In this episode of Consumer Counterpoint, Kristine and Paul discuss the recent passing of the amendment to the California Invasion of Privacy Act which eliminates the private right of action for Section 638.51 claims. The amendment is expected to take effect on January 1, 2027.
Subscribe to the Consumer
California lawmakers have sent Senate Bill 690 to Governor Gavin Newsom, teeing up a narrowing of website-tracking litigation under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), who has until September 30 to sign or veto the legislation. If signed, the bill would eliminate private lawsuits asserting website-based “pen register” and “trap and trace” claims under
The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, has issued its tentative ruling in Variety Media, LLC v. Superior Court, the closely watched writ proceeding that asks whether the pen register provisions of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”) apply to common website tracking technologies. The tentative decision would grant Variety’s petition in part and …
Continue Reading California Court of Appeal Tentatively Holds That Collecting a Website Visitor’s IP Address Alone Does Not Constitute Pen Register Activity Under CIPA
Senior United States District Judge William H. Orrick, sitting in the Northern District of California, denied a motion to dismiss last week in an Automated License Plate Recognition (“ALPR”) matter, McGinty v. Reimagined Parking LLC, d/b/a Imperial Parking.[1] Judge Orrick held that the plaintiff plausibly alleged actionable harm based on his “right to know” about the use of ALPR systems in two garages. The order follows Bartholomew v. Parking Concepts, Inc.[2] and the guidance of Mata v. Digital Recognition Network, Inc.,[3] concluding that the California Supreme Court would likely recognize violation of a consumer’s “right to know” as actionable harm under California’s ALPR law if presented with the question.
Continue Reading Federal Court Follows Bartholomew Reasoning in Denying Motion to Dismiss ALPR Lawsuit
On July 21, 2026, the California Privacy Protection Agency, now branding itself publicly as CalPrivacy, announced that its Audits Division has launched its first formal privacy audit, focused on gig economy platforms operating in California. The audit is the first in a planned series of “sectoral audits” and will evaluate whether major gig platforms are complying with the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), particularly with respect to consumers’ and workers’ rights to access and control personal information.
Although the audit is directed at app-based transportation, delivery, and task-service platforms, the broader message is important for any business collecting applicant, worker, contractor, geolocation, profiling, performance, biometric, communications data, or automated decision-making technology (ADMT) use in California. CalPrivacy’s focus on gig workers also reinforces a point that employers and workforce platforms should not underestimate: California privacy rights apply not only to traditional consumers, but also to employees, job applicants, and independent contractors.
Continue Reading California Privacy Regulator Launches First Sectoral Audit—Targets Gig Platforms
This post was originally published as a Seyfarth legal update.
Seyfarth Synopsis: A divided Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel has ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts California Assembly Bill 51 (AB 51), which purports to prohibit employers from requiring job applicants and workers from signing arbitration pacts. The panel further concluded
This post was originally published on Seyfarth’s Gadgets, Gigabytes & Goodwill blog.
A recent motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement filed in federal court in Georgia will bring to a close claims asserted on behalf of a class of Porsche owners for a purportedly botched over-the-air (“OTA”) software update sent to
In this webinar, Seyfarth attorneys Robert Milligan, Jonathan Braunstein, Daniel Joshua Salinas, and Darren Dummit covered the recent developments in consumer class actions related to COVID-19 in California, explaining the claims and expected defenses, and proactive attempts that companies can employ now to attempt to avoid these suits.
As a conclusion to this webinar, we
Companies responding to the pandemic are faced with the challenges of not only complying with 
federal, state, and local emergency orders and guidelines for each location in which they operate, but also ensuring that any measures taken to address the foregoing do not affect compliance with other laws. In the wake of business closures and
On March 4, 2020, California Governor Gavin Newsom declared a state of emergency in response to the COVID-19 public health emergency. Price gouging is illegal in all California communities during the declared state of emergency.
Executive Order N-44-20 makes it unlawful to increase the price of food items, consumer goods, or medical and emergency supplies