Skip to content

Plaintiff law firm

Janove PLLC, Janove PLLC

Janove PLLC, Janove PLLC files website tracking lawsuits against businesses. See where it files and what its complaints cite, then check whether your site has the same issues.

Free, about a minute, no signup for your score.

Federal dockets naming the firm

Last 90 days
0
Last 12 months
1
Most recent filing
Apr 21, 2026
Based in
California
Files over
Website tracking
Counts include federal filings from CourtListener and curated state filings with sources. State-court coverage is partial.

The short answer

Janove PLLC, Janove PLLC, based in California, is a plaintiff-side law firm named on 1 federal website tracking lawsuit dockets in the last 12 months, 0 of them in the last 90 days, most recently on Apr 21, 2026. Most of its verified filings are against businesses in Illinois. Its complaints most often cite Google Analytics 4, Meta Pixel, Pinterest Tag. Counts come from CourtListener docket records and refresh daily.

Where it files

The states and courts in its verified filings

Verified filings in the last 12 months, by the defendant's state and by the federal court the case was filed in.

Defendants by state

Verified filings, 12 months
  1. 1Illinois1
  2. 2New York1

Federal courts

Verified filings, 12 months
  1. 1District Court, N.D. California1
  2. 2District Court, S.D. New York1

Trend

Janove PLLC, Janove PLLC filings, month by month

Verified filings linked to the firm, by the month they were filed. Firms file in batches, which is why months jump.

Website accessibility (ADA) Website tracking (CIPA)

December 2025 to November 2026, current month to date

What its complaints cite

The issues named in its complaints

Issues found in the complaint text of its verified filings. If your site has these, a letter from this firm would likely list them.

Issues cited

Complaints, 12 months
  1. 1Google Analytics 41
  2. 2Meta Pixel1
  3. 3Pinterest Tag1
  4. 4TikTok Pixel1

Court records

Latest verified filings by Janove PLLC, Janove PLLC

Newest first. Every row links to the court record.
  1. Tracking

    Dougherty v. Zynga Inc.

    S.D. New York, filed by Dechert LLP. Attributed to New York

    Court recordfor Dougherty v. Zynga Inc. (opens in a new tab)
  2. Tracking

    Pflaumer v. ACE Hardware Corporation

    N.D. California, filed by Levi & Korsinsky LLP. Attributed to Illinois

    Court recordfor Pflaumer v. ACE Hardware Corporation (opens in a new tab)

Questions owners ask

What to do with a letter from this firm, and what these numbers include.
I received a letter from Janove PLLC, Janove PLLC. What should I do?
Do not ignore it and do not reply before talking to a lawyer. Preserve the site as it is by taking dated screenshots and a scan, then fix what the letter cites so the record shows the changes and when they happened. The guides on this site explain what these letters usually say and how owners typically respond in the first week.
Is this every case the firm has filed?
No. The counts are federal dockets that name the firm in CourtListener's records, and the list shows the ones Suitcast has verified as website cases. State-court cases without a public source are not counted, so these numbers are a floor.
Why does the firm appear on this site?
Court filings are public records and the firm's name appears on each docket. Suitcast publishes counts and links to those records so business owners can see who is active in their state. It does not comment on the firm and it does not contact the businesses named as defendants.

Keep going

Check your site for what this firm cites

The free scan loads five public pages and lists the trackers that fire before consent and the accessibility failures complaints cite, so the conversation with your lawyer starts with facts.

Free, about a minute, no signup for your score.

Suitcast identifies risk indicators. It is not legal advice and does not determine compliance.