{"id":388704,"date":"2026-07-07T02:00:09","date_gmt":"2026-07-07T02:00:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/388704\/"},"modified":"2026-07-07T02:00:09","modified_gmt":"2026-07-07T02:00:09","slug":"bill-to-curb-california-wiretapping-lawsuits-makes-progress-5-takeaways-from-fps-testimony-before-the-state-legislature","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/388704\/","title":{"rendered":"Bill to Curb California Wiretapping Lawsuits Makes Progress: 5 Takeaways from FP\u2019s Testimony Before the State Legislature"},"content":{"rendered":"

Bill to Curb California Wiretapping Lawsuits Makes Progress: 5 Takeaways from FP\u2019s Testimony Before the State Legislature<\/p>\n

California businesses have already paid more than half a billion dollars to settle lawsuits over ordinary website cookies, and the tally climbs each day this problem goes unaddressed. That\u2019s the message Fisher Phillips Privacy and Cyber Co-Chair Usama Kahf delivered on July 1 when he testified before the California Assembly Privacy Committee in support of SB 690, a bill designed to curb what supporters call a \u201cshakedown\u201d of businesses under the state\u2019s decades-old wiretapping law. At the end of the hearing, the committee voted to advance the bill, giving businesses a reason for some optimism. Here are five takeaways from the hearing, the committee vote, and what\u2019s to come next.<\/p>\n

1. The Numbers Behind the \u201cShakedown\u201d Are Staggering<\/p>\n

Kahf told committee members that Fisher Phillips alone has handled roughly 250 matters involving businesses that complied with the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), yet were still sued for using standard website tools like analytics and cybersecurity software. Statewide, he testified, opportunistic plaintiffs have filed more than 3,800 lawsuits under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA). And for every lawsuit filed, plaintiffs and their attorneys are sending an estimated 10 to 15 additional demand letters or arbitration claims that never reach the public record. (You can track the lawsuits on FP\u2019s Digital Wiretapping Litigation Map<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

With typical settlements running $15,000 to $25,000, Kahf estimated the total drain on California businesses at over half a billion dollars, flowing largely to a small handful of plaintiffs\u2019 firms. The targets, he emphasized, aren\u2019t all Fortune 500 companies or Big Tech. They\u2019re small employers (such as your local non-chain coffee shops, plumbers, HVAC providers, construction contractors, or flower shops), nonprofits, schools, public agencies, hospitals, local newspapers, and even B-2-B companies that do not sell or provide goods and services to individual consumers or the public at large.<\/p>\n

\"Usama<\/a><\/p>\n

2. There\u2019s No Real Harm, Just a Technical Trigger<\/p>\n

The core of Kahf\u2019s testimony is that these lawsuits don\u2019t allege any actual injury. Instead, they target ordinary technology \u2013 like cookies used for analytics or basic cybersecurity \u2013 and treat a technical violation as grounds for a payout. Plaintiffs argue that penalties under the wiretapping provision can stack at $5,000 per third-party cookie, per visitor, per session on the website, which means damages can escalate quickly even when a business uses common, widely available tools in good faith and in full compliance with the CCPA, the only law on the books with specific regulations addressing use of cookies on websites.<\/p>\n

This is why a wide range of community interests testified in favor of SB 690 along with Kahf. Dozens of businesses, community activists, nonprofits, and industry associations showed up to express support, including Jeff Glasser, General Counsel of the LA Times, who also testified alongside Kahf and Senator Caballero in support of the bill.<\/p>\n

3. One Litigant\u2019s Story Shows How Far Things Have Gone<\/p>\n

Kahf\u2019s most striking example involved Vivek Shah, a self-represented plaintiff who spent seven years in federal prison for an extortion-related felony before turning to CIPA claims. In the two months before the hearing, Kahf testified, Shah sent an estimated tens of thousands of demand letters, mostly asserting claims under Section 631, CIPA\u2019s wiretapping provision, rather than the \u201cpen register\u201d provision that SB 690 has been narrowed down to address. Fisher Phillips alone has fielded over 80 matters involving this single plaintiff. As Kahf testified, Shah demands a payment, doesn\u2019t negotiate, and many businesses settle simply because litigation would cost more than the demand itself. You can read more about Shah\u2019s demand letters here<\/a> (along with a plan to respond if your business receives such a letter).<\/p>\n

When a committee member asked Kahf about the scope of the situation during Q&A, he didn\u2019t pull punches. He pointed out that the technology driving these claims, like Google Analytics, is so common that it\u2019s running on the websites of committee members \u2013 and even the hearing\u2019s opposition witnesses. He said he\u2019d checked one opposition witness\u2019s site himself that day and found his own data being shared with Facebook. His point: the businesses being targeted aren\u2019t uniquely careless. They\u2019re using the same tools nearly everyone else uses, which is exactly why the volume of claims has exploded.<\/p>\n

\"Usama<\/a><\/p>\n

4. SB 690 Solves Part of the Problem, Not All of It<\/p>\n

The version of SB 690 that advanced on July 1 looks different from the bill as originally introduced (which you can read about here<\/a>). After months of negotiation with privacy advocates who worried the original language would let large tech companies escape accountability, the bill\u2019s author, Senator Anna Caballero, agreed to narrow its scope. As amended, SB 690 now removes the private right of action only for claims under CIPA\u2019s \u201cpen register\u201d provision, the metadata-tracking tool provision, and would apply retroactively to lawsuits filed on or after January 1, 2025, that are still pending when the bill would take effect.<\/p>\n

That means Section 631, the wiretapping provision Kahf identified as the source of most current abuse, including by the serial-plaintiff he described, is not addressed by the bill as amended. Businesses and nonprofits should understand that even if SB 690 passes in its current form, cases alleging both pen register and wiretapping violations (a common pairing) won\u2019t simply disappear. Businesses facing pen-register-only claims may see relief, but the wiretapping exposure Kahf spent much of his testimony describing would remain on the table, and it is common for plaintiffs to pivot to other claims when one door is shut.<\/p>\n

5. The Bill Still Has a Path to Travel, and So Do Website Operators<\/p>\n

SB 690 next heads to the Assembly Appropriations Committee for an August hearing, and several Democratic lawmakers who voted to advance the bill asked Caballero to keep working with opponents before it reaches the Assembly floor. Privacy advocates, including labor leader Dolores Huerta and groups like TechEquity, expressed concern over the retroactivity provision and are continuing to review the amended language.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, a business coalition called Stop CIPA Shakedown Lawsuits has criticized the amendments for not going far enough, since they leave Section 631 exposure untouched.<\/p>\n

For website operators, there are two practical takeaways:<\/p>\n

Businesses can watch SB 690\u2019s progress through August and weigh in through industry coalitions if they want the wiretapping provision addressed before a final vote. Reach out to our FP Government Relations<\/a> team or our FP Gov group<\/a> to have your voice heard.
\nAt the same time, waiting on legislation isn\u2019t a strategy on its own. You may want to have your counsel review your website\u2019s tracking technology, consent mechanisms, and vendor relationships now, given that thousands of demand letters are still going out regardless of where the bill ends up. Here are five specific steps you can take now<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/p>\n

Fisher Phillips will continue to track SB 690 as it moves through the Legislature. To stay current on CIPA developments, legislative progress, and other California privacy litigation trends, subscribe to\u00a0Fisher Phillips\u2019 Insights<\/a>.\u00a0If you have questions about CIPA compliance or exposure, reach out to your Fisher Phillips attorney, the authors of this Insight, or any member of the firm\u2019s Consumer Privacy Team<\/a>, or our Digital Wiretapping Litigation Team<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Bill to Curb California Wiretapping Lawsuits Makes Progress: 5 Takeaways from FP\u2019s Testimony Before the State Legislature California…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":379721,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[2007,156665,7,9,8,156666,79980,156667,97791,71324,153581,153579,153574,153577,153580,153575,153582,153583,153584,153576,9295,156664,156668,156663,156669,153578],"class_list":["post-388704","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-california","tag-ai","tag-ai-laws","tag-california","tag-california-headlines","tag-california-news","tag-ccpa","tag-cipa","tag-cipa-news","tag-consumer-privacy","tag-data-privacy","tag-employment-law-articles","tag-employment-law-blog","tag-employment-law-news","tag-employment-law-news-today","tag-labor-and-employment-law-blog","tag-labor-and-employment-law-news","tag-labor-law-articles","tag-labor-law-news","tag-labor-law-updates","tag-law-employment-news","tag-privacy","tag-privacy-laws","tag-privacy-news","tag-sp-690","tag-usama-kahf","tag-workplace-law-blog"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/388704","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=388704"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/388704\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/379721"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=388704"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=388704"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=388704"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}