Data Broker LocateSmarter Consents to $116,490 Settlement With California Privacy Agency
LocateSmarter, LLC has agreed to a settlement with the California Privacy Protection Agency over allegations it made opt-outs too difficult and failed to register as a data broker.
4 reports on this incident · first at Aug 31, 2026, 2:23 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Aug 31, 2026, 2:53 p.m. ET
California Privacy Agency Settles With Data Broker LocateSmarter for $116,490
California's privacy agency, CalPrivacy, has reached a settlement with data broker LocateSmarter, LLC, resolving allegations that the company violated the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). The settlement, which the company consented to, includes a $116,490 fine, according to the National Law Review.
CalPrivacy alleged that LocateSmarter asked individuals for too much information before allowing them to opt out of data collection, violating CCPA data minimization principles, and that the company failed to register as a data broker before the required deadline. The company consented to the settlement without admitting wrongdoing, as the proceeding was at the consent stage.
Aug 31, 2026, 2:52 p.m. ET
California Privacy Agency Fines Data Broker $116,490 Over Opt-Out Process
California's privacy agency has fined data broker LocateSmarter, LLC $116,490 as part of a settlement, according to a report by the National Law Review. The fine resolves allegations that the company asked individuals for too much information before allowing them to opt out, violating CCPA data minimization principles, and that it failed to register as a data broker before the required deadline.
The settlement was consented to by the company, according to the report. The fine is the monetary relief ordered in the case; the report does not specify whether it is a penalty, disgorgement, or redress to consumers.
Aug 31, 2026, 2:23 p.m. ETFirst report
California Privacy Agency Fines Data Broker $116,490 Over Opt-Out Process
The California Privacy Protection Agency (CalPrivacy) has reached a settlement with LocateSmarter, LLC, a data broker, over allegations that the company violated the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). According to a report by the National Law Review, the agency alleged that LocateSmarter asked individuals for too much information before allowing them to opt out, which violated CCPA data minimization principles, and that the company failed to register as a data broker before the required deadline.
The settlement includes a fine of $116,490, as reported by the National Law Review. The company consented to the settlement, which resolves the allegations. The National Law Review reported that the proceeding is at the consented stage, and the resolution is a settlement.
The California Privacy Protection Agency has not determined the cause of the alleged violations, and the settlement does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing. The agency's allegations are pending resolution through the settlement.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 131 Aug 2026, 18:56current
First published.
- Version 131 Aug 2026, 18:23current
First published.
- Version 131 Aug 2026, 18:52current
First published.
- Version 131 Aug 2026, 18:53current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.