California’s Trap and Trace Pen Register Litigation: Key Considerations & How to Respond to a Lawsuit
The California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) is sparking a surge in lawsuits that could profoundly impact businesses with consumer-facing websites. Once focused on law enforcement’s use of “trap and trace” devices, CIPA is now being applied to website tracking technologies like cookies and pixels, exposing companies to significant legal risks. In the article below, JMBM Partner Stuart K. Tubis delves into the key considerations surrounding this trend, the latest court rulings, and practical steps businesses can take to defend against these claims.
California’s Trap and Trace Pen Register Litigation: Key Considerations & How to Respond to a Lawsuit
by Stuart Tubis
The California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) is driving a wave of litigation that could significantly impact businesses with consumer-facing websites. Hundreds of lawsuits have been filed recently alleging that businesses operating in California violated CIPA due to very common software and business practices found on their websites. Initially intended to regulate law enforcement’s use of “trap and trace” devices, plaintiffs now argue that CIPA’s outdated language applies to website tracking tools, such as cookies, pixels, and beacons.
Background on Trap and Trace Provisions
California’s Penal Code Section 638.51 prohibits installing or using a trap and trace device without a court order. A trap and trace device identifies the origin of incoming signals, similar to caller ID but more advanced. Originally, this provision applied only to law enforcement tracking incoming telephone numbers. However, plaintiffs now claim that common online tools also violate the statute by capturing information like IP addresses, geographic data, and browsing habits—data they argue is akin to “dialing, routing, addressing, or signaling information” regulated under CIPA.
The recent lawsuits target businesses across sectors, asserting that website visitor tracking constitutes illegal data collection. Plaintiffs argue that the law’s broad definitions of “trap and trace” devices include online tracking technologies, even though these provisions were designed decades ago with telephones, not the internet, in mind. Many businesses argue this a misapplication of an old law that has no proper application to the internet. Continue reading