Run a free scan

DesignTechnica v. Swigart: why a publisher could not take 36 Meta Pixel arbitrations to federal court

This page is about the plaintiff side: how individual arbitration claims over a pixel are filed and priced, and what a website owner can and cannot do about them. Digital Trends' publisher tried to stop 36 claims in federal court and was dismissed on jurisdiction. Its strongest point, that visitors used a consent form, was never tested.

US District Court, Southern District of California · Declaratory judgment; diversity jurisdiction · Dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, 9 December 2024

The problem

From April 2023, Swigart Law Group filed 36 separate JAMS arbitration claims against DesignTechnica, which publishes digitaltrends.com and themanual.com. Each made the same allegation: the company intercepted the claimant’s communications with its website and disclosed them "to Meta Platforms, Inc. dba Facebook", in breach of the Federal Wiretap Act and CIPA §631 (Compl. ¶ 15). DesignTechnica sued to have its terms' Oregon choice-of-law clause enforced. No tribunal has decided whether the Meta Pixel claims had merit.

Case record

Court
US District Court, Southern District of California (Judge Thomas J. Whelan)
Case number
3:24-cv-01054-W-AHG
Parties
DesignTechnica Corporation v. Swigart Law Group, APC and 36 of its clients
Counsel
DesignTechnica: DarrowEverett LLP. Defendants: Swigart Law Group, APC with the Law Office of Daniel G. Shay ([ECF No. 4-2](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.787240/gov.uscourts.casd.787240.4.2.pdf))
Laws
Declaratory Judgment Act; diversity jurisdiction. Underlying: CIPA §631, Federal Wiretap Act, intrusion
Stage
Dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; no appeal appears on the docket reviewed
Amount
None awarded. The one demand in the record states USD 25,000 in controversy
Source review
17 October 2026

What was alleged

What was alleged
ClaimWhat it requiresRecordResult
Declaration that the website terms bind the claimants (Count I)An actual controversy within federal jurisdictionTerms require JAMS arbitration and Oregon law ([Compl. ¶¶ 9–12](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.787240/gov.uscourts.casd.787240.1.0.pdf))Dismissed: amount in controversy not met
Declaration that the Oregon choice-of-law clause applies (Count II)SameClaimants pleaded California's CIPA instead of Oregon law (¶¶ 13–17)Dismissed on the same ground
Underlying JAMS claims (context)Wiretap Act, CIPA §631, intrusionVisiting and browsing the sites caused disclosure to Meta (¶¶ 15–16)Not decided in this case

Technical issue

  • Tools or vendors: the Meta Pixel. The arbitration demands, as quoted, say the sites disclosed information "to Meta Platforms, Inc. dba Facebook" (Compl. ¶ 15).
  • Where: digitaltrends.com and themanual.com.
  • What data: not described beyond "electronic communications with Respondent’s website" (Bermudez demand).
  • Consent: DesignTechnica said the claimants consented "via the Websites' pop-up consent form which is displayed to each Websites visitor", which "allowed each Websites visitor to opt-out of tracking pixels" (Compl. ¶ 17 n.3). That is DesignTechnica’s contention; no tribunal tested it.
  • Server-side: not alleged.
  • How it came to light: not stated in the cited record.

Inth’s technical interpretation: 36 near-identical claims raise the same factual questions 36 times. Was this claimant on the site? Did the pop-up appear? What did they choose, and did the Meta Pixel load after that choice? A site that cannot answer per visitor has to argue law, as DesignTechnica did. A site that can answer has facts for each claim.

Illustrative pattern, not the defendant’s code.

// Gap: the consent form shows, but no durable record links choice to pixel behaviour
showConsentForm().then((choice) => {
  if (choice === 'accept') fbq('consent', 'grant');
  // nothing stored server-side; no way to answer a claim about a given visit later
});

Illustrative pattern, not the defendant’s code. Generic consent API, not a c15t call.

// Better: the pixel waits, and each choice is stored with time, region and policy
fbq('consent', 'revoke');                       // default before any choice
const record = await consent.collect();         // { choice, region, policyVersion, at }
await fetch('/api/consent-records', { method: 'POST', body: JSON.stringify(record) });
if (record.choice.has('marketing')) fbq('consent', 'grant');

Timeline

Timeline
DateEvent
13 April 2023Bermudez JAMS demand submitted; "Amount in Controversy $ 25,000" ([ECF No. 4-4](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.787240/gov.uscourts.casd.787240.4.4.pdf))
January 2024After a 3 January conference, Arbitrator Charles Dick, Jr. issues Preliminary Hearing Order No. 1: "All issues are arbitrable" ([ECF No. 4-1](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.787240/gov.uscourts.casd.787240.4.1.pdf), p. 10)
23 February 2024Seven more individual claims filed; JAMS bills USD 2,000 filing fee each
5 April 2024Remaining 28 claimants filed as a mass filing
19 April 2024Arbitrator confirms Oregon law and allows an amended demand under Oregon's ORS 165.540
26 April 2024JAMS invoices DesignTechnica USD 54,000 for the mass filing
May 2024JAMS closes the seven individual claims after DesignTechnica does not pay; Bermudez placed on administrative stay
18 June 2024DesignTechnica sues in federal court
9 December 2024Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction ([ECF No. 8](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.787240/gov.uscourts.casd.787240.8.0.pdf)); clerk's judgment entered the same day (ECF No. 9)

The arbitration details come from Swigart’s motion and declaration, citing JAMS documents (ECF Nos. 4-1, 4-2).

Outcome

Judge Whelan dismissed for lack of diversity jurisdiction. DesignTechnica argued it faced "at least $70,000 in initial filing fees and a minimum of $180,000 in damages under CIPA" across 36 claims. The court held those amounts cannot be aggregated across separate defendants: "Using DTC’s estimates, the filing fees and CIPA penalty totals about $7,000 per Claimant, falling short of the minimum jurisdictional amount" (ECF No. 8, pp. 4–5). The order did not reach arbitrability, choice of law or the merits. It is unpublished.

What it cost

What it cost
ItemRecord
Damages or settlementNone in the record
Amount in controversy, Bermudez demandUSD 25,000 (ECF No. 4-4). The other 35 demands' amounts are not in the record
JAMS fees billed to DesignTechnicaUSD 2,000 per individual claim; USD 4,407 and USD 12,700 in Bermudez; USD 54,000 for the mass filing (ECF No. 4-1, pp. 10–13)
DesignTechnica's own exposure estimateAbout USD 70,000 in filing fees plus USD 180,000 (36 × USD 5,000) in CIPA damages (ECF No. 8, p. 4)
Fees or costs awarded in this caseNot stated in the cited record

Why it matters

  • Federal court is hard to reach. Each claimant’s stake was about USD 7,000, so a company cannot sum dozens of small claims to reach USD 75,000. Challenges of this kind usually have to run inside the arbitration.
  • Choice of law did matter inside arbitration. In the one claim that advanced, the arbitrator applied Oregon law, as DesignTechnica’s terms required, and the claimant re-pleaded under Oregon’s statute (ECF No. 4-1, p. 10).
  • Compare Marriott v. Sperling Kenny, a 2026 challenge to a 7,000-claim arbitration on different grounds, still pending.
  • See CIPA §631 and demand letters.

How Inth catches this

The court decided jurisdiction, not tracking. Inth’s role here is evidence an operator can use claim by claim.

  • Consent banner: consent records showing each visitor’s choice, country and the policy that applied. With 36 claimants, that is the record that tests "they consented through the pop-up".
  • Website audit: dated observations of whether the Meta Pixel loaded on each page, before or after a choice, by region and consent state.
  • Code audit: the history of when the Meta Pixel and the consent form changed, with the pull request and approval.
  • Evidence: together these let an operator answer each identical demand with facts about its own pages on the claimed dates.

A consent record can show what a visitor chose; it cannot show whether an arbitrator will treat that choice as consent under the governing law.

Checks for your own systems

In the repository

  • Confirm consent choices are stored server-side with time, region and policy version, and kept for at least the limitation periods your counsel identifies.
  • Check the Meta Pixel cannot fire before the stored choice is read.

In the browser and network

  • Clear storage, open the pop-up, choose "reject", and confirm no request to facebook.com/tr follows.
  • Save a dated capture each time the consent form or pixel set-up changes.

With the people responsible

  • Review the arbitration clause, fee allocation and choice-of-law clause in your terms with counsel.
  • Decide who answers JAMS or AAA invoices and on what timetable.

Sources and limits

Source review: 17 October 2026. This page describes the cited records and procedural stage. It does not audit DesignTechnica Corporation’s current systems. Inth wrote the technical checks; they cannot decide which laws apply or prove compliance.