TL;DR: California’s SB 690 removes private website and app lawsuits under CIPA § 638.51 starting January 1, 2027, and reaches back to some pending claims, but it leaves § 631, § 632, federal Wiretap Act exposure, and the underlying data-collection obligations unchanged, according to Ketch. The legal theory changes; the evidence problem does not.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Ketch: “California SB 690: what it changes for CIPA claims, and what it doesn't”.
Key questions
Q: What breaks when a CIPA demand letter relies only on § 638.51?
A: Once SB 690 becomes operative, a private plaintiff can no longer bring a website or app-based § 638.51 claim.
Q: Why do consent logs and packet records matter so much in privacy disputes?
A: Because privacy disputes increasingly turn on proof, not assertions.
Q: What are the signs that a privacy programme is not ready for a § 631 challenge?
A: The clearest warning sign is when a team can list tags but cannot reconstruct transmitted contents, recipient identity, or the exact notice state at the time of collection.
Practitioner guidance
- Inventory every open privacy claim by statutory theory Map each demand letter and complaint to the specific provisions it pleads, including § 638.51, § 631, § 632, the federal Wiretap Act, and any state analogues.
- Preserve packet-level and consent evidence Retain the records that show what data left the page, when it left, which third party received it, and what consent state applied to that visitor at that moment.
- Rebuild the evidentiary model around contents-level questions Move beyond tracker inventories and ensure you can answer the contents question with packet logs, HAR files, and timestamped consent state for each visitor.
Bottom line: SB 690 narrows one private CIPA claim, but it does not change the underlying collection practices or the need to prove what happened on the site.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →