This piece looks at how that happened and what’s worth paying attention to.

Introduction to CIPA

privacy laws are nothing new, but lately, an old California statute has been making unexpected waves online.

Businesses across the U.S. — and beyond — are finding themselves caught off guard by lawsuits tied to a law written long before the internet even existed.

What’s going on?

Let’s break down how this decades-old legislation is being repurposed for today’s digital world — and why companies should pay close attention.

Why an Old privacy law is Suddenly Trending

The California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) has been around since 1967. It was originally intended to prevent wiretapping and the unauthorized recording of conversations, particularly over the phone.

The law mandates all-party consent, which means everyone involved in a communication must agree to being recorded — no exceptions.

That standard, however, is now being applied to something entirely different: websites.

In recent years, businesses have been hit with lawsuits for using common digital tools that allegedly “record” user interactions without their knowledge or consent. These tools include:

• Tracking pixels (such as Meta Pixel) that fire before consent is obtained
• Chat widgets that capture text input as it’s being typed
• Analytics tools that gather behavioral data passively
• Session replay scripts that log mouse movement, scrolls, and clicks

Plaintiffs claim these technologies function as modern-day wiretaps — monitoring user activity in real time, often in coordination with third parties.

Some courts have begun to agree, allowing cases to proceed even in the absence of sensitive or Personally Identifiable Information.

Under CIPA, the act of capturing the interaction itself — not the type of data collected — is what triggers potential liability.

A Modern Interpretation

What makes this especially risky is that many businesses believe they’re covered by newer privacy laws like the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA). But CIPA operates differently.

It doesn't focus on categories of personal data — it focuses on whether users gave consent before any recording or tracking occurred. That’s a much higher bar.

Consent banners and cookie notices that allow scripts to run before opt-in may not be enough. Lawsuits are being filed on the basis that any recording before consent — even passive tracking — violates the statute.

To address the growing legal uncertainty, California lawmakers introduced Senate Bill 690. The bill aims to narrow the scope of CIPA by creating an exemption for businesses that:

1. Collect data strictly for “commercial purposes”.
2. Are already in compliance with CPRA.

If passed, this would help shield companies from CIPA claims tied to standard web tracking practices — but only moving forward. There are two important limitations to keep in mind:

• SB 690 is not yet law. As of July 2025, it remains under review in the California Assembly and has been designated a two-year bill, which means final passage may not occur until sometime in 2026.
• It will not apply retroactively. Any lawsuits filed before January 1, 2026, will still be evaluated under the current version of CIPA — without protection from the proposed exemption.

Recent rulings by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have only added urgency. The court clarified that while a company might not be liable for recording its own direct communications, claims can still proceed when third-party vendors — such as chat tools or analytics platforms — are involved.

Even indirect, passive monitoring can trigger CIPA violations if consent wasn't given before tracking began, especially when data is intercepted or shared with external services.

While SB 690 may eventually bring relief, it doesn’t solve the problem today. Until the law is officially changed, any website tracking users in California — even for something as routine as analytics — remains at risk if tracking happens before clear, opt-in consent is secured.

CIPA’s Modern‑Day Interpretation and Challenges

As more businesses adopt behavioral analytics, chat automation, and marketing pixels, old legal boundaries are being tested in new ways.

What once seemed like standard web functionality is now the focus of lawsuits claiming illegal surveillance.

The courts are paying attention — and so are plaintiffs’ lawyers.

Pixels, Cookies, and Chatbots: The New Wiretaps?

Plaintiffs are increasingly framing tools like Meta Pixel, chatbots, and session replay scripts as digital wiretaps under CIPA § 631.

They're alleging the tools intercept ongoing communications without proper consent, and courts are often letting those claims survive initial dismissal.

A recent survey by IAPP confirms that since early 2022, nearly 50 class action lawsuits have been filed against companies using Meta Pixel to track video consumption data — allegedly violating VPPA and wiretap-type statutes under CIPA.

In a notable federal case, Lakes v. Ubisoft, plaintiffs alleged multiple privacy violations — including CIPA — over website tracking.

But, the court dismissed all claims because users had been repeatedly presented with and agreed to cookie banners and site terms, demonstrating the power of explicit, documented consent.

Case Study: Meta Pixel and the Explosion of Lawsuits

Meta Pixel routinely shows up in complaint filings. Some real cases include:

• UCSF Medical Center and other hospitals: In 2022, a lawsuit accused Meta Pixel of transmitting protected health information from patient portals to Facebook without consent — claims that include violations of CIPA and state privacy laws.
• Advocate Aurora Health: Faced class action claims that Meta Pixel (alongside Google Analytics) disclosed sensitive health data without authorization. The case resolved with a $12.225 million settlement, affecting more than two million individuals.

Some companies have successfully defended themselves. Ubisoft, for example, backed by documented consent records, avoided liability even when Meta Pixel was deployed — highlighting that robust consent policies can be a strong defense.

Opt‑Out Isn’t Enough: Emerging Litigation Patterns

Even cookies and banners that allow users to “opt‑out” after scripts load aren't safe. New lawsuits focus on:

• Early script execution, where tracking tools fire before consent is obtained
• Third‑party interception, involving analytics or chat providers capturing interactions
• Missing or vague consent, failing to clearly inform users before data capture

Plaintiffs are arguing that timing and transparency matter, especially when vendors are involved.

And recent Ninth Circuit guidance confirms that claims can survive if third parties intercept the “contents” — even indirectly — unless explicit consent is obtained beforehand.

Even if your site lets users opt out, that might not be sufficient. Lawsuits are increasingly based on when tracking kicks in and who is capturing it — even for routine analytics.

Companies relying on after-the-fact opt-outs or vague notices may find themselves at risk, despite believing their consent frameworks are adequate.

Legal Turning Points: How Courts and Lawmakers Are Redefining CIPA Enforcement

CIPA lawsuits aren’t just piling up — they’re hitting real legal friction. Some judges are beginning to question the credibility of claims, while lawmakers in Sacramento are moving to draw clearer lines around how the law applies. It’s a moment of recalibration, and the outcomes could reshape how online tracking is regulated in California.

Landmark CIPA Cases Shaping Online Privacy Enforcement

In Lineberry v. AddShoppers, Inc., a California federal judge denied class certification — not because the legal arguments failed, but because the plaintiffs fell apart under scrutiny.

One couldn’t recall basic browsing behavior. Another deleted evidence during discovery. The case collapsed on credibility, not law.

Something similar happened in Peet’s Coffee v. AddShoppers. Again, the judge refused to certify the class, pointing to gaps between what the plaintiffs alleged and what they could actually prove. When procedural cracks start to show this early, courts are unlikely to let these suits move forward.

Judicial Pushback: Denial of Class Certification in CIPA Suits

Judges are throwing up serious roadblocks to CIPA class actions — and their reasons are often less about privacy and more about plausibility. What’s showing up in recent rulings:

• One plaintiff deleted their browser data — after the lawsuit was filed.
• Another gave conflicting statements about which sites they visited.
• Judges have flagged “boilerplate allegations” that don’t match the facts.
• Courts are questioning whether these named plaintiffs actually represent the broader user experience.
• In some cases, plaintiffs were given multiple chances to fix issues — and still came up short.

The result? More early dismissals. And a growing playbook for companies to challenge class structure head-on.

Senate Bill 690: A Step Toward Limiting Future Risk

California lawmakers are also trying to reduce the scope of CIPA — at least going forward.

On June 3, 2025, the State Senate passed SB 690, a bill that would exempt tracking done for “commercial purposes,” provided the business is CPRA- or CCPA-compliant. But it’s not a magic wand. Here’s what to know:

• The bill applies only to cases filed after January 1, 2026.
• It’s still moving through the Assembly as a two-year bill, which means final passage could take until sometime in 2026.
• Any lawsuits already filed? Still fully active under current CIPA rules.

So, while the bill signals intent to scale things back, it doesn’t help businesses facing lawsuits now.

Practical Compliance: Avoiding CIPA Traps & Safeguarding Your Site

In the real world, even small oversights—like a prematurely firing pixel—can trigger costly lawsuits.

This section breaks down how businesses commonly trip up under CIPA and, more importantly, lays out a clear roadmap for strengthening compliance.

How Businesses Unintentionally Violate CIPA

Even well‑meaning teams can fall into CIPA trouble when they:

• Assume standard cookie banners are enough, even if tracking scripts run before consent.
• Use marketing tools that sync with external servers, inadvertently turning their site into a third-party intercept.
• Roll out new features—like session replay or AI‑powered chat—without verifying consent timing.
• Patch privacy compliance only once after a lawsuit surfaces, rather than proactively auditing their stack.

How to CIPA‑Proof Your Website: A Practical Compliance Checklist

1. Inventory every script you’re running — from pixels and chat widgets to session replay and analytics tools. Know exactly what loads, where it loads, and whether it could be recording interactions.
2. Map script timing against consent by testing your site in an incognito browser. Watch carefully: do any tools fire before a user clicks “Accept”? If yes, that’s a red flag — and it needs fixing.
3. Check vendor relationships to ensure your partners aren’t silently collecting user behavior through embedded tools. Revisit your data-processing agreements and ask tough questions about tracking, recording, or data-sharing practices.
4. Upgrade consent banners to true gatekeepers that actually block tracking technologies until users actively opt-in. Passive warnings or default tracking will not hold up under CIPA scrutiny.
5. Don't settle at “reject all” — ensure no scripts, pixels, or tracking tools are permitted to run until after users say yes. opt-out isn’t enough; CIPA requires active, informed opt-in.
6. Use clear, interactive banner language like: “We will track behavior for analytics — do you agree?” Framing matters and vague consent notices won’t cut it in court.
7. When dealing with minors, collect double consent — both from the child and a verified parent or guardian. CIPA doesn’t distinguish age when it comes to consent requirements, but regulators certainly do.
8. Document everything — from when and how consent was captured to which scripts were held back or blocked. These logs may become your strongest defense if you ever need to demonstrate CIPA compliance.

Role of Consent Management Platforms (CMPs) in CIPA Compliance

As CIPA battles intensify, CMPs are not just about GDPR or CPRA—they’re becoming essential tools for managing when and how tracking tools fire.

A modern CMP needs to go further: not only offer cookie banners but also control script timing, block unwanted tracking, and provide audit-ready documentation.

CookieScript is one such platform adapting to these demands.

It includes features that help with CIPA compliance specifically:

• user consent recording – Logs when and how users gave consent, which can help if there’s ever a legal question.
• Third-party cookie blocking – Stops cookies from loading until users opt-in, preventing data from leaking early.
• Automatic script blocking – Holds off all scripts that collect data until consent is given.
• geo-targeting – Lets you show different banners to users in California to meet local requirements.
• Self-hosted code – Gives more control over your setup and reduces reliance on third parties.
• Google Consent Mode v2 – Helps manage how Google services behave depending on the user's consent choice.
• Advanced reporting – Shows how users interact with your banner and helps track what’s working and what’s not.

CookieScript also comes with other tools that support privacy compliance more broadly:

• Supports 40+ languages – Makes it easier to serve banners in the user’s language.
• Cookie Banner sharing – Useful if you manage several websites or projects.
• IAB TCF 2.2 integration – Helps with ad industry standards if you’re running programmatic ads.
• Privacy Policy Generator – Helps you build a basic, compliant Privacy Policy.
• Automatic monthly cookie scans – Keeps track of any new cookies or tracking tools that show up.

CMPs like CookieScript go beyond just showing a banner—they help control what happens before and after users give consent. For businesses that collect data from California users, having a setup that blocks tracking until there’s clear opt-in is now a baseline requirement under CIPA.

In Spring 2025, CookieScript earned its fourth G2 badge in a row for Best Consent Management Platform.

It’s also recognized as a Google-certified CMP at the Gold tier, meeting the latest standards for consent management compliance.

In Conclusion on CIPA

CIPA’s not going away—and it’s no longer just about wiretaps. Lawsuits are landing over pixels, chat widgets, and replay tools, even when companies think they’re covered by CPRA or GDPR. The problem? CIPA cares about when tracking starts, not just what data you collect.

Other states are watching. Pennsylvania, Florida, maybe even Washington—expect more laws in this wiretap style to show up over the next year or two. And don’t forget the VPPA; that one’s being pulled into lawsuits too.

Here’s the thing: privacy isn’t just about avoiding fines anymore. Done right, it builds trust. Makes you look sharp. Competitive, even.

So what now? Review your banners. Log consent. Target users by region. And make sure nothing runs before someone says yes.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is CIPA and how does it impact website tracking?

CIPA, short for the California Invasion of Privacy Act, makes it illegal to record or intercept user interactions without consent. That includes common website tools like chatbots, tracking pixels, or session replay. A consent platform like CookieScript helps prevent these from loading too early by waiting for the user to opt-in.

Is a basic cookie banner enough to comply with CIPA?

Usually not. CIPA requires that nothing gets tracked until a visitor gives clear, opt-in consent. CookieScript handles this by blocking third-party cookies from running before the user agrees.

Which website features could cause CIPA violations?

Things like session replay, analytics, Meta Pixel, and chat widgets can all capture user behavior. If they do that before someone consents, it's a potential CIPA issue. CookieScript helps manage when those tools load, based on user choice.

Can I still be sued under CIPA if I follow GDPR or CPRA?

Yes—you can. CIPA’s requirements are different. It doesn’t just care about data types—it’s about when recording starts. CookieScript can tweak your banner and cookie behavior for California users specifically, so you’re not caught off guard.

What kind of consent is required under CIPA?

You need active, informed, opt-in consent—before anything is recorded. CookieScript makes sure Tracking Cookies stay paused until that happens.

How does CIPA differ from other privacy laws like CPRA?

The main difference is timing. CPRA focuses on what kind of data is collected. CIPA cares whether a user was recorded before giving consent. CookieScript helps address both by managing cookie behavior and logging consent properly.

What happens if tracking cookies load before consent?

That can open the door to lawsuits under CIPA. Tools like CookieScript are built to stop Tracking Cookies from running until the user clicks “Accept,” avoiding that risk.

Do I need to document user consent for CIPA compliance?

Yes, having a record matters. CookieScript logs user interactions with the banner and stores when consent was given—just in case you need it later.

Are chat widgets a CIPA risk?

They can be. Some start recording input before the user even sends a message. CookieScript can block those kinds of tools until the visitor gives permission.

Does CIPA apply to out-of-state businesses?

It does—if you have users in California, you’re in scope. CookieScript includes geo-targeting so California visitors see the correct consent banner.

What if my analytics tool collects behavioral data before consent?

That’s a red flag under CIPA. CookieScript blocks tracking cookies by default until the visitor opts in, so tracking doesn’t happen too soon.

How can I check if my website is CIPA-compliant?

You’ll want to test how and when cookies run—especially in private browsing. CookieScript helps with this using features like automatic cookie blocking, monthly scans, and detailed reporting.

Will upcoming laws follow CIPA’s wiretapping model?

Probably. States like Pennsylvania and Florida are already exploring similar laws. CookieScript’s regional settings and flexible consent tools help you stay ready for that shift.

Can delayed consent still violate CIPA?

Yes. If anything is recorded before consent—even by accident—it could still be a violation. CookieScript ensures nothing runs until the user gives the green light.

How can a CMP help reduce legal exposure under CIPA?

A CMP controls when cookies fire, captures consent, and logs it all. CookieScript offers exactly that: cookie blocking, consent records, and geo-targeting—all key for staying CIPA-compliant.