Variety Media, LLC v. Superior Court of the State of California

Published by Crandall Consulting · Informational litigation intelligence · Last substantive update: August 23, 2026

Docket / citation: B350578; Superior Court Case No. 25STCV01865

Summary

This document is an application and proposed amicus brief filed April 8, 2026 by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in the California Court of Appeal in support of Variety Media. The Chamber argues, based on CIPA's text, structure, and context (and the subsequent enactment of the CCPA), that CIPA's pen register provisions apply to telephone signaling data and do not govern routine online collection of IP addresses by standard analytics tools, and that treating such activity as CIPA violations would impose massive liability on website operators.

Litigation Status

Status, direction, and weight describe how tracked public sources characterize this matter as of our last review — they are informational classifications, not legal assessments.

Procedural Posture

Application (filed April 8, 2026) by the Chamber of Commerce for leave to file an amicus curiae brief in the California Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Div. 1) in support of petitioner Variety Media; the underlying Superior Court action is Los Angeles County Case No. 25STCV01865 (Hon. David S. Cunningham III).

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

• internet web trackers
• IP addresses
• web analytics / standard analytics tools
• pen register / trap-and-trace devices (telephony context)

Statutes Invoked

• Cal. Penal Code § 638.51 (California Invasion of Privacy Act — pen register provision)
• California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), Cal. Penal Code §§ 637.2, 638.50–638.53; California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq. — all-party consent · private right of action

Claims Asserted

Claims identified in tracked public sources; pleadings may include additional or amended claims.

• Application of Cal. Penal Code § 638.51 (pen register provision of CIPA) to routine website tracking
• Pen register / trap and trace claim under CIPA (Cal. Penal Code §§ 638.50–638.53)
• Private statutory damages claim under Cal. Penal Code § 637.2
• Interplay with California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq.)

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 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

• U.S. Chamber Amicus Brief — Variety Media, LLC v. Superior Court of the State of California — U.S. Chamber of Commerce · Tier A (Primary authority) · 2026-04-08
• Variety Media, LLC v. Superior Court of the State Of California — Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA) / Retail Litigation Center · Tier D (Industry data) · 2026-04-08

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.