{"id":406,"date":"2026-01-23T19:20:08","date_gmt":"2026-01-23T19:20:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.internetlitigators.com\/secure\/?page_id=406"},"modified":"2026-01-23T19:33:38","modified_gmt":"2026-01-23T19:33:38","slug":"californias-cipa-fix-isnt-law-yet-and-recent-rulings-keep-website-tracking-risk-alive","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.internetlitigators.com\/secure\/californias-cipa-fix-isnt-law-yet-and-recent-rulings-keep-website-tracking-risk-alive\/","title":{"rendered":"California\u2019s CIPA \u201cFix\u201d Isn\u2019t Law Yet \u2014 And Recent Rulings Keep Website Tracking Risk Alive"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p><strong>Executive Summary:<\/strong> Sacramento is weighing a bill to narrow some CIPA theories, but it hasn\u2019t become law. Meanwhile, courts have issued mixed decisions that keep compliance a live issue for any site or platform using pixels, analytics, chat, session replay, or embedded media.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">The legislative \u201crelief\u201d: SB 690 (status\u2014pending)<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>California\u2019s SB 690 would amend CIPA\u2019s pen-register \/ trap-and-trace provisions to clarify that tools used for a \u201ccommercial business purpose\u201d are not pen registers or trap-and-trace devices\u2014aimed squarely at claims premised on routine web tracking. The measure advanced in 2025 but, as of now, it is not enacted, so it offers <strong>no current safe harbor<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">What courts have been doing in the meantime<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Pen-register \/ trap-and-trace claims face pushback.<\/strong> California trial courts have rejected attempts to stretch those provisions to ordinary website data (e.g., IP address beacons), sustaining demurrers and finding the statutes were aimed at telephone-style signaling\u2014not internet traffic. Helpful, but not universal.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>\u201cPrior consent\u201d still drives \u00a7 631(a).<\/strong> The Ninth Circuit\u2019s Javier decision underscores that <strong>retroactive<\/strong> consent is not enough; businesses need <strong>consent before<\/strong> interception\/recording of a user\u2019s interaction. On remand, the claims later faltered on limitations, but the consent timing rule remains a lever for plaintiffs.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Appeals in session-replay\/chat suits: mixed signals.<\/strong> A trio of Ninth Circuit matters (including Thomas v. Papa John\u2019s) has sharpened the focus on technical specifics\u2014what was captured, when, and by whom (vendor as \u201cthird party\u201d vs. service provider). Outcomes vary by configuration and pleadings, so one company\u2019s win doesn\u2019t guarantee another\u2019s.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>AI\/voice and contact-center tools are in the crosshairs.<\/strong> In Ambriz v. Google, the court let claims proceed over Google\u2019s Cloud Contact Center AI, highlighting allegations that a vendor could access or use call content\/subscriber info\u2014another reminder that \u201ccapability,\u201d not just actual use, can carry pleading stages.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">What this means for site and platform owners (now)<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Treat consent as a gate, not a footer.<\/strong> Ensure non-essential tags (analytics, ads, chat, replay, embeds) are <strong>blocked until opt-in<\/strong>, and keep logs showing when\/what the user consented to. \u201cBy using this site\u201d boilerplate is weak under \u00a7 631(a).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Tighten your vendor story.<\/strong> DPAs should make vendors true service providers (no model training, no cross-client enrichment), and your architecture should prevent vendors from reading content \u201cin transit.\u201d Courts scrutinize vendor status.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Expect pen-register add-ons\u2014but move to dismiss.<\/strong> Recent state-court rulings give solid arguments that those claims don\u2019t fit web traffic. Keep them in the early-motion bucket.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Document reality.<\/strong> Keep versioned policies by date, CMP settings, tag-manager histories, and before\/after HAR files to prove what fires pre-consent (ideally, nothing). Mixed appellate outcomes turn on facts.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Outlook<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>If SB 690 passes, it would likely blunt some pen-register\/trap-and-trace theories going forward. But it won\u2019t likely serve as a a retro-fix for past conduct, and it likely will not  resolve core \u00a7 631(a) \u201cprior consent\u201d and \u201cthird-party interceptor\u201d battles. Until there\u2019s a definitive statewide rule\u2014or your own design, compliance and record keeping makes the facts boring for the trolls \u2014CIPA remains an active compliance risk.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>Questions about your configuration or response options? We can review live sites for legal compliance (consent language, placement, vendor posture) and assist in the event of claims, responses and insurance tenders. We also often coordinate with technical team on implementation.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Executive Summary: Sacramento is weighing a bill to narrow some CIPA theories, but it hasn\u2019t become law. Meanwhile, courts have issued mixed decisions that keep compliance a live issue for any site or platform using pixels, analytics, chat, session replay, or embedded media. The legislative \u201crelief\u201d: SB 690 (status\u2014pending) California\u2019s SB 690 would amend CIPA\u2019s &hellip; <\/p>\n<p class=\"link-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.internetlitigators.com\/secure\/californias-cipa-fix-isnt-law-yet-and-recent-rulings-keep-website-tracking-risk-alive\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;California\u2019s CIPA \u201cFix\u201d Isn\u2019t Law Yet \u2014 And Recent Rulings Keep Website Tracking Risk Alive&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"publish_to_discourse":"","publish_post_category":"","wpdc_auto_publish_overridden":"","wpdc_topic_tags":"","wpdc_pin_topic":"","wpdc_pin_until":"","discourse_post_id":"","discourse_permalink":"","wpdc_publishing_response":"","wpdc_publishing_error":"","footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-406","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.internetlitigators.com\/secure\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/406","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.internetlitigators.com\/secure\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.internetlitigators.com\/secure\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.internetlitigators.com\/secure\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.internetlitigators.com\/secure\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=406"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.internetlitigators.com\/secure\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/406\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":407,"href":"https:\/\/www.internetlitigators.com\/secure\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/406\/revisions\/407"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.internetlitigators.com\/secure\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=406"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}