Website Tracking Technologies and CIPA: What Businesses Need to Know
In the ever-evolving legal landscape of online privacy, businesses that use website tracking technologies must stay informed about the latest judicial developments. In the past month, California judges have issued favorable rulings for defendants in cases asserting that website tracking technologies constitute illegal pen registers or trap-and-trace devices under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA). However, conflicting decisions from federal courts indicate that the litigation risks remain high.
Understanding CIPA and the Pen Register/Trap and Trace Claims
CIPA Section 638.51 prohibits the installation or use of a pen register or trap and trace device without first obtaining a court order. Historically, these tools were used by law enforcement to track incoming and outgoing call logs, but recent class action lawsuits have sought to expand their application to modern website tracking technologies. Plaintiffs argue that these tracking tools, which collect IP addresses and sometimes geolocation data, are the digital equivalent of telephone tracking devices and thus violate CIPA when used without user consent.
California State Courts Reject Broad CIPA Claims
Recent rulings from California state courts have pushed back against these claims. In Sanchez v. Cars.com and Aviles v. LiveRamp, Inc., superior courts ruled that tracking a website visitor’s IP address does not constitute an illegal pen register or trap and trace device under CIPA. The courts emphasized that collecting IP addresses is a fundamental aspect of internet functionality, and visitors should have a reasonable expectation that their IP addresses may be tracked when they access a website. These defense-friendly decisions provide some relief to businesses facing similar lawsuits.
Federal Courts Take a Different Stance
While state courts have dismissed these claims, California federal courts have taken a more expansive view of CIPA’s applicability. In cases such as Moody v. C2 Educational Systems Inc. and Rodriguez v. Autotrader.com, Inc., federal judges refused to dismiss pen register claims, asserting that tracking pixels might qualify as illegal tracking devices. The courts rejected the argument that businesses should be shielded from liability simply because tracking IP addresses is necessary for website functionality. Similarly, in Shah v. Fandom, Inc., the Northern District of California held that third-party trackers collecting IP address information could fall within CIPA’s scope. These rulings open the door for continued litigation and heightened legal risk for businesses employing tracking technologies.
Legal Risks and Best Practices for Businesses
With conflicting court rulings, businesses must remain proactive in mitigating potential legal exposure. Here are key steps businesses can take:
Consult with Legal Counsel – Businesses should seek legal advice from a corporate lawyer or legal counsel lawyer specializing in privacy laws to assess their risks and compliance strategies.
Review Website Tracking Technologies – Companies should conduct a thorough review of the tracking technologies implemented on their websites and evaluate whether these tools collect data beyond what is necessary for website functionality.
Update Privacy Policies – Ensuring that privacy policies accurately disclose the use of tracking technologies is a crucial legal service that can help businesses maintain transparency with users.
Obtain User Consent – Implementing mechanisms to obtain affirmative user consent before firing tracking technologies can reduce legal exposure and align with best practices for compliance.
Monitor Legal Developments – Given the evolving legal landscape, businesses should stay informed about new court rulings and legislative changes that could impact their obligations under CIPA.
As the courts continue to grapple with the interpretation of CIPA, businesses must take a proactive approach to compliance. Seeking practical legal guidance from experienced legal counsel is critical to navigating these complex legal issues. Whether you need legal advice on privacy compliance or broader corporate legal aid, engaging a knowledgeable corporate lawyer can help safeguard your business from potential litigation risks.
EWGC Disclaimer©2025 East West General Counsel. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice, nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between East West General Counsel and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Reproduction of this material in whole or in part is prohibited without the express prior written consent of East West General Counsel.
Comments