On September 24, 2025, the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, overruled defendant’s demurrer in a putative class action, allowing the case to proceed and clarifying the applicability of CIPA to internet-based tracking technologies.
Defendant argued that the plaintiff’s claims were time-barred by a one-year statute of limitations. The court rejected this argument, finding that the complaint alleged at least one violation within the limitations period—specifically, website visits and data collection occurring as recently as December 2024, just a month before the case was filed. The court granted plaintiff leave to amend the complaint to provide additional facts supporting delayed discovery for any alleged violations occurring more than one year prior to filing.
CIPA’s Applicability to Online Tracking
A central issue was whether CIPA section 638.51, which restricts the use of “pen registers” and “trap and trace devices,” applies to online tracking tools. Defendant argued that the statute was limited to telephonic communications. The court disagreed, relying on the statute’s broad definitions and a growing body of federal case law interpreting “pen register” and “trap and trace device” to include internet-based tracking software.
The court found persuasive the reasoning in Moody v. C2 Educational Systems Inc. and other federal decisions, which emphasized the expansive statutory language and the legislative intent to protect privacy broadly. The court noted that CIPA’s definitions are not limited to telephone technologies and that the statute’s structure and preamble support a broad interpretation encompassing modern online tracking methods.
Relationship Between CIPA and CCPA
Defendant also argued that the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) preempts CIPA in the context of online data collection. The court rejected this argument, citing authority that CIPA and CCPA are complementary rather than conflicting. The court observed that statutory overlap is common and does not, at this stage, present a barrier to the plaintiff’s claims.
At least one case holds that “CCPA and CIPA are complementary.” (Mirmalek, supra, 2024 WL 5102709, at *5 [finding that “CCPA does not preempt CIPA”].) And, regardless, overlap between and among statues happens on a pretty regular basis. (See, e.g., Stern, Business & Professions Code Section 17200 Practice (The Rutter Group 2025) ¶ 3:56 [advising that Business and Professions Code section 17200, the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), permits parties to bring a UCL claim based on violations of other laws, both common laws and statutes].) The Court does not see any problem, at this stage, with the overlap, if any, between CCPA and CIPA.
Variety Media, LLC v. Rose, No. 25STCV01865, 2025 WL 2794920 (Cal.Super. Sep. 24, 2025).
