Case Study: What CPPA Auditors Actually Look For - Lessons from the StyleFair Investigation

By Ramyar Daneshgar
Security Engineer | USC Viterbi School of Engineering

Looking for a security engineer? Visit SecurityEngineer.com

Disclaimer: This article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

1. Executive Summary

This in-depth analysis dissects a hypothetical—but technically and legally realistic—CPRA enforcement action against StyleFair, a U.S.-based online retailer. StyleFair deployed a behavioral analytics plugin—SmartPixel—without conducting adequate due diligence on its data practices. The plugin engaged in undisclosed cross-context behavioral tracking, failed to honor opt-out signals, and silently transmitted user interaction data to third-party servers.

This report provides a comprehensive review of how the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) initiated the investigation, issued a Notice of Violation, and imposed financial penalties. Subscribers will gain access to:

• A modeled and annotated CPPA Notice of Violation
• A detailed timeline of the enforcement sequence
• A clause-by-clause legal breakdown of CPRA sections cited in the enforcement action
• Defensive strategies for organizations facing or anticipating similar audits
• A practical framework to build pre-enforcement remediation files

2. Timeline of Events: StyleFair's Road to Enforcement

3. Annotated CPPA Notice of Violation (Hypothetical)

NOTICE OF VIOLATION
Pursuant to the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, as amended by the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (collectively, “CPRA”), and 11 California Code of Regulations (C.C.R.) § 7302, the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) hereby issues this Notice of Violation to STYLEFAIR, INC. regarding unlawful data processing practices on www.stylefair.com.

The Agency’s investigation revealed that STYLEFAIR:
a) Collected personal information without providing notice at or before the point of collection (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100(b));
b) Shared personal information for cross-context behavioral advertising purposes without providing consumers with the right to opt out (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.120(a));
c) Failed to implement a “Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information” mechanism (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.135(a));
d) Ignored Global Privacy Control (GPC) signals in violation of 11 C.C.R. § 7026(b);
e) Engaged in willful noncompliance following notice, justifying an escalation to intentional violation status under § 1798.199.40(c).

STYLEFAIR is hereby granted thirty (30) days to cure the violations described above. Failure to cure may result in administrative enforcement and the imposition of penalties of up to $7,500 per intentional violation.

4. Legal Analysis of CPRA Violations Cited

4.1 § 1798.100(b) – Notice at Collection

StyleFair embedded SmartPixel on its homepage and product pages without updating its Privacy Policy or including a notice at the point of data collection. The plugin captured mouse movements, field inputs, and behavioral metadata before any policy was shown to the user.

Failure to disclose this collection violates § 1798.100(b), which requires businesses to:

• Inform consumers about the categories of personal information collected;
• State the purposes for collection;
• Offer the notice prior to or at the time of collection.

The CPPA has interpreted "collection" to include both passive and active data gathering initiated by scripts or SDKs.

4.2 § 1798.120 – Right to Opt-Out of Sharing

SmartPixel shared behavioral profiles with third-party advertising partners. Because the data was used for cross-context behavioral advertising, this qualifies as "sharing" under CPRA § 1798.140(ah).

StyleFair did not:

• Offer an opt-out link;
• Process user-submitted opt-out requests;
• Limit downstream use through contractual controls.

This resulted in a direct violation of § 1798.120(a), which mandates opt-out functionality for any business that sells or shares consumer data.

4.3 § 1798.135(a) – Required Opt-Out Mechanisms

StyleFair’s website lacked:

• A “Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information” link
• Any mechanism to configure cookie preferences or restrict behavioral tracking

This omission violated § 1798.135(a)(1), which requires prominent placement of opt-out links for businesses that share data. The CPPA's enforcement manual stresses the use of persistent footer links or banners with functional controls.

4.4 11 C.C.R. § 7026(b) – Global Privacy Control

The CPPA determined that StyleFair ignored valid GPC signals sent via the Sec-GPC HTTP header. Businesses are required to recognize and honor GPC as a universal opt-out signal for data sharing and selling under California law.

Failure to do so constituted a per se violation, automatically elevating the enforcement to include both substantive and procedural deficiencies.

5. Enforcement Outcomes

Civil Penalties Imposed

Following StyleFair’s failure to cure the violations during the 30-day window, the CPPA classified the behavior as intentional noncompliance under Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.199.40(c).

Note: These penalties reflect the volume of sessions, not users, which the CPPA has deemed an acceptable metric when opt-outs are ignored at scale.

6. Defensive Strategies for Companies Under Scrutiny

6.1 Conduct a Forensic Privacy Audit

Organizations should simulate the CPPA’s auditing methodology by using tools such as:

• Traffic interceptors (Burp Suite, mitmproxy)
• JavaScript behavior mapping tools (ObservePoint, Blacklight)
• Manual header inspection to verify GPC processing

6.2 Maintain Pre-Enforcement Documentation

Legal teams should maintain:

• A point-in-time snapshot of privacy policy language and version history
• A list of all embedded third-party scripts, categorized by function and endpoint
• Internal memos documenting the business rationale for tool deployment and due diligence records

Such documentation may be used to support a defense of “reasonable interpretation” or mitigation during the CPPA’s cure period.

6.3 Honor Opt-Out Mechanisms Programmatically

Teams must ensure:

• GPC signals are honored and mapped to suppression of marketing pixels or third-party script execution
• Opt-out links lead to functional configuration tools, not just informational pages
• Backend logging tracks opt-out decisions with timestamp and IP hash or session ID

7. Building a Pre-Enforcement Remediation File

To proactively defend against CPRA enforcement, firms should maintain a remediation file that includes:

This file should be version-controlled, reviewed quarterly, and made available to legal counsel on demand.

8. Conclusion

The StyleFair incident illustrates how seemingly minor oversights—like deploying a third-party plugin without disclosure or opt-out handling—can trigger multimillion-dollar liability. The CPPA’s enforcement posture in 2025 reflects a new era of privacy accountability, with sophisticated technical audits and strict statutory interpretation.

Legal and compliance teams must integrate forensic validation, opt-out compliance, and continuous monitoring into their privacy operations. A failure to act proactively will not be forgiven under CPRA’s cure window—especially once regulators initiate a formal audit.

Looking for a security engineer? Visit SecurityEngineer.com

Need a Cybersecurity Attorney?
Get top legal guidance in breach response, data privacy, and cybersecurity compliance. Connect with attorneys who know how to defend against audits, investigations, and liability.
👉 Hire a Cybersecurity Attorney