Technology’s Effect on Advocacy
Tips for Introducing, Challenging Evidence from Archived Internet Sources such as the Wayback Machine By Jason A. Ibey
Not much is lost on the Internet. Often, there exist archival copies of webpages and online documents which may be used as evidence for a variety of motions or at trial. Legal practitioners may be most familiar with the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine (web.archive.org), which “enables you to capture, manage and search collections of digital content without any technical expertise or hosting facilities.” In the absence of a controlling authority in the Ninth Circuit, the current trend is to consider archived Internet sources as reliable when obtained using the Wayback Machine. See: Costar Grp. v. Commercial Real Estate Exch., No. 20-cv-8819-CBM-ASx, 2021 LX 52427, at *6 (C.D. Cal. June 9, 2021) (on motion to dismiss, taking judicial notice of archived version of webpage on a particular date); Merrell v. Ralph Lauren Corp., No. 23-cv-06669- HSG, 2026 LX 307269, at *20 (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2026) (denying motion to exclude historical versions of the defendant’s website);
Title Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc. v. On-Line Adm'rs, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-06599-CAS-JCx, 2025 LX 168854, at *21 n.4 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2025) (taking judicial notice of archived document purportedly available for download from an archived website). Courts have treated with skepticism, however, other tools like PageFreezer, finding webpage evidence archived by PageFeezer was not hearsay yet sustaining an objection based on lack of authentication, and distinguishing the nature of that archived service from the Wayback Machine. Rutherford v. Evans Hotels, LLC, No. 18-CV-435- JLS-MSB, 2020 LX 17350, at *36 (S.D. Cal. Sep. 3, 2020). Other methods of documentation, such as taking a screenshot or saving the webpage as a PDF document, should include the entire webpage or document rather than just a portion. See J.J. v. Ashlynn Mktg. Grp., Inc., No. 3:24-cv-00311-GPC- MSB, 2026 LX 272132, at *8 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2026) (declining to take judicial notice of cropped images without the larger screenshot of the webpages). While it may not be necessary to formally request judicial notice before the court will consider archived webpage evidence, introduction of such evidence should be accompanied by at least a declaration with sufficient detail to indicate the website URL, the date the webpage was archived, and the date the screenshot of the archived webpage was taken, if not already reflected in the document (with the screenshot
Jason A. Ibey is a consumer rights attorney with a focus on class actions. He is a partner at Kazerouni Law Group, APC, and currently manages the firm's Utah office. jason@kazlg.com
34
Consumer Attorneys of California
FORUM September/October 2026
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs