It’s been over a year since I looked at California SB 690, a bill which sought to amend a 1967 (!) law, the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), designed for the age of the landline telephone.
“[A] ton of lawsuits tried to apply 1967 law to modern use cases, including (Fisher Phillips) ‘routine website technologies such as cookies, pixels, search bar/form, chatbots, and session replay tools.’”
Back in mid 2025 SB 690 passed the Senate, but bill sponsor Senator Anna Caballero deliberately paused Assembly consideration.
“The Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee of the California State Assembly heard testimony on support and opposition to SB 690 late Wednesday, July 1….
“After hearing from several key stakeholders, the bill’s sponsor, Senator Anna Caballero, again amended the bill Wednesday. As amended, the bill: (1) applies only to California’s pen register and trap and trace statute, California Penal Code §§ 638.50 and 638.51, and (2) removes the private right of action for a violation of these statutes. The amended bill instead provides the California attorney general with the authority to bring claims.”
Private right of action is a biggie which has made millions of dollars for Illinois lawyers—I mean Illinois consumers via the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). Removing private right of action aligns CIPA with 21st century California privacy law, the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA).
Are those enough acronyms for you?
Back to SB 690. As is usual in legislation, some Assemblypersons thought the amendments were great, some didn’t, and others thought they didn’t go far enough. Whether the increased support guarantees passage remains to be seen.
Bredemarket 