[Enforcement library](/enforcement)

# 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](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.787240/gov.uscourts.casd.787240.1.0.pdf)). DesignTechnica sued to have its terms' Oregon choice-of-law clause enforced. No tribunal has decided whether the Meta Pixel claims had merit.

- The problem
- Case record
- What was alleged
- Technical issue
- Timeline
- Outcome
- What it cost
- Why it matters
- How Inth catches this
- Checks for your own systems
- Sources and limits

## Case record

| Fact | 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

| Claim | What it requires | Record | Result |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Declaration that the website terms bind the claimants (Count I) | An actual controversy within federal jurisdiction | Terms 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) | Same | Claimants pleaded California's CIPA instead of Oregon law (¶¶ 13–17) | Dismissed on the same ground |
| Underlying JAMS claims (context) | Wiretap Act, CIPA §631, intrusion | Visiting 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](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.787240/gov.uscourts.casd.787240.4.4.pdf)).
- **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.

```js
// 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.

```js
// 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

| Date | Event |
| --- | --- |
| 13 April 2023 | Bermudez 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 2024 | After 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 2024 | Seven more individual claims filed; JAMS bills USD 2,000 filing fee each |
| 5 April 2024 | Remaining 28 claimants filed as a mass filing |
| 19 April 2024 | Arbitrator confirms Oregon law and allows an amended demand under Oregon's ORS 165.540 |
| 26 April 2024 | JAMS invoices DesignTechnica USD 54,000 for the mass filing |
| May 2024 | JAMS closes the seven individual claims after DesignTechnica does not pay; Bermudez placed on administrative stay |
| 18 June 2024 | DesignTechnica sues in federal court |
| 9 December 2024 | Dismissed 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](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.787240/gov.uscourts.casd.787240.8.0.pdf), pp. 4–5). The order did not reach arbitrability, choice of law or the merits. It is unpublished.

## What it cost

| Item | Record |
| --- | --- |
| Damages or settlement | None in the record |
| Amount in controversy, Bermudez demand | USD 25,000 (ECF No. 4-4). The other 35 demands' amounts are not in the record |
| JAMS fees billed to DesignTechnica | USD 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 estimate | About 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 case | Not 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](/enforcement/marriott-v-sperling-kenny)**, a 2026 challenge to a 7,000-claim arbitration on different grounds, still pending.
- See [CIPA §631](/enforcement/laws/cipa-631-wiretapping) and [demand letters](/enforcement/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

- [Order granting motion to dismiss, 9 December 2024 (ECF No. 8)](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.787240/gov.uscourts.casd.787240.8.0.pdf)
- [Complaint, 18 June 2024 (ECF No. 1)](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.787240/gov.uscourts.casd.787240.1.0.pdf)
- [Motion to dismiss (ECF No. 4-1)](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.787240/gov.uscourts.casd.787240.4.1.pdf)
- [Declaration of Joshua B. Swigart (ECF No. 4-2)](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.787240/gov.uscourts.casd.787240.4.2.pdf)
- [Bermudez JAMS demand (ECF No. 4-4)](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.787240/gov.uscourts.casd.787240.4.4.pdf)
- [Docket, 3:24-cv-01054 (CourtListener)](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68866166/designtechnica-corporation-v-swigart-law-group/)

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.

Related: [Marriott v. Sperling Kenny](/enforcement/marriott-v-sperling-kenny) · [Rodriguez v. Autotrader](/enforcement/rodriguez-v-autotrader) · [Federal Wiretap Act](/enforcement/laws/federal-wiretap-act) · [Demand letters](/enforcement/demand-letters)