Insights

Looks like Pen Register Claims Are Dead

Looks like Pen Register Claims Are Dead

Aug 31, 2026
Download PDFDownload PDF
Print
Share

Just under the wire -- on the penultimate day of the 2025–26 Regular Session -- California Senate Bill 690 sailed unanimously through the State Assembly and Senate and is on to Governor Newsom’s desk for signature.

SB 690 amends the private right of action in the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”), eliminating private pen register and trap and trace claims under Penal Code § 638.51. As a very welcome bonus, the change in the law is retroactive and applies to any claim filed within the two years preceding the effective date of the amendments.

Those last two years have seen a deluge of abusive lawsuits and demand letters targeting companies big and small claiming that the use of routine data analytics and ad targeting tools on websites and mobile apps constitutes an unlawful wiretap or installation of a pen register or trap and trace device without a warrant. The claims have been a favorite of plaintiffs’ lawyers, as CIPA includes a private right of action authorizing recovery of up to $5,000 per violation without any showing of actual harm.

As introduced, SB 690 would have also brought much needed reform to claims brought under Penal Code § 631(a) – the California equivalent of the federal Wiretap Act. The bill was narrowed significantly, however, in the face of coordinated opposition from plaintiffs’ lawyers, labor and victims’ rights groups, and others concerned that the bill went too far. Efforts to reform wiretap claims targeting websites and mobile apps will have to await the next legislative session. 

Enactment of SB 690 will, however, provide much needed relief from the most frequently abused CIPA provision. It is plain from the text of the statute that it was intended merely to require law enforcement to obtain a warrant before asking the phone company to share information regarding incoming and outgoing telephone calls. But, as some judges have pointed out, it was poorly drafted and, taken to its logical extension, effectively criminalized the internet.

If you are currently on the receiving end of a pen register complaint or demand and have not yet signed a settlement agreement, now is the time to reevaluate your defense strategy.  

Related Capabilities

  • Data Privacy & Security

  • Data Privacy, Telecommunications & Collections

Meet The Team


Daniel T. Rockey

Daniel T. Rockey
+1 415 268 1986
Amy de La Lama
Amy de La Lama
+1 303 417 8535

Meet The Team


Merrit M. Jones

Merrit M. Jones
+1 415 675 3435

Golareh Mahdavi

Golareh Mahdavi
+1 415 675 3448

Daniel T. Rockey

Daniel T. Rockey
+1 415 268 1986
Amy de La Lama
Amy de La Lama
+1 303 417 8535

Merrit M. Jones

Merrit M. Jones
+1 415 675 3435

Golareh Mahdavi

Golareh Mahdavi
+1 415 675 3448

Meet The Team


Daniel T. Rockey

Daniel T. Rockey
+1 415 268 1986
Amy de La Lama
Amy de La Lama
+1 303 417 8535

Merrit M. Jones

Merrit M. Jones
+1 415 675 3435

Golareh Mahdavi

Golareh Mahdavi
+1 415 675 3448
This material is not comprehensive, is for informational purposes only, and is not legal advice. Your use or receipt of this material does not create an attorney-client relationship between us. If you require legal advice, you should consult an attorney regarding your particular circumstances. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. This material may be “Attorney Advertising” under the ethics and professional rules of certain jurisdictions. For advertising purposes, St. Louis, Missouri, is designated BCLP’s principal office and Kathrine Dixon (kathrine.dixon@bclplaw.com) as the responsible attorney.