The Truth About ‘Digital Wiretapping’ Claims: Understanding California’s CIPA and What It Really Means for Your Website
Across the country, utilities and cooperatives are increasingly being swept into a wave of “privacy” demand letters alleging violations of California law. The letters sound intimidating; often referencing “violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA)” and threats of lawsuits in Los Angeles courts, but what’s actually behind them is less dramatic than it appears.
Over the past few months, we’ve seen a sharp increase in carbon-copy legal complaints and “informal dispute” letters filed under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA). These filings often use charged language, accusing website operators of “corporate surveillance,” “digital wiretapping,” and “clandestine interception” of user communications. This designed to sound alarming, but when you look past the adjectives, the allegations always describe something mundane: a visitor typing a voluntary search term into a public website field while standard analytics scripts record site performance data. In almost every case, these plaintiffs appear to be re-using a single complaint template, substituting only the defendant’s name and website URL. The strategy is to rely on fear of litigation to pressure organizations into quick settlements rather than litigating claims that lack both technological and legal merit.
What these lawsuits describe as “digital wiretapping” is, in fact, how the Internet normally functions. When a website visitor performs a search on a website, their browser sends an encrypted HTTPS request to that site’s own server, often generating a standard URL that includes the search term as part of the address (for example, “/search?query=term”). That request may also trigger analytics code operated on the site’s behalf; such as Google Analytics to record which pages were viewed and how visitors navigate the site. This is ordinary, transparent web functionality, not surveillance. No “unknown third-party eavesdroppers” are intercepting anything in transit; the data flow is direct, encrypted, and authorized. Courts across the country have repeatedly confirmed that this activity falls far outside the scope of CIPA §631, a 1967 wiretap statute written decades before modern websites existed.
The recent complaints appear to rely on self-created “evidence,” where the claimant deliberately types their own name into a site’s search bar to generate a URL containing that term, then points to the resulting analytics record as proof of an alleged privacy violation. This manufactured scenario misrepresents how normal, voluntary website searches and analytics operate.
Here’s our take on what’s going on and why these claims have little to do with how utilities responsibly use web technology:
The Law Being Cited: California’s Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA)
The California Invasion of Privacy Act, enacted in 1967 and codified in California Penal Code §631, was born in the Cold War era. Its original goal was to protect Californians from telephonic wiretapping and eavesdropping. The law made it a crime to “intercept or attempt to learn the contents or meaning of any message while it is in transit.”
At the time, “communications” meant phone calls and telegraphs, not encrypted web traffic or analytics scripts. Nonetheless, the California plaintiff has recently tried to stretch this decades-old wiretap law to target ordinary website features like analytics tools, cookies, and chat widgets; technologies used by nearly every modern organization to maintain and improve digital performance.
Why It’s Being Confused with Other “Privacy” Laws
There’s a lot of acronym overlap:
| Abbreviation | Full Name | Enacted | Purpose |
|---|---|---|---|
| CIPA | California Invasion of Privacy Act | 1967 | Wiretap and eavesdropping on telephones |
| CCPA | California Consumer Privacy Act | 2018 | Consumer data rights and transparency for online businesses |
| CIPA (Federal) | Children’s Internet Protection Act | 2000 | Federal requirement for schools/libraries to filter harmful content |
Because two of these share the same abbreviation, it’s easy for non-lawyers and even opportunistic litigants to conflate them. The truth is that the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) is the one relevant to websites and online data transparency, not the Invasion of Privacy Act.
How the Plaintiffs’ Have Exploited CIPA
Over the past few years, some plaintiffs’ attorneys have filed hundreds of lawsuits alleging that routine website analytics “intercept” private communications. These claims hinge on a creative and increasingly discredited reading of §631(a).
While a few early cases survived motions to dismiss, the tide has turned:
- Gutierrez v. Converse Inc. (9th Cir. 2025) affirmed summary judgment for the defendant, holding §631(a) doesn’t apply to Internet communications.
- Ramos v. Gap Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2025) dismissed a claim that marketing pixels constituted unlawful wiretapping, recognizing that the retailer was itself a party to the communication.
- Torres v. Prudential Financial Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2025) rejected the idea that third-party cookies qualify as “interceptions” under §631(a).
These and other rulings confirm what common sense already tells us: Analytics and operational tools running on a company’s own website are not wiretaps.
Legislative Reform on the Horizon
Recognizing the abuse, the California Senate unanimously passed Senate Bill 690 (SB 690) on June 3, 2025. The bill would create a “commercial business purpose” exception, eliminating private CIPA lawsuits based on normal business use of tracking technologies.
Although SB 690 has been delayed into a “two-year bill” for additional debate, its strong bipartisan support signals that California policymakers understand how far these lawsuits have strayed from the law’s original intent. If enacted, the reform could take effect as early as 2027 and would likely end most of these opportunistic filings.
Courts Are Already Skeptical
Even without new legislation, courts are increasingly skeptical of applying a 1960s wiretap law to 21st-century websites. Judges have emphasized that:
- CIPA was written for telephonic interception, not HTTP requests.
- A business that operates a website is a party to the communication, not a third-party eavesdropper.
- Posted privacy policies satisfy any reasonable expectation of notice.
- Data gathered through analytics is typically anonymized or pseudonymized, not personally identifying.
Simply put, there is no “listening in” when a user voluntarily interacts with a website.
Practical Steps to Minimize Risk
Even though these lawsuits are weak, utilities and cooperatives can take simple steps to reinforce good digital hygiene:
- Audit your website technologies. Know exactly which cookies, pixels, and analytics scripts are in use. (With Powerful, the only tracking done is through Google Analytics unless an organization explicitly requests additional tracking methods).
- Verify anonymization. Confirm that IP addresses or device IDs are masked or pseudonymized. (This is done automatically with how we implement Google Analytics).
- Document your compliance. Clear records of policies, vendor contracts, and consent mechanisms are your best defense.
These steps aren’t about fear, they’re about continuing to model transparency and trust.
The Bigger Picture
Utilities and cooperatives operate on community trust. That’s why it’s frustrating to see laws meant to protect consumers twisted into tools of nuisance litigation. The California Invasion of Privacy Act was never designed for websites and courts, legislators, and technology experts are aligning on that reality.
We’re committed to helping partners navigate these issues calmly and confidently. Our role is to ensure your digital presence remains compliant, secure, and above all; human.
Disclaimer
This article is for informational purposes only and reflects Powerful’s understanding and opinion of current law and technology. It is not legal advice. Organizations should consult qualified legal counsel regarding any specific claim or compliance question.
