In a startling lawsuit filed in Sacramento County on November 4, 2025, an individual accuses a Virginia-based corporation of turning its website into a surveillance machine. The plaintiff, Milton Pham, alleges that Parsons Corporation violated California’s Trap and Trace Law by using LinkedIn’s tracking software to monitor and profile website visitors without their consent.
Milton Pham, a resident of California, filed the complaint in the Superior Court for the State of California against Parsons Corporation. The case was electronically submitted on November 4, 2025. Pham claims that Parsons Corporation has deliberately transformed its commercial website into a sophisticated surveillance apparatus. According to the complaint, the defendant uses LinkedIn’s Insight Tag to secretly identify and track visitors to its site, collecting detailed personal profiles without user knowledge or consent. This invasive tracking allegedly occurred when Pham visited the website on April 4, 2025.
The lawsuit details how Parsons Corporation configured its tracking system to initiate data collection immediately upon a visitor’s arrival at its website. This technology captures electronic impulses and digital signatures from visitors’ devices to de-anonymize them and create unique identification profiles. Pham argues that this unauthorized deployment constitutes a direct violation of California’s Trap and Trace Law under Penal Code section 638.51. This law prohibits installing or using trap and trace devices without court authorization or user consent.
Pham further asserts that Parsons Corporation conducts substantial business operations within California, rendering it subject to jurisdiction in this state. The company markets engineering, construction, and technology solutions for infrastructure projects to California residents through its interactive website designed specifically for engaging with consumers in the state.
The plaintiff seeks several forms of relief from the court: an injunction preventing Parsons Corporation from continuing these practices unless they obtain valid court orders or explicit user consent; disgorgement and deletion of unlawfully collected data; statutory damages amounting to $5,000 per violation; actual damages exceeding statutory amounts; interest on monetary awards; reasonable attorneys’ fees; and any other relief deemed just by the court.
Representing Milton Pham are attorneys Wendy Miele, Camrie Ventry, and Kiran Sekhon from Tauler Smith LLP based in Los Angeles. The case is identified as Case No. 2 Selo OSPa Sea with Judge S Decker overseeing proceedings.
Source: 25CV026369_Milton_Pham_v_Parsons_Corporation _Complaint_County_of_Sacramento_California.pdf
