the expectation that it would go to trial. It’s also likely that an inexperienced attorney won’t be ready to argue your case to a jury. The truth is that some lawyers could use tips to prepare for a jury trial. The Los Angeles trial lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP have extensive experience handling jury trials in both state and federal courts, so we know which arguments are most likely to persuade jurors.

For tips on how a trial attorney can prepare your case for a jury trial, keep reading this blog.

How an Experienced Trial Lawyer Can Prepare Your Case for a Jury Trial in California

These are some of the things that an experienced trial lawyer can do to prepare for a jury trial in a California courtroom:

Communicate to Judge and Jury: Trial lawyers should be ready to argue complicated legal points in support of a motion before the judge and communicate the facts of the case to laypersons on the jury.
Keep the Story Simple: A good trial lawyer will be able to simplify a complex legal matter and weave together the evidence, transcripts, testimony, and arguments to build a compelling and persuasive narrative for the jury.
Ask Witnesses the Right Questions: The best trial lawyers know which questions to ask their own witnesses, as well as which questions will weaken the opposing witnesses.
Strong Closing Argument: The story that a trial lawyer tells in their closing argument needs to be backed up by the facts that have already been communicated throughout the trial. This requires a great deal of anticipation and foresight by the attorney.
Preserve the Record for Appeal: A good trial lawyer will also keep an eye on the trial record so that there will be an avenue for filing an appeal later if the case does not go the way they hope.
Communicate with the Client: Open communication between the attorney and the client is critical in the days and weeks before trial so that there is no chance of a misunderstanding that could damage the chances of success once the trial begins.

An Experienced Trial Lawyer Can Communicate Your Story to the Jury

In many ways, jury trials are preferable to bench trials because a jury trial doesn’t leave the decision in a single person’s hands. But this also means that your lawyer needs to be able to persuade multiple people at once. This can be tough in complex cases such as business fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, or employment defense.

With jury trials, it is important to recognize that jurors are human beings. This means that they may consider the law, but they will almost certainly factor in real-world human elements. If the jurors don’t believe you or your witnesses, they are not likely to find in your favor. This is why it is important to maintain credibility throughout the trial, and one way to do that is by telling a coherent story.

Our California Litigators Know How to Win in Court

The unfortunate reality is that far too many litigators simply don’t know how to win a case in the courtroom. They may understand the applicable statutes, but they never learned the technical skills of preparing a case for a trial. The Los Angeles trial attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP take pride in our ability to uncover buried evidence, develop strong arguments, and prep witnesses to take the stand. Even when the odds are stacked against you and the other side’s evidence seems insurmountable, we will do whatever is needed to give you a real fighting chance to win the case.

Additionally, we are often called upon to take over a case at the last minute. This is when a litigator is truly tested: in the days and weeks leading up to trial, when someone has to get ready to show up to court and actually present the case. In many ways, this is the toughest part of being a lawyer. Our last-minute trial team is stacked with attorneys who know how to effectively argue a client’s case in the courtroom and achieve the desired result. Significantly, we also know how to prepare cases quickly so that you never have to worry about whether we will be ready to win your case at trial.

Contact the California Trial Team at Tauler Smith LLP

The California trial lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP provide high-level service to our clients throughout the entire legal process, from the moment we begin reviewing the evidence in your case all the way through trial. We represent clients in California, New York, Texas, Florida, and everywhere else in the U.S.

Call or email us now to schedule a free consultation about your case.

Why Jury Trial Experience Matters

November 25, 2024/in Litigation /by taulersmith

If you have a looming trial and you are not entirely sure that you are being represented by the right attorney, it is vital to understand exactly why jury trial experience matters. Just because an attorney is called a “litigator” does not mean that they have the type of experience needed to handle a jury trial in a California state or federal court. In fact, many people are shocked when they learn that a lot of jury trials are argued by lawyers with little to no actual experience in the courtroom. These days, far too many lawyers want to settle regardless of the terms of the settlement offer because they are terrified by the thought of having to present their client’s case to a jury. The Los Angeles trial lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP have tried countless cases in front of juries at both the state and federal level, and you can benefit greatly from our experience.

Keep reading this blog for more information about jury trials.

Jury Trials Are on the Decline in California and Nationwide

The number of jury trials in California, New York, Florida, and across the U.S. has been on a steady decline for several years. Part of the reason for this is the financial cost of going to trial, which can make it tough for litigants to justify moving forward with their cases. Another reason for the decline in jury trials is that far too many lawyers are afraid to take a case to trial because they don’t have enough actual courtroom experience. All of this has resulted in more pre-trial settlements and fewer jury trials.

The decline in jury trials is a problem because they often provide individuals with their best opportunity to get justice in a legal dispute. In fact, many of the most significant civil disputes are still decided by jury trials.

Jury Trials Are Different from Bench Trials

The truth is that your current lawyer’s experience with bench trials, arbitrations, and other types of court proceedings doesn’t necessarily mean that they can effectively represent you in a jury trial. Jury trials are typically won or lost on the basis of the litigation team, which is why you want to be backed by a lawyer who has actual litigation experience and who knows how to communicate your story to a jury.

Litigation Experience in the Courtroom

Trial work is very different from other types of legal work because it requires a high degree of expertise in several areas: the relevant practice area, legal writing, oral advocacy, and litigation. That’s why you want a lawyer with jury trial experience that includes trying cases involving business fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, employment law, and criminal defense.

It is important to recognize that there is a key difference between “litigation” and “experience.” It’s not good enough for a lawyer to promote themselves as a litigator if they do not have meaningful experience trying cases in front of a jury. Many of these so-called litigators will claim that they want to go to trial, but then they will force a bad settlement agreement with the other side at the last moment. Additionally, many litigators who have handled bench trials, arbitrations, and court hearings do not fully understand everything that goes into a jury trial, which requires a particular storytelling style and unique litigation skills. The bottom line is that your lawyer needs to be able to persuade a jury.

Settlements vs. Trials

The truth is that some attorneys just aren’t cut out for trying cases in a courtroom. Most cases settle, which is why most lawyers don’t have significant trial experience – and this is especially true for jury trials. If your case goes to trial, you are going to want an experienced litigator who understands both the literal law and the trial strategy needed to convince jurors that they should find in your favor.

California Attorneys with Jury Trial Experience You Can Count On

If you need to bring in a new lawyer on the eve of trial, it is important that you hire last-minute trial counsel with solid litigation experience. When you hire Tauler Smith LLP to handle your legal matter, you will get attorneys who will never, ever quit on you. We are also not afraid to take on the tough cases that other firms run away from. That’s because our Los Angeles trial attorneys know how to win in court.

Our attorneys are extremely comfortable trying cases because we practically live in the courtroom. When a client hires us to represent them, they can trust that we are not just looking to get a quick settlement offer and avoid trial. Our expectation is always that we will fight extremely hard for our clients and help them win at trial.

Contact the Los Angeles Trial Team at Tauler Smith LLP

The California litigation attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP have experience trying late-notice cases in front of juries. You can count on our skilled last-minute trial lawyers to handle your case because we are battle-tested in both state and federal courtrooms. Call 310-590-3927 or email us now to schedule a free consultation.

Can You Change Lawyers During a Trial?

November 21, 2024/in Rescue Counsel /by taulersmith

Although it is never easy to make the decision to change lawyers, this is a move that may be necessary if you have lost confidence in your representation. After all, you are the one who will have to live with the consequences if your lawyer loses the case. So, you should feel comfortable doing everything you can to give yourself the best chance of a successful verdict. But what happens if your trial is already in progress? Can you change lawyers during a trial? Depending on the circumstances, it may be possible for you to request a continuance so that you can replace your current legal counsel with a new last-minute trial lawyer.

Read this blog to learn more about hiring a replacement attorney to handle your trial.

When Should You Hire a Replacement Attorney?

A lot of people assume that only one lawyer will handle a case all the way from its early stages to its concluding verdict at trial. But the truth is that the lawyer who initially took the case is not necessarily the lawyer who will be handling the case when it reaches trial. That’s because pre-trial practitioners are not the same as trial lawyers, and the various stages of a lawsuit or legal action tend to require different skill sets, with some lawyers better suited than others to try a case in front of a judge or jury.

These are some of the main reasons you may need to replace your current counsel before trial:

Your current attorneys are not aggressive enough.
Your current attorneys are not confident enough.
Your current attorneys constantly talk about settling.
Your current attorneys are unable to continue due to illness.

Afraid to Go to Trial

If your attorney is not comfortable with litigation and is afraid to go to trial, they may encourage you to settle on terms that are not very favorable. This would obviously be a bad outcome for you.

The Los Angeles last-minute trial lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP excel at trial work, which is why we are not afraid to take your case to court. We possess the knowledge of the law and the courtroom expertise needed to win even the most difficult trials, including business litigation, breach of fiduciary duty, employment law defense, and criminal defense. Although we are adept at negotiating favorable settlement deals on behalf of our clients, we also prepare every case with the belief that it will go to trial. This allows us to always be ready for a legal fight in the courtroom because we are never caught off guard.

Illness

Of course, it’s not always your attorney’s fault that they are no longer best suited to represent you. For instance, perhaps your current attorney fell ill during the trial. Sometimes, life can get in the way of our plans. Regardless of the reasons for you needing to hire a new attorney, it’s important that you react quickly. If your attorney got sick and is no longer able to represent you, the court should allow you to hire a replacement attorney. Moreover, your new attorney should be given extra time so that they can get caught up on the case. It’s also possible that a mistrial will be declared in a situation like this, which would give you additional time to find a new lawyer.

How to Change Attorneys During Trial

If your attorney switch is happening during the trial, you will need to have a notification filed with the court. Additionally, when you make the decision to move on from your current representation and hire a new attorney to handle your trial, you need to request your case file. This is especially important if the attorney switch is being made at a late stage because time is limited, and you want your new lawyer to get to work on your behalf as quickly as possible.

The truth is that judges are usually reluctant to grant a continuance, especially once the trial has started. That’s why you need to make sure that your new attorneys are experienced litigators who can quickly get up to speed and take over the case, whether it’s in a California courtroom or in federal court. The Los Angeles last-minute trial attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP are flexible to clients’ needs. This means that we can work alongside your original legal counsel or we can take over the case completely. We will adjust to the circumstances of your unique situation and make sure that every decision is made with one goal in mind: helping you win the case.

Contact the California Last-Minute Trial Lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP

If you are looking for new representation in your legal dispute, the Los Angeles last-minute trial attorneys at Tauler Smith LLP can help you. Our legal team has broad experience trying cases in state and federal courtrooms, including courts in California, Texas, Florida, and New York.

Call 310-590-3927 or contact us online to discuss your case.

Trial Preparation: What Can the Client Do Before Trial?

November 17, 2024/in Litigation /by taulersmith

As experienced Los Angeles last-minute trial attorneys, we know how to quickly prepare a case for trial when we take over in the 11^th hour. But this doesn’t mean the client is uninvolved or has nothing to do as we get ready to argue the case before a judge or jury. So, what does the client do before trial? The Tauler Smith litigation team believes that clients can play a very big role in helping us to prepare cases for trial, whether that involves providing us with valuable information about the case, communicating during settlement discussions, or being involved in strategy conversations.

Read this blog for more information about what clients can do to get ready for trial in a California courtroom.

How the Client Can Help Their Lawyer Win at Trial in a California Courtroom

The client has an important role in the lead-up to trial. Although you won’t be involved in the actual legal work or technical trial preparation, you can still contribute in very meaningful ways.

Provide Case Information

For starters, you are an invaluable resource because you will know the facts of the case as well as anyone. Your attorneys may have questions for you as they research and get ready for trial, and you may be asked to fill in gaps in the fact pattern, provide background information on potential witnesses, and offer insights into the case.

Clients are often the best source for evidence since they will probably know the location of relevant documents, in addition to gaining access to those documents once they are located. This can be particularly helpful in business litigation cases and employment defense cases where discovery may cover a lot of evidence, as well as late-notice cases where the trial date is quickly approaching and time is limited.

Settlement Discussions

The client also needs to be involved in any settlement conversations, providing guidance to the attorney. Ultimately, you will have to make the call about whether you find a settlement offer acceptable, and you certainly should not let anyone else sway you because you are the one who will have to live with the decision. Sometimes, it’s better to take the financial settlement being offered and be done with the stress of litigation. Or you might be so personally invested in the case that getting your day in court and seeking justice is most important to you.

Witness Prep

While attorneys typically take the lead when it comes to preparing witnesses to testify at trial, the client is also very helpful in this regard. That’s because the client will probably have some kind of relationship with the witnesses, which can make it easier to encourage their testimony. The client’s familiarity with the other witnesses can also provide insight into how they might react to certain types of questioning.

Additionally, if expert witnesses are needed for the trial, the client may be helpful when it comes to helping prepare the expert. After all, the client will still know more about the particular facts of the case, and the expert can probably benefit by learning the specifics before testifying.

In many cases, the client will also take the stand to testify at trial. Before this happens, the client should be prepared by their attorneys so that they know exactly what to expect and how to frame their narrative while on the stand. Moreover, the client should be prepared for cross-examination so that they won’t be caught off guard by aggressive questioning from the opposing side.

Trial Strategy

Strong communication between the attorney and their client is extremely important. The client should always feel comfortable asking questions about the case. Your lawyer works for you, not the other way around. Your last-minute trial counsel should keep you informed at all times about what is happening. Additionally, if you are unsure about the direction that your attorneys are taking the case, you should definitely speak up and voice those concerns. Clients should always play a role in the trial strategy.

Client feedback can also be extremely helpful. Sometimes, the litigators get so caught up in the legal arguments that they forget the human element at play in a trial. Cases are presented to jurors, and those jurors typically don’t know much about the actual law or the applicable statutes. They need to be persuaded at a human level, and this is where feedback from the client can provide valuable insight: how the client reacts to a particular argument, trial tactic, or theme may be some indication of how the jury will react.

Contact the Experienced Los Angeles Trial Lawyers at Tauler Smith LLP

The Tauler Smith LLP trial lawyers handle cases in California, New York, Texas, Florida, and across the United States. We go to great lengths to ensure that our litigators are in frequent communication with clients throughout the legal process because we want clients to stay informed. We also want our clients to be involved in any important decisions that need to be made before trial.

We will do everything in our power to maximize your chances of winning in court. Call 310-590-3927 or email us to schedule a free consultation.