CIPA

On September 30, Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 690, a significant new law aimed at curbing the wave of lawsuits and demand letters asserting “pen register” claims under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”).  The legislation eliminates the private right of action for pen register and trap-and-trace claims arising…

Continue Reading California Governor Signs SB 690, Eliminating Private Website-Based CIPA Pen Register Claims and Calling for Broader CIPA Reform

On August 28, 2026, the California Legislature passed SB 690, a significant bill aimed at curbing the flood of demand letters and lawsuits asserting “pen register” claims under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”). If enacted, the bill would eliminate the private right of action for website-based pen register claims and could affect many pending lawsuits filed since January 1, 2025.

Continue Reading California Legislature Passes CIPA Pen Register Reform Bill and Sends It to Governor

On July 1, 2026, a California legislative committee advanced amendments to SB 690 that would eliminate private suits asserting website-based “pen register” claims under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”), leaving enforcement exclusively to the California Attorney General.  The amendments come amid a surge of lawsuits and demand letters challenging the use of website technologies under the pen register provision, which the committee described as a “poster child for abusive lawsuits.”  According to the committee analysis, “[b]ecause the potential liability can be staggering,” businesses often settle quickly, thereby “encouraging vexatious litigants to continue blasting out demand letters.”

Continue Reading California Legislature Advances Bill Targeting Wave of CIPA Pen Register Lawsuits

In late September, plaintiffs announced details regarding Google LLC’s (“Google”) and women’s health app developer, Flo Health Inc.’s (“Flo”) proposed settlements to resolve a class action lawsuit stemming from the Flo app’s allegedly unlawful sharing of health data with Google and others through online tracking technologies.

As part of the proposed settlements, Google agreed to pay $48 million and Flo agreed to pay $8 million, for a combined $56 million to resolve plaintiffs’ claims against these two entities.

Continue Reading Flo Health, Google Settle Class Action Privacy Lawsuit for $56 Million

“Session replay” software is one of many website analytics tools targeted in wiretapping suits under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”).  Last month, a California federal court confirmed one of the many reasons why the use of this software does not violate CIPA section 631: A defendant cannot “read” (or attempt to read) session replay data “in transit,” as CIPA requires, because “events recorded by” this software “do not become readable content until after they are stored and reassembled into a session replay.”  Torres v. Prudential Financial, Inc., 2025 WL 1135088 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2025). 

Continue Reading Court Grants Summary Judgment: Website Vendor Cannot Read “Session Replay” Data “In Transit” Under CIPA

Plaintiffs’ lawyers have continued to bring privacy claims targeting businesses that use vendors to help provide beneficial chat features on their website, as we last reported here.  Late last year, a Southern District of California judge dismissed another set of privacy claims challenging the routine use of these vendor services by Tonal, a popular smart home gym company named as the sole defendant in the lawsuit.  Jones v. Tonal Systems, Inc., 751 F. Supp. 3d 1025 (S.D. Cal. 2024).

Plaintiff Julie Jones, a California resident, claimed that she had visited Tonal’s website and used its chat feature to communicate with a Tonal customer service representative.  This chat feature allegedly incorporated an API run by another company to create and store transcripts of website visitors’ chats with Tonal’s customer service representatives.  According to the complaint, this alleged conduct constituted wiretapping, which Tonal purportedly aided and abetted in violation of Sections 631 and 632.7 of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”).  Plaintiff also asserted other privacy claims based on the same alleged conduct, including the California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) and the California Constitution’s right to privacy provision.

The Court granted Tonal’s motion to dismiss each of plaintiff’s claims on multiple grounds.

Continue Reading Another California Court Rejects Privacy Claims Targeting Online Chat Feature

2021 was another busy year for data privacy regulatory enforcement and litigation. With some distance to reflect on last year, we have prepared this post identifying and describing important trends from 2021 that can help provide insight into what to expect in the data privacy landscape in 2022.

Data Privacy Regulatory Enforcement Trends

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and state enforcement action in 2021 centered on several key areas, including protecting children.

An FTC enforcement action last year alleged that the maker of an online coloring book application violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) by collecting personal information about children who used the app without notifying their parents and obtaining their consent.  The allegations note that the app included a “Kids” category that was targeted to children.  The FTC further claimed that the app’s social media features collected personal information from users and that some parents, lacking knowledge of these features, may have inadvertently permitted their young children to use the app.
Continue Reading 2021 Trends in Privacy Regulatory Enforcement and Litigation

On Wednesday, a federal judge in the Central District of California dismissed Humana Pharmacy Inc.’s motion to dismiss a putative class action suit alleging the company illegally recorded telephone calls with customers, finding that the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”) does not exempt quality assurance recordings.

In its motion to dismiss, Humana argued that CIPA exempts “service observing,” or a business’s recording of calls between its employees and customers for quality assurance purposes.  Judge Josephine Staton Tucker rejected Humana’s interpretation of the statute and further found that plaintiff’s complaint did not allege that Humana recorded the call for service observing purposes, refusing to read such purpose into the allegations.

The court also rejected Humana’s contention that plaintiff’s complaint failed to allege that the company did not provide proper notice to him at the outset that the call was being recorded. The court held that plaintiff’s allegation that he was not warned “at any point during the telephone conversation” was sufficient at the pleadings stage, but acknowledged that the issue could be raised again in a motion for summary judgment. Continue Reading Humana’s Quality Assurance Calls Not Exempted From CIPA

Adding to a growing body of decisions considering federal preemption of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”), Judge Chen of the Northern District of California held yesterday that there is no complete preemption, either express or implied, by the federal Wiretap Act.  As a result, Judge Chen granted plaintiff’s…

Continue Reading New Holding That CIPA Not Preempted By Federal Wiretap Act