CIPA lawsuits are targeting websites with cookie trackers. Here’s what you need to know
For many businesses that have an online presence, tools like Google Analytics, Meta Pixel, and Hotjar are part of the standard setup. Today, those same tools can expose a business to legal claims under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA).
CIPA is a California wiretapping law passed way back in 1967, decades before cookies and online advertising existed. People filing these lawsuits argue that tracking tools can record clicks, page views, form entries, and other activity before a website visitor agrees to be tracked. That’s why the cookie consent pop-up visitors see may not be enough.
These lawsuits are a growing concern, but businesses do not need to remove every analytics tool. In the following article, I explain which trackers pose the greatest risk and how consent management platforms, such as Cookiebot, can prevent them from collecting data until a visitor agrees.
What is CIPA, and why does it apply to websites?
The California Invasion of Privacy Act, or CIPA, is a California privacy and wiretapping statute from 1967. The law was originally designed to address technologies used to listen to or intercept private communications.
Although it predates websites, Section 631 may still apply today. In the context of websites, this may happen when an outside company intercepts a visitor’s clicks, typed text, or other activity in real time without the consent of all parties involved.
Simply displaying a cookie consent banner may not be enough. If tracking tools start collecting data before the visitor accepts them, the website may still face CIPA claims. The key legal issue is whether an outside service starts collecting a visitor’s data before valid consent is given.
This does not mean that every cookie tracker or analytics tool automatically violates CIPA. The outcome depends on what the website collects, when it starts, how the outside company uses the data, and, most importantly, what consent the visitor provided. A consent management tool, such as Cookiebot, can help by blocking non-essential trackers until the visitor makes a choice.
A business does not need to be based in California to face a CIPA claim. The law may still apply if the website collects data from visitors in California, even when the company operates elsewhere, although the outcome may still depend on the company’s connection to the state and the facts of the case.
Which website tracking tools create the most risk?
The biggest CIPA concern comes from analytics platforms, ad pixels, session-replay software, heatmaps, and chat widgets. However, none of these tools automatically breaks CIPA. The issues start when they send meaningful visitor activity to another company before the website clearly explains the collection and gains consent.
Analytics and tag managers
Analytics tools can create CIPA risk if they start sending visitor data before the person agrees. They are usually less concerning when they only show general numbers, such as how many people visited a page. The risk rises when they follow visitors, record the exact pages they viewed or searches they made, and send that activity to another company before consent.
The data doesn’t even need to include personal information, such as name or email address. As simple as device ID can still connect several actions to the same visitor and help build a profile. This may create CIPA risk when an outside company also receives details about what the visitor viewed, searched for, clicked, or entered before gaining consent.
Without consent tools, such as Cookiebot, these trackers may start as soon as the page opens. Tag managers like Google Tag Manager can make this harder to notice because they manage many tracking tools from a single place, including older tags that the website owner may have forgotten about.
Advertising pixels
Advertising pixels send visitor actions to platforms such as Meta or Google. This can include viewing a product, adding an item to a cart, or completing a purchase.
Using a third-party pixel is not automatically a CIPA problem. What matters is the type of information the pixel sends, when it sends it, and whether the visitor agreed first. For example, reporting that someone opened a general product page is usually less concerning than sending a specific search term, account detail, or information related to a health or financial service.
The main CIPA concern regarding the advertising pixel is that it may report a visitor’s activity to another company before gaining consent. If the pixel is set up incorrectly or is not temporarily held by a consent tool such as Cookiebot, plaintiffs may argue that the third party received the visitor’s communication before the visitor agreed.
Session replay and heatmap tools
Session replay tools such as Hotjar and FullStory can recreate a visitor’s full journey through a website. Depending on the setup, they can record which pages someone opened, where they clicked, how far they scrolled, and what they typed into search boxes.
This level of detail can help website owners find various issues that users may encounter and improve the site. However, it also makes the technology a very attractive target for CIPA claims.
Heatmaps are usually less detailed than session recordings. They show where visitors as a group click or how far they scroll, rather than replaying one person’s full visit.
This may create less CIPA concern, given that the provider only receives general data that cannot be linked to any one visitor. However, since heatmap tools first collect click, scroll, and mouse movement data from individual visits before combining them into a heatmap, website owners should still check what the provider collects before consent, not just what appears in the final report.
Chatbots and live-chat widgets
Chat widgets can create CIPA concerns if messages pass through an outside provider. The risk grows exponentially if the third-party provider reads, analyzes, or uses the conversation for its own purposes, such as AI training, before the visitor receives clear notice and gives consent.
Website owners should check who receives chat messages and what that company does with them. They should also explain clearly any third-party involvement before the visitor starts the conversation. If the widget is non-essential, a tool such as Cookiebot can assist by blocking it until the visitor receives a clear notice and gives consent.
How do CIPA website tracking lawsuits work?
Most CIPA website claims follow a similar pattern. A visitor opens a site, a script such as Meta Pixel, Google Analytics, or session replay software collects data, and that information reaches a third party before consent is given. The plaintiff then argues that this amounted to unlawful interception or tracking.
An actual CIPA claim may start with a pre-litigation demand letter rather than a court filing. It may identify the tracker, show browser traffic, and request a settlement before filing a class-action lawsuit. If indeed a CIPA violation occurred, this is where businesses usually settle, since if the dispute continues, then they may file an individual or class-action lawsuit.
CIPA can put significant financial pressure on businesses because plaintiffs may seek up to $5,000 per violation, or three times their actual statutory damages, and a person may also bring a claim even if they cannot show direct financial loss.
That does not necessarily mean that every claimant will receive $5,000 for every page view or website action. Courts do not use one fixed method to count violations, but the potential total can still rise quickly when thousands of visitors are involved.
Courts may disagree about whether a violation occurred, whether the plaintiff consented, whether the collected data qualifies as communication content, and how damages should be calculated. Even so, legal fees, technical reviews, and months of litigation can cost enough to make a settlement look cheaper than fighting the claim.
Is a cookie banner enough for CIPA compliance?
A cookie banner alone is not guaranteed to protect a website from CIPA claims. The important part is what happens before the visitor makes a choice. If Meta Pixel, Google Analytics, Hotjar, or another third-party tracker starts sending data before an actual consent occurs, the banner may be too late.
The timing matters under CIPA Section 631. For example, in Javier v. Assurance IQ, the Ninth Circuit found that consent must come before the alleged interception. Basically, agreeing to a privacy policy after it occurs does not retroactively authorize data collection that had already happened.
This is pretty simple if you’re a website owner: notice and consent are not the same thing. Telling visitors that tracking happens is different from giving them a meaningful chance to agree before it starts.
The most common problems include:
- Relying on passive consent. Some banners state that visitors agree to cookies by continuing to browse or scroll. CIPA case law has not ruled out implied consent in every situation, but courts have questioned whether inconspicuous privacy-policy links provide sufficient consent. In a March 2026 case against Skullcandy, a federal court refused to dismiss CIPA claims based on consent where the site relied on small footer links and did not require users to actively agree.
- The banner appears after tracking has already started. This is probably the easiest mistake to make. A visitor sees a cookie banner, but Meta Pixel, or another tracker, has already loaded in the background and received data. Clicking Accept after the fact may not be sufficient.
- Poorly set up opt-in consent management platform. If the CMP is configured incorrectly, non-essential trackers may still run before consent. Cookiebot CMP by Usercentrics, for example, must be set up to load before the scripts it is meant to control.
Overall, a good setup blocks all non-essential trackers until the visitor makes a choice. Even with CMP’s, such as Cookiebot, website owners should test the site in a fresh browser session to make sure the blocking works as intended.
A practical way to reduce CIPA risk with Cookiebot by Usercentrics
Consent management platforms, such as Cookiebot by Usercentrics, can help reduce CIPA risk by stopping non-essential trackers before a visitor gives consent. The important part is not the banner itself, but whether the website actually prevents tools like Meta Pixel, Google Analytics, or session replay from loading too early.
Cookiebot takes over script blocking, tracker scanning, and consent records in one CMP. Its most important purpose is enforcing the visitor’s consent choice at the technical level, giving marketing and compliance teams the needed control over advertising tools without requiring them to remove the entire tracking setup.
| Cookiebot function | Why it matters for CIPA risk |
| Blocking scripts before agreeing to them | Cookiebot can block non-essential cookies, scripts, pixels, iframes, and other resources until the visitor accepts the relevant category, preventing third-party tracking from starting before consent |
| Automated cookie and tracker scanning | Cookiebot scans websites for technologies including HTTP and JavaScript cookies, local storage, IndexedDB, and tracking pixels. The scan report also shows where a tracker was found and what may have loaded it, which can help teams uncover old tags or forgotten tracking tools. |
| Consent records and documentation | Cookiebot automatically records consent given through the website and lets account owners download consent logs. These records can assist internal audits and help document how users responded to the consent setup if it is later reviewed or challenged. |
| Easier day-to-day compliance management | Cookiebot brings scanning, consent choices, and blocking rules into one system, giving marketing and compliance teams more control over analytics and advertising tools without removing the entire analytics stack |
Cookiebot does not guarantee that a website complies with CIPA or cannot be sued. Website owners remain responsible for their configuration, disclosures, tracking tools, and legal obligations.
How can you audit a website for CIPA exposure?
The most important part of a CIPA risk audit is identifying what starts collecting data before the visitor has agreed to it. The easiest way to check is to follow the website journey from the first page load through the most sensitive interactions.
Here’s a general checklist to follow:
- Document clearly every third-party tool in use on your site. Include analytics, advertising pixels, tag managers, session replay, chat widgets, plugins, embedded videos, and form services
- Check what loads before consent. Open your website in a fresh private browser window without interacting with the cookie banner, then check which cookies, scripts, and network requests start loading
- Reject all non-essential tracking and check again. Confirm that analytics, advertising, session-replay, and other optional trackers remain blocked after you choose Reject
- Test whether your CMP actually blocks trackers. Make sure Cookiebot by Usercentrics or another CMP controls non-essential scripts based on consent instead of simply displaying a banner
- Check pages where visitors enter information. Pay extra attention to forms, checkout pages, account areas, search boxes, and live chat, where third-party tools may receive information visitors type or submit
- Compare your findings with your privacy disclosures. Make sure your data privacy compliance policy and cookie terms accurately reflect the trackers and any third parties currently active on your website
- Keep records of your audit and consent setup. Save scan results, consent logs, CMP settings, configuration changes, and testing dates so you can document how tracking and consent were handled
- Repeat the cookie audit after website changes. New plugins, advertising campaigns, tags, embedded tools, or performance services can introduce trackers or change when existing ones load
Will legislation fix this? The SB 690 debate explained
California Senate Bill 690 could significantly change the current CIPA claims for businesses. If passed in its current form, it would remove the private right of action for claims under CIPA Section 638.51. That means individuals could no longer sue directly over those claims, leaving enforcement to the California Attorney General. This could significantly reduce the wave of demand letters targeting businesses over common website tracking technologies.
The bill was amended on July 2nd, 2026, and while it addresses private claims under CIPA Section 638.51, it does not remove Section 631, which is still used for claims involving third-party trackers intercepting website communications. SB 690 also remains proposed legislation, so its wording may change again, and it has stalled before.
Even if it passes in August, the changes would not take effect immediately, and some parts of the bill could still face legal challenges. Businesses that wait are still exposed in the meantime, and the consent and tracking setup that helps reduce CIPA risk today is also good practice for other privacy frameworks, such as GDPR.
Overall, businesses should not wait for legislation to change and should instead check which trackers load before consent, block non-essential scripts, and keep clear records of user choices.
Final thoughts – your website is not too small to be a target
CIPA risk is not limited to large companies with complicated tracking setups. Any size website owner that relies on Google Analytics, Meta Pixel, Hotjar, or a live-chat widget can still get into trouble if those tools send data before the visitor has made a consent choice.
That said, you don’t need to rip out every analytics and marketing tool. Simple precautions can help reduce the risks and save a lot of valuable time.
Start by checking what loads when someone first opens the site, block non-essential trackers until consent, and make sure your privacy disclosures match what actually happens in the background. Recheck the setup whenever you add a new plugin, campaign, tag, or tracking service.
A properly configured CMP, such as Cookiebot by Usercentrics, can make this much easier. A CMP can scan for trackers, prevent non-essential scripts from loading too early, and record user choices. However, websites must still configure, test, and regularly audit their systems to ensure they work as intended.
FAQ
Does CIPA only apply to California-based companies?
No. CIPA does not only apply to California-based companies. However, simply making a website available in California does not automatically establish liability, as the claim still depends on the tracking activity, user consent, and whether a California court has jurisdiction over the business.
Is a cookie banner enough to avoid a CIPA lawsuit?
Not necessarily. If third-party trackers start collecting data before the visitor consents, a cookie banner alone won’t remove CIPA risk. To reduce this risk, businesses can use a properly configured CMP, such as Cookiebot by Usercentrics, to block non-essential scripts until consent is given and to keep a record of each user’s decision.
Which website tools are commonly involved in CIPA claims?
Website tools commonly used in CIPA claims include session replay software, advertising pixels, analytics trackers, and third-party chat widgets. These tools can become a concern if they send clicks, searches, form entries, chat messages, or other user activity to an outside provider without proper consent.
Why are session-replay tools considered risky?
Session-replay tools can be risky because they may record how people use a website, including clicks, scrolling, page visits, and form activity. If a third-party provider receives this data before the user gives consent, plaintiffs may argue that the website allowed their activity to be intercepted under CIPA.
How can Cookiebot by Usercentrics help reduce CIPA exposure?
Cookiebot CMP by Usercentrics can help reduce CIPA risk by blocking non-essential scripts from loading before a visitor gives consent. It can also scan the website for tracking tools and keep a record of each user’s consent choice. However, Cookiebot must be set up correctly to make sure those trackers are actually blocked.
Should businesses wait for SB 690?
No. SB 690 could be significant if passed, as it would remove the private right of action behind many CIPA demand letters under Section 638.51. But it is still pending, its wording may change, and even if it passes, the changes will take time to come into effect and could face legal challenges. Businesses that wait remain exposed in the meantime, so fix your consent and tracking setup now.
What is the difference between CIPA and CCPA?
CIPA is a California law focused on interception or recording of communications and is now used in some lawsuits involving website trackers. CCPA is broader and gives California residents rights over how businesses collect, use, sell, and share their personal information.
