Judge Donna M. Ryu, in the Northern District of California, denied a motion to dismiss a putative class action alleging violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) by a website operator accused of installing third-party tracking software on users’ browsers without consent. The decision allows the case to proceed, finding that the plaintiff’s allegations regarding the use of website trackers as “pen registers” under CIPA are sufficient at the pleading stage.
The plaintiff claims that the defendant’s website installs various third-party trackers—specifically, the Steam Rail Tracker, AGKN Tracker, and Crowd Control Tracker—on visitors’ browsers. These trackers allegedly collect users’ IP addresses, device information, and other identifiers, enabling cross-site tracking and behavioral profiling for marketing and analytics purposes. The plaintiff asserts that these trackers function as “pen registers” under CIPA, which prohibits the installation or use of such devices or processes without user consent or a court order.
“Pen Register” Under CIPA
The court rejected defendant’s argument that software-based trackers cannot qualify as “pen registers,” which are defined by CIPA as devices or processes that record or decode dialing, routing, addressing, or signaling information (but not the content of communications). The court found that the complaint plausibly alleges the trackers are “devices or processes” that collect “addressing information,” such as IP addresses, which courts have recognized as falling within CIPA’s scope.
The court also declined to adopt a narrow reading of CIPA that would limit its application to traditional telephone surveillance, noting that the statutory language is broad and inclusive of modern software-based tracking technologies.
Pending Legislation
The defendant sought a stay of the proceedings pending the outcome of proposed California legislation (SB690) that could affect the scope of CIPA. The court denied this request, finding the potential impact of the bill too speculative to warrant a stay.
Keleops urges the court to stay the case while California Senate Bill 690 (“SB690”), which would amend California Penal Code sections 631,
632, 632.7, 637.2, and 638.50, is pending in the California Legislature. Mot. at 15-16. According to Keleops, SB690 “demonstrates a clear legislative intent to curb litigation created by misconstruing CIPA” and “would render this entire case moot if enacted.” Id. at 15, 20. Garon argues there is no grounds for a stay based on a bill that may or may not be enacted with the current proposed language. Opp’n at 18-19.
The court agrees with Garon. SB690 is too tenuous to form a basis to stay the case. There is no indication when SB690 will be enacted, or whether the proposed language Keleops contends bears on the issues here will be part of the final bill. See San Francisco Tech., Inc. v. Dial Corp., No. 10-CV-04986-JF/PSG, 2011 WL 941152, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2011) (denying request to stay “pending the enactment of federal legislation that retroactively could alter the standing requirements” where “there [wa]s no indication that passage of the legislation is imminent” and “the unpredictability of the legislative process counsel[ed] against the imposition of a stay.”); Log Cabin Republicans v. United States, No. CV 04-08425-VAP (EX), 2010 WL 11508368, at *7 (C.D. Cal. July 6, 2010) (denying motion to stay in light of pending legislation because, “[g]iven the many contingencies involved—including the threshold contingency of Congressional approval—and the lack of clear timelines, any ultimate repeal that may result from this legislation [wa]s at this point remote, if not wholly speculative.”). Moreover, “[i]f courts were to stay actions every time new legislation was introduced the judicial system would grind to a halt.” Droesch v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 20-CV-06751-JSC, 2021 WL 1817057, at *6 (N.D. Cal. May 6, 2021).
*7 Accordingly, Keleops’ request for a stay is denied.
Garon v. Keleops USA, Inc., No. 25-CV-02124-DMR, 2025 WL 2522374 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2025).

632, 632.7, 637.2, and 638.50, is pending in the California Legislature. Mot. at 15-16. According to Keleops, SB690 “demonstrates a clear legislative intent to curb litigation created by misconstruing CIPA” and “would render this entire case moot if enacted.” Id. at 15, 20. Garon argues there is no grounds for a stay based on a bill that may or may not be enacted with the current proposed language. Opp’n at 18-19.