New Hampshire dealers should be aware of an ongoing wave of demand letters and lawsuits alleging that dealership websites violate “wiretapping” and privacy laws through the use of chat features, analytics tools, tracking technologies, and similar website functionality.
One of the most active plaintiffs in this area, Vivek Shah, has filed numerous substantially similar claims against businesses across the country, including automobile dealerships. On July 20, 2026, the United States District Court for the Central District of California determined that Shah qualified as a vexatious litigant, finding that he had engaged in a pattern of filing repetitive claims against numerous defendants over a relatively short period of time. As a result, Shah must now obtain court approval before filing additional claims in that federal district.
While that ruling may discourage future filings in that particular court, it does not prevent demand letters from being sent, nor does it prohibit lawsuits from being filed in other jurisdictions. Dealers should therefore remain vigilant and treat any demand letter seriously.
What New Hampshire Dealers Should Do If They Receive a Demand Letter:
Do Not Ignore It
Even if the allegations appear questionable or the sender has a history of repeated filings, a demand letter should be reviewed promptly. Delaying a response may limit available options and make it more difficult to investigate the underlying allegations.
Contact Counsel Immediately
Any response should be developed in consultation with legal counsel. These claims are highly fact-specific and often depend upon:
The particular technologies used on the dealership’s website;
Whether third-party vendors are involved;
The language in the dealership’s privacy policy;
The states in which website visitors are located; and
The specific allegations contained in the demand letter.
Preserve Relevant Information
Upon receiving a demand letter, dealers should preserve:
The demand letter and all attachments;
Website configurations and settings;
Vendor agreements;
Privacy policies and website disclosures;
Communications with website providers; and
Information regarding chat tools, cookies, analytics platforms, session replay software, and other tracking technologies.
Review Vendor Relationships
Many of these claims focus on technologies provided by third-party vendors rather than software developed by the dealership itself. Dealers should review contracts with website providers and determine whether any indemnification, defense, or notice obligations may apply.
Evaluate the Claim Before Making Any Settlement Decision
The recent federal court ruling concerning Shah may be relevant when evaluating litigation risk and settlement demands. However, each dealership’s circumstances are unique, and there is no one-size-fits-all response. The decision whether to respond, negotiate, or contest a claim is ultimately a business decision that should be made after consultation with counsel.
Key Takeaway for Dealers
The recent California federal court order is a positive development for businesses that have been targeted by repetitive wiretapping claims. Nevertheless, it does not eliminate the risk of future demand letters or lawsuits. New Hampshire dealers should continue to review their website technologies, maintain appropriate privacy disclosures, and consult counsel promptly if they receive a demand letter alleging website wiretapping or privacy violations.
If your dealership receives such a demand letter, do not ignore it, preserve relevant information immediately, and contact legal counsel to evaluate the available options.