The lawsuit history of Radaris includes a $7.5 million default judgment under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, a class action under the Illinois Right of Publicity Act, a New Jersey suit under Daniel’s Law, and related federal actions against affiliated companies run by the same operators. The through-line across these cases is a company that loses when it shows up, and often does not show up: judgments have been entered by default, and collection has been frustrated by an offshore corporate structure built around entities in Cyprus and the British Virgin Islands.
The $7.5 Million FCRA Class Action
In 2014, plaintiffs filed a class action against Radaris in the Northern District of California alleging Fair Credit Reporting Act violations. The case, Huebner v. Radaris, LLC et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-04735-VC, ended in a $7.5 million default judgment after the defendants did not appear to contest the claims.1KrebsOnSecurity. A Close-Up Look at the Consumer Data Broker Radaris
Winning the judgment was the easy part. The court initially ordered the radaris.com domain transferred to the plaintiffs to satisfy the debt. In 2018, attorneys for Radaris argued that the entities actually holding the domain, a Cyprus company called Bitseller Expert Limited and a British Virgin Islands entity called Accuracy Consulting Ltd, had never been named as defendants and had never been served. The court agreed, finding “there was nothing to permit a conclusion that Bitseller and Accuracy were acting in concert with the Huebner Defendants,” and the domain went back to its operators.2Midpage. Bitseller Expert Limited v. Verisign
Bitseller v. Verisign
Once it had the domain back, Bitseller Expert Limited turned around and sued Verisign, the registry operator that manages .com domain names, for conversion and trespass to chattels. Bitseller sought at least $500,000 in damages for lost traffic and reputational harm while the site was offline. The company filed in both the Central District of California and the Eastern District of Virginia. In December 2019, the Virginia court dismissed the claim, holding that Verisign had reasonably relied on a facially valid federal court order when it transferred the domain.2Midpage. Bitseller Expert Limited v. Verisign
Illinois Right of Publicity Class Action
In October 2023, an Illinois resident filed a class action against Radaris under the Illinois Right of Publicity Act, alleging the company used individuals’ names for commercial purposes without their consent.3NetManageIT. A Close-Up Look at the Consumer Data Broker Radaris The statute provides a private right of action that fits the people-search business model closely, because it targets the unlicensed commercial use of a person’s identity, which is precisely what Radaris sells.
Daniel’s Law Suit in New Jersey
On February 8, 2024, Atlas Data Privacy Corp. sued Radaris LLC for violating New Jersey’s Daniel’s Law. That statute lets government employees, law enforcement officers, judges, and their family members demand removal of their personal information from commercial data brokers. Atlas Data Privacy has filed at least 140 similar complaints against other data brokers.3NetManageIT. A Close-Up Look at the Consumer Data Broker Radaris Court records in the District of New Jersey show a related case, Atlas Data Privacy Corporation et al. v. People Data Labs, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-04171, with a memorandum signed by Judge Harvey Bartle III in November 2024.4GovInfo. Atlas Data Privacy Corporation et al v. People Data Labs, Inc. et al
The Unipoint Technology FCC Case
A separate line of litigation involves Unipoint Technology Inc., a Wellesley Hills prepaid calling card company tied to the same operators. On February 11, 2014, the Federal Communications Commission released a forfeiture order fining Unipoint $179,000. The FCC found that Unipoint had provided international telecommunications services without authorization, failed to file required revenue worksheets and international traffic reports, and failed to contribute to the Telecommunications Relay Service Fund. Unipoint asked the agency to reduce the penalty to $55,000, and the FCC refused.5GovInfo. Unipoint Technologies Forfeiture Order
When the federal government sued Unipoint in the District of Massachusetts to collect the fine, in United States of America v. Unipoint Technologies, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-12020, the company followed the same pattern seen in Huebner. Its attorney from the Boston Law Group withdrew in February 2016, the company failed to appear at its pretrial conference, and Judge Leo T. Sorokin entered a default judgment against Unipoint on April 27, 2016.6PlainSite. United States of America v. Unipoint Technologies, Inc.
The Defamation Threat Against KrebsOnSecurity
Not every legal action involving Radaris made it to court. In March 2024, cybersecurity journalist Brian Krebs published an investigation identifying brothers Igor and Dmitry Lubarsky as the company’s true operators.1KrebsOnSecurity. A Close-Up Look at the Consumer Data Broker Radaris On April 18, 2024, attorney Valentin “Val” Gurvits of the Boston Law Group sent Krebs a certified letter demanding an immediate retraction and apology, claiming the brothers were not founders, CEOs, or equity owners of Radaris.7KrebsOnSecurity. KrebsOnSecurity Threatened With Defamation Lawsuit Over Fake Radaris CEO
A second letter on June 13, 2024, dropped the retraction demand and asked only that Krebs remove the brothers’ names. In the exchange, Gurvits acknowledged that the person Radaris had long presented as CEO, “Gary Norden,” was a fabricated identity created by the company’s marketing division. As of June 2024, no defamation suit had been filed.7KrebsOnSecurity. KrebsOnSecurity Threatened With Defamation Lawsuit Over Fake Radaris CEO Gurvits has represented Radaris repeatedly. He argued the successful 2018 motion to recover the seized domain in Huebner, represented Bitseller in the Verisign suit, and is Radaris’s attorney of record in the Atlas Data Privacy case.8KrebsOnSecurity. KrebsOnSecurity Threatened With Defamation Lawsuit Over Fake Radaris CEO
Who Actually Gets Sued
The corporate arrangement behind Radaris helps explain why judgments do not stick. The site’s terms of use identify Bitseller Expert Limited, incorporated in Cyprus in January 2013 under registration number ΗΕ 318175, as its operating entity.9Domain Name Wire. Bitseller Expert Limited v. Verisign Inc. The radaris.com domain itself is held by Accuracy Consulting Ltd in the British Virgin Islands.2Midpage. Bitseller Expert Limited v. Verisign Bitseller’s Cyprus registry listing as of mid-2026 shows a status of “Reminder letter sent,” with director Pavel Kaydash and corporate secretary Woltem Secretarial Limited.10Companies Registry Cyprus. Bitseller Expert Limited In Huebner, that separation was enough to defeat enforcement: because the plaintiffs had sued Radaris LLC and related U.S. defendants but not the Cyprus and BVI entities that actually held the domain, the court found no basis to conclude the offshore companies were acting in concert with the named defendants.
What’s Changing
California’s DELETE Act is the most significant recent change in the enforcement landscape around data brokers like Radaris. The law created the Delete Request and Opt-Out Platform (DROP), which launched on January 1, 2026, allowing California residents to submit a single free deletion request that applies to all registered data brokers. Brokers must begin processing DROP requests by August 1, 2026, and perform ongoing deletions every 45 days, with penalties of $200 per consumer per day for violations. The California Privacy Protection Agency has already ordered Background Alert to shut down and levied fines against Accurate Append, ROR Partners, and Datamasters.11Privacy Rights Clearinghouse. Data Brokers Whether that regime reaches a company structured through Cyprus and the British Virgin Islands, with a decade of missed court dates behind it, is the next test.