Skip to content

Usercentrics Launches CIPA Template to Address Growing Wave of Website Tracking Lawsuits

William Newmark
Author
William Newmark
Read time
6 mins
Published
Jul 22, 2026
Resources / Blog / Usercentrics Launches CIPA Template to Address Growing Wave of Website Tracking Lawsuits
  • The California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) operates on different legal foundations from the CCPA, and a functional opt-out setup does not protect against CIPA claims.
  • CIPA plaintiffs target websites using tracking technologies that fire before a visitor interacts with a consent layer, including session replay tools, third-party chatbots, and advertising pixels.
  • Per-violation statutory damages under CIPA § 638.51 are up to USD 5,000; websites with meaningful California traffic face significant exposure.
  • The Usercentrics CIPA Template applies a GDPR-style opt-in layer specifically to California visitors, blocking covered technologies until affirmative consent is given.
  • The template also includes configuration to support compliance with the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) for applicable services.
  • Available now within the Usercentrics Web CMP; no custom development required.

CIPA demand letters are targeting websites implementing tracking technologies that fire before visitors provide consent. The new Usercentrics CIPA Template applies a geotargeted, opt-in consent configuration for California visitors within the existing Web CMP, automatically blocking such technologies until affirmative consent is given.

CIPA Lawsuits Are No Longer a Niche Risk

Online privacy tracking litigation has become a volume problem. In 2023, just over 200 online privacy tracking cases were filed in the United States. A year later, that figure had risen to nearly 4,000, filed across 315 courts in 45 states against more than 3,500 unique defendants, per the Stinson source.

The California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) is a significant driver of that growth. A landmark Ninth Circuit ruling in May 2022 opened the door to mass website tracking litigation, and filings have surged ever since. 

By the end of 2025, plaintiffs’ attorneys had filed more than 3,500 lawsuits under U.S. state all-party consent wiretapping laws, with the majority of them CIPA claims filed in California. The law’s combination of per-violation statutory damages, no requirement for plaintiffs to prove actual harm, and a broad interpretation of what constitutes an “interception” of a communication has made it an attractive basis for litigation.

If your business operates a website with meaningful California traffic and runs tracking technologies that fire before a visitor engages with a consent layer, that profile fits the pattern of defendants in recent CIPA demand letters.

That exposure is unlikely to diminish soon. California’s SB 690, which would have significantly curtailed CIPA claims, which would have significantly curtailed CIPA claims, did not pass the Assembly during the 2025 legislative session, despite clearing the state Senate unanimously. 

The bill is expected to be reintroduced, but even if passed, would not take effect before January 1, 2027 at the earliest, leaving plaintiffs a clear window to pursue claims under the current statute. Courts are already working through that pipeline at pace: CIPA wiretapping decisions doubled between December 2025 and January 2026 alone. The volume problem, in other words, is not resolving itself.

Why CCPA Compliance Is Not CIPA Protection

This is the point that most businesses miss, and it is the one most likely to create exposure.

The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) primarily operates on an opt-out framework. It governs what personal data you collect, what rights consumers hold over that data, and what mechanisms you must provide for them to opt out of its sale or sharing.

CIPA operates on a different legal theory entirely. It treats the interception of electronic communications without prior consent as a distinct harm, regardless of whether your CCPA-focused opt-out mechanism is correctly configured and functioning.

Three conditions create CIPA exposure for websites that believe they are already covered.

Many consent management configurations for U.S. audiences are only set up for opt-out style compliance under state privacy laws. Technologies load on page entry, and the consent layer appears alongside or after them. Under CIPA, that sequencing is the problem, not the technology itself.

Your highest-risk tools are not categorized as such

Session replay tools, third-party chatbots, and advertising pixels appear in a significant number of CIPA demand letters. Standard templates treat them as ordinary analytics. They are not.

Pen register claims do not require proof of harm

Under CIPA § 638.51, statutory damages are USD 5,000 per violation. A website running non-consented tracking technologies for California visitors faces theoretical exposure that is sufficient to generate serious settlement pressure, regardless of the merits of any individual claim.

CPPA enforcement is escalating. Learn the legal and financial risks U.S. businesses face now

What VPPA Adds to the Picture

While CIPA has generated the majority of recent demand letters, the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) presents a related and increasingly litigated risk for websites that embed video content or operate streaming features.

The VPPA is a federal privacy law originally passed in 1988 to protect video rental histories. Courts have progressively extended its application to digital video platforms, and recent litigation has targeted websites that share video viewing data, including through pixels and tracking technologies, without obtaining the required consent.

For businesses that operate websites with embedded video and California traffic, CIPA and VPPA exposure can overlap in ways that a single, standard consent configuration is unlikely to address.

Introducing the Usercentrics CIPA Template

The CIPA Template is a pre-configured setup available now within the Usercentrics Web CMP. It differs from standard U.S. and CCPA/CPRA templates in three specific ways.

Geotargeted Opt-In for California Visitors

The template applies a GDPR-style opt-in consent layer specifically to visitors with California IP addresses. Tracking technologies do not fire until a California visitor gives affirmative consent. Visitors outside California receive the standard U.S. opt-out experience.

This geotargeted sequencing directly addresses the core condition underlying most CIPA claims: the template prevents any configured script from firing before a visitor interacts with the consent layer, including the transmission of routing, addressing, or signaling information.

High-Risk Technology Auto-Blocking

The template pre-categorizes and blocks the technologies most frequently cited in recent CIPA litigation. These technologies remain blocked until a California visitor actively consents. The pre-blocked categories include:

  • Session replay tools (including Hotjar and FullStory)
  • Third-party chatbots (including Drift and Intercom)
  • Advertising pixels (including Meta Pixel)

Categorization is reviewable and adjustable within your CMP configuration. Your legal counsel should advise on which technologies require prior consent for your specific deployment.

Learn more: What are tracking cookies and what do you need to know to stay privacy-compliant?

VPPA Support for Applicable Services

The template includes configuration designed to support compliance with the VPPA for businesses that operate video content or streaming features. A tooltip within the configuration interface identifies where VPPA-relevant settings apply.

What Else Is Included

Beyond the core consent architecture, the CIPA Template integrates with the existing Usercentrics Web CMP feature set:

What the Usercentrics CIPA Template Is Not

No technology product provides a legal safe harbor. The CIPA Template is a consent infrastructure configuration designed to address the consent-related conditions that underlie most CIPA claims. It is not a substitute for qualified legal counsel, and businesses that have already received a demand letter should engage counsel promptly.

The same applies to VPPA exposure. The template includes relevant configuration, but advice specific to your business and its video content practices requires your own qualified legal and privacy advisors.

Deploy the CIPA Template Now

The CIPA Template is available immediately within the Usercentrics Web CMP. For existing customers, deployment does not require custom development. For new customers, the template is available upon account creation.

If you have already received a CIPA demand letter, a free scan of your current consent infrastructure is a useful first step to understand what is currently running on your site.

Usercentrics does not provide legal advice. This article is for informational purposes only. Businesses navigating data privacy requirements and/or that have received a CIPA demand letter should engage qualified legal counsel promptly.

Don’t let a demand letter set your deadline

Usercentrics Web CMP helps address consent gaps and blocks high-risk technologies before they cost you.

Explore Solution
William Newmark
Read bio
Stay in the loop

Join our growing community of data privacy enthusiasts now. Subscribe to the Usercentrics newsletter and get the latest updates right in your inbox.

Frequently asked questions

No. No technology product can provide a legal safe harbor under CIPA, and Usercentrics does not make that claim. The template is a consent infrastructure configuration designed to address the consent-related conditions that underlie most CIPA claims. If your business has received a demand letter, engage qualified legal counsel promptly.

CCPA compliance does not protect against CIPA claims. The two laws operate on separate legal foundations. CCPA governs what data you collect and what consumer rights apply. CIPA governs the interception of communications, with provisions that require prior consent regardless of whether your opt-out mechanism functions correctly. 

A fully compliant CCPA implementation does not address the “unauthorized interception” theory underlying most current CIPA litigation.

No. The “Do Not Sell or Share” link is a CCPA/CPRA requirement and operates as an opt-out mechanism. CIPA is a separate law with different legal foundations. It does not govern what data you collect or how consumers opt out of its sale. It governs the interception of communications, and generally requires prior consent before tracking technologies fire. A functioning Do Not Sell or Share link does not address that requirement.

The two laws govern different things and operate on different legal foundations, which is why compliance with one does not provide protection under the other.

The CCPA is a data privacy law. It governs what personal information businesses collect from California consumers, what rights consumers hold over that data, and what opt-out mechanisms businesses must provide, most notably, the right to opt out of the sale or sharing of personal information.

CIPA is a wiretapping and communications interception law. Among other things, it targets the unauthorized interception of electronic communications, and generally requires prior consent before a tracking technology can fire, regardless of whether your CCPA opt-out setup is correctly configured and functioning. 

A visitor who has not yet clicked anything on your site, and who has not been presented with a consent layer, may already have data captured by tracking technologies that load on page entry. That sequencing is the basis of most current CIPA litigation.

In practical terms: a business can be fully compliant with the CCPA and still face CIPA exposure. The two laws require separate, distinct consent infrastructure to address.

Not on its own. GPC compliance is an active enforcement priority under the CCPA/CPRA and is required for businesses operating in California. However, GPC is an opt-out signal. It tells your systems that a visitor does not want their data sold or shared. 

CIPA’s prior consent requirements operate independently of the opt-out framework. Honoring GPC is a necessary part of your California compliance obligations, but it does not substitute for a prior consent configuration under CIPA.

The template pre-categorizes and blocks the technologies most frequently named in recent CIPA litigation: session replay tools, third-party chatbots, and advertising pixels. You can review and adjust the categorization within your CMP configuration. 

Your legal and privacy advisors should advise on which technologies require prior consent for your specific deployment.

The template includes configuration designed to support compliance with the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) for applicable services. 

A tooltip in the configuration interface identifies where VPPA-relevant settings apply. As with CIPA, consult your qualified legal and privacy advisors for issues specific to your business.

Visitors without a California IP address receive your standard U.S. or other international consent experience. Customize regional settings and CMP display for visitors in the Admin Interface.

The CIPA Consent Template is available as a pre-configured setup within the Usercentrics Web CMP. For existing Usercentrics customers, deployment does not require custom development. For new customers, the template is available immediately upon account creation.