Variety Media LLC v. Superior Court
Summary
Jones Walker reports that SB 690 was signed September 30, 2026, and will limit private civil remedies for covered Section 638.51 website and application claims beginning January 1, 2027. In Variety Media, LLC v. Superior Court, the California Court of Appeal withdrew submission and requested briefing on mootness and possible exceptions; no final merits or mootness decision is reported.
Litigation Status
Procedural Posture
The underlying single-count Section 638.51 action was filed January 23, 2025. The appellate writ proceeding was argued and submitted August 25, 2026; submission was withdrawn October 1 for supplemental briefing, with resubmission scheduled October 15.
Reported Holding
The article reports a tentative ruling rejecting a telephone-only interpretation of section 638.51 but rejecting the plaintiff’s specific IP-address theory because an IP address identifies the communication’s source rather than its destination. The excerpt does not establish a final holding.
What the Court Decided
On October 1, 2026, the court withdrew submission and requested supplemental briefing on whether SB 690 makes the writ proceeding moot and whether a mootness exception applies. No final merits ruling is reported.
What the Court Did Not Decide
The court had not finally resolved the Section 638.51 interpretation or mootness questions. Its tentative ruling rejected a telephone-only interpretation of pen register but tentatively found the plaintiff's IP-address theory insufficient; that ruling was neither final nor precedential.
Significance
Generally viewed as defense-favorable. Characterizations of significance describe how the matter has generally been discussed in tracked public sources; individual holdings are often narrow, procedural, or fact-specific, and this page does not state or imply broader holdings than the sources support.
What This Page Does and Does Not Say
This page reports what our tracked public sources say about this matter — including, where identified, the procedural posture (for example, a ruling on a motion to dismiss is not a final merits decision). It does not report legal conclusions beyond those sources, does not predict outcomes, and does not constitute legal advice.
Technologies at Issue
- cookies
- pixels
- chatbots
- session-replay
- website tracking
- IP address collection
- analytics tools
- trackers
- third-party data brokers
- chat services
- fraud tools
- SDKs
- analytics tags
- session replay
- third-party pixels
- chat transcripts
- form-field tracking
- tag manager histories
- beacons
- software development kits (SDKs)
- web analytics
- IP addresses
- session-replay tools
- website tracking technologies
- analytics
- Google Analytics
- Meta (Facebook) pixel
- TikTok pixel
- live chat widgets
- advertising pixels
- web forms/search bars/chat windows (form input tracking)
- third-party cookies
- software trackers
- advertising technologies
- website tracking pixels
- online tracking tools
- Website tracking
- IP-address collection
- Alleged online pen register
- Website analytics tags
- Advertising pixels
- Session-replay tools
- Live chat widgets
- Search-bar tracking
- Web-form tracking
- IP-address and device-detail collection
- Website analytics
- Third-party scripts
- IP address tracking
- Search bars
- Web forms
- Analytics tags
- Scripts capturing search-bar, chat-window, or web-form content
- IP address
Third parties named or identified in tracked sources: Kochava, third-party data brokers, Google, Meta, TikTok, Pacific Trial Attorneys, Maning Law APC, Tauler Smith LLP, Potter Handy LLP, Victims Advocacy Group PLLC, Google Analytics.
Statutes Invoked
- Cal. Penal Code §§ 631, 632, 632.7, 637.2, 638.50, 638.51
- Cal. Penal Code § 638.50(b); § 638.51
- California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), Sections 638.51 (pen register/trap-and-trace) and 631(a) referenced
- California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) sections 631, 632, 638.50, 638.51, 637.2
- Cal. Penal Code §§ 638.50, 638.51, 637.2; also references §§ 631 and 632
- California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) pen-register / trap-and-trace provisions; referenced: section 638.51
- Cal. Penal Code §§ 631, 632, 637.2, 638.50, 638.51
- Cal. Penal Code § 638.51; Cal. Penal Code § 638.50(b)
- Cal. Penal Code § 638.51 (pen register); also discusses §§ 631, 632, and § 637.2
- California Penal Code §§ 631(a), 638.51, 637.2
- California Penal Code §638.51; amended provision referenced: §637.2; CIPA §§631, 632
- California Invasion of Privacy Act, California Penal Code Sections 631, 637.2, 638.50 and 638.51
- California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), pen register/trap-and-trace provision; Section 631(a) discussed as an alternative theory
- California Invasion of Privacy Act, Penal Code Sections 638.51 and 637.2(d)
- California Invasion of Privacy Act, California Penal Code §§ 631(a), 632, 637.2, and 638.51
- California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), Penal Code Sections 638.51 and 637.2; SB 690
- California Invasion of Privacy Act, Penal Code §§ 631(a), 632, 637.2, and 638.51
- California Invasion of Privacy Act, Penal Code §§ 631(a), 637.2, 638.51; federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act (Wiretap Act); Video Privacy Protection Act; Florida Security of Communications Act
- California Penal Code sections 638.51 and 637.2(d); sections 631 and 632 discussed as surviving private claims
Claims Asserted
- Pen register / trap-and-trace claims under Penal Code section 638.51
- Wiretap / eavesdropping theories under Penal Code sections 631 and 632
- Pen register claim under CIPA (Cal. Penal Code § 638.50–638.51)
- Argument regarding CCPA displacement of CIPA
- CIPA pen register (Section 638.51) / trap-and-trace
- CIPA Section 631(a) referenced as alternative theory
- CIPA Section 638.51 (pen register/trap and trace)
- CIPA Section 631 (wiretapping/interception)
- CIPA Section 632 (recording confidential communications)
- CIPA Section 637.2 (remedies)
- Federal Wiretap Act (as referenced)
- VPPA (as referenced)
- common law claims (as referenced)
- Penal Code § 638.51 (pen register/trap and trace)
- Penal Code §§ 631 and 632 (wiretapping/eavesdropping) (referenced)
- Penal Code § 637.2 (private right of action provision amended by SB 690)
- Pen-register / trap-and-trace claims under CIPA
- Related CIPA/wiretap statutory theories (e.g., section 631) mentioned as alternative theories plaintiffs may pursue
- Pen register / trap-and-trace (Cal. Penal Code § 638.51)
- Wiretap / eavesdropping (Cal. Penal Code §§ 631, 632)
- Private right of action (Cal. Penal Code § 637.2)
- Federal Wiretap Act (referenced)
- VPPA (referenced)
- Common law claims (referenced)
- Pen register claim under Cal. Penal Code § 638.51
- Trap-and-trace definition/interpretation under Cal. Penal Code § 638.50(b)
- Interaction between CIPA consent requirement and CCPA notice/opt-out framework
- Cal. Penal Code § 638.51
- Cal. Penal Code § 631
- Cal. Penal Code § 632
- Cal. Penal Code § 637.2
- California Penal Code § 631(a) (wiretap theory)
- California Penal Code § 638.51 (pen register theory)
- California Penal Code § 637.2 (damages provision)
- Federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act (Wiretap Act) - referenced as alternative
- Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) - referenced as alternative
- Florida Security of Communications Act (FSCA) - referenced as alternative
- California Penal Code §638.51 (pen register / trap and trace provision)
- CIPA §631 (wiretapping / contents)
- CIPA §632 (eavesdropping)
- CIPA Section 638.51 pen-register and trap-and-trace claims
- CIPA Section 631 interception claims discussed as unaffected by SB 690
- CIPA pen register claim based on collection of a website visitor's IP address
- CIPA trap-and-trace claims discussed generally
- CIPA Section 631(a) website-tracking claims discussed as an alternative litigation theory
- Single claim under CIPA Penal Code Section 638.51 based on an alleged online pen register and collection of a visitor's IP address
- CIPA § 638.51 pen register and trap-and-trace claims
- CIPA § 631(a) interception claims
- Federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act / Wiretap Act claims
- Video Privacy Protection Act claims
- Florida Security of Communications Act claims
- CIPA § 638.51 pen register claims based on website collection of IP addresses and device information
- CIPA § 631(a) interception claims involving website communications
- Reported alternative claims under the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act (Wiretap Act)
- Reported alternative claims under the Video Privacy Protection Act
- Reported alternative claims under Florida's Security of Communications Act
- Single CIPA Penal Code Section 638.51 claim based on an alleged online pen register and a visitor's IP address
- CIPA § 631(a) interception claims discussed generally
- Federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act / Wiretap Act claims discussed generally
- Video Privacy Protection Act claims discussed generally
- Florida Security of Communications Act claims discussed generally
- Single cause of action under California Penal Code Section 638.51 based on an IP address pen-register theory
- CIPA section 638.51 pen register theory
- CIPA section 631(a) wiretap theory discussed generally
- Federal Wiretap Act claims discussed as an emerging alternative
- Video Privacy Protection Act claims discussed as an emerging alternative
- Florida Security of Communications Act claims discussed as an emerging alternative
- California Penal Code section 638.51 website pen-register claim
What This Matter May Mean for Website Operators
California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) is an all-party consent statute with a private right of action. Consent standard and private enforceability are the structural features that most shape where website tracking claims are filed and how they are valued.
For operators using similar technologies, the recurring factual questions in matters like this one are when session recording begins relative to consent and whether input masking covers every field; whether chat transcripts or typing previews transit a vendor's servers before the visitor presses send; whether advertising pixels transmit page URLs or hashed form data before a consent choice; what page URLs and query strings analytics tools share with third parties. Our scanner tests these behaviors empirically.
Because this matter is pending, anything reported here is procedural — allegations and interim rulings, not final determinations.
Detection of a similar technology on a website is an informational risk indicator, not a legal conclusion, and nothing in this section is legal advice.
Related Intelligence
Sources
- New California Ruling and Legislation Provide Some Relief for Businesses Facing Website-Tracking Claims
- Amended California Bill Would Narrow Litigants' Website Tracking Claims Under California Invasion of Privacy Act
- California Court of Appeal Tentatively Holds That Collecting a Website Visitor’s IP Address Alone Does Not Constitute Pen Register Activity Under CIPA
- California Website Tracking Litigation: What SB 690 and Variety Media Mean for Retailers
- One Claim Down? California's SB 690 Would End Private Website Pen Register Suits
- California Legislature Passes SB 690, Narrowing Private Rights of Action Under CIPA for Website Pen Register Claims
- California Court of Appeal Tentatively Holds That Collecting a Website Visitor’s IP Address Alone Does Not Constitute Pen Register Activity Under CIPA
- Legislature and Appellate Court Bring Clarity to California Invasion of Privacy Act
- When One Statute Closes, Another Opens: How CIPA Plaintiffs Are Shifting to the Wiretap Act, VPPA, and Florida's FSCA
- California Eliminates Private Right of Action Under CIPA’s ‘Pen Register’ and ‘Trap and Trace’ Provision
- California Legislature Passes SB 690, Creating a Major Curb on Pixel Tracking Lawsuits Under CIPA
- Website Tracking Litigation Update: Variety Media and California SB 690
- CIPA Update: SB 690 Is Law And Variety Media May Be Its First Casualty
- CIPA Update: SB 690 Is Law and Variety Media May Be Its First Casualty
- CIPA Update: SB 690 Is Law and Variety Media May Be Its First Casualty
- Variety Media LLC v. Superior Court
About This Page
Publisher: Inspection-Ready Institute, Inc. (DBA Crandall Consulting), an independent website compliance and risk consultancy. We are not a law firm and nothing on this page is legal advice.
How this content is produced: Facts are extracted from publicly available sources — court and government materials, recognized legal press, professional analysis, and industry reports — by our litigation intelligence engine, stored with full source provenance, and rendered from the database. Risk guidelines are computed by a deterministic formula, never by an AI model directly. See the full methodology.
Limitations: Counts labeled "Tracked" reflect matters identified in our source set and are not official court statistics. We report what courts decided and did not decide; we do not predict outcomes.
Corrections: If you believe anything on this page is inaccurate, contact us via the contact page and we will review the underlying sources promptly.
Is Your Website Creating Hidden Tracking Risk?
Scan your site for third-party tracking and potential wiretap exposure. Free, no account required.
Scan My Website