Cookiebot™ Launches CIPA Consent Template to Address Growing Wave of CIPA Website Tracking Lawsuits

CIPA demand letters are targeting sites that let tracking technologies fire before a visitor consents. This piece walks through why a standard U.S. opt-out setup (such as for the CCPA) does not cover CIPA, where VPPA risk overlaps for sites with video, and how to configure the Cookiebot CMP to manage risk.

CIPA demand letters are targeting sites that let tracking technologies run before a visitor has consented, and a standard opt-out banner built for CCPA does not protect against that. 

The good news for smaller site owners is that this update doesn’t require implementing a new platform. It’s largely a matter of configuration within the Cookiebot CMP you’re likely already running. Let’s get into it.

If Your Website Reaches California Visitors, This Applies to You

If your site draws traffic from California — even a handful of visitors — and it runs anything that fires before someone makes a consent choice, you're exactly who these CIPA demand letters are written for. Targeted tools can include a chat widget, an ad pixel, session replay software on your site.

That's true whether you're a five-person shop or a national brand. Smaller sites are, if anything, more exposed, because they typically don't have the legal budget to fight back. That's a large part of why so many of these claims get paid out rather than litigated.

The law behind them is the California Invasion of Privacy Act, or CIPA. It was originally written for wiretapping in 1967, and is now being applied to ordinary website tracking tools. 

The Bill Moving Through the California Legislature Won't Fix This

You may have heard that California lawmakers are working on a fix via a bill called SB 690. It's real, and it did clear a key committee on July 1, 2026. But before you breathe any sigh of relief, three things are worth knowing.

It isn't law yet. It still has to pass the full Assembly, go back to the Senate for approval of the changes, and be signed by the Governor — all before August 31, 2026. Lawyers tracking the bill describe passage as likely, but not certain.

Even if SB 690 passes, it only closes one door. The current version deals with a narrow slice of CIPA, the "pen register and trap-and-trace" theory, and hands enforcement of that piece to the California Attorney General alone. The broader wiretapping and eavesdropping claims, the ones most demand letters actually rely on, are left completely untouched.

It won't stop the letters you might already be getting. SB 690, in any form, addresses one legal theory. It does nothing about the volume of litigation itself.

It wouldn't touch the other laws being used for the same claims. Plaintiffs increasingly pair or substitute CIPA with the federal ECPA and/or VPPA, which apply nationwide regardless of what California does. Similar state wiretap statutes are also being tested in Florida and Pennsylvania.

And that volume is the real story. Filings of this kind jumped from just over 200 in 2023 to nearly 4,000 the following year, spread across courts in dozens of states. Waiting for legislators to sort this out is not a plan. The underlying exposure remains, regardless of what happens by August 31.

Why a CCPA-Style Opt-Out Banner Doesn't Help

The CCPA and CIPA solve different problems, and that difference is exactly what trips people up. 

CCPA governs what personal data you collect and what rights a consumer has over it, mainly, the right to opt out of its sale or sharing. 

CIPA is a wiretapping statute. It treats the interception of a communication before consent as harm in its own right, entirely separate from whether your "Do Not Sell or Share" link works correctly. A site can be fully CCPA-compliant and still be a good CIPA target, if its tracking scripts load before anyone has seen a banner.

Two things matter here if you're running Cookiebot specifically:

1. Check Your Default Consent Method

If California visitors get the same opt-out-by-default setup as the rest of your U.S. traffic, technologies load on page entry and the banner shows up alongside or after them. That sequencing is precisely what CIPA claims are built around. 

2. Check How Your Tools Are Categorized

The categories most often named in demand letters, i.e., the ones handling live chat, ad targeting, or recording on-page behavior, don't always get flagged as high-risk in a default CMP setup. A tool sitting quietly under "analytics" can still be the one that draws the letter.

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) is the federal cousin CIPA claims increasingly travels with, and it isn't limited to California traffic. Unlike CIPA, which is jurisdictionally limited, ECPA claims can be filed in any federal court nationwide, so a site with no meaningful California audience isn't automatically outside the blast radius.

Plaintiffs have paired ECPA and CIPA claims in the same complaint, arguing that a single tracking pixel both intercepts a communication and discloses information without consent. 

Businesses have generally leaned on a one-party consent defense. The website operator, as a party to the communication, consents to its own tracking. But doctrinal uncertainty keeps the risk real even where the defense would likely succeed on the merits, since litigation costs and settlement pressure arise well before any ruling. A First Circuit decision on exactly this question, heard April 6, 2026, is still pending.

For a site already weighing CIPA exposure, ECPA is the same problem viewed from a wider lens, not a separate one. The tracking behavior triggering both claims is typically identical.

Where VPPA Overlaps for Sites With Video

If your site embeds video or runs any kind of streaming feature, the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) also potentially adds another, related layer of exposure. 

The VPPA is a federal law originally passed in 1988 to protect video rental histories, and courts have progressively extended it to digital video platforms, with recent claims targeting sites that share video-viewing data — including through pixels — without the required consent. 

For a site with both California traffic and embedded video, CIPA and VPPA exposure can overlap in ways a single default banner won’t address.

What The CIPA Consent Template Configuration Doesn’t Do

No CMP setting is a legal safe harbor, and this one isn’t presented as such. Configuring an opt-in layer for California visitors addresses the sequencing problem behind most current CIPA claims. It doesn’t guarantee protection from litigation, and it doesn’t substitute for legal advice on which specific tools in your stack require prior consent. 

The same is true for the VPPA. The geotargeting and category controls above help support a stronger compliance posture, but the specifics for video and streaming features depend on your own setup and belong with your legal counsel. Sites that have already received a demand letter should get counsel involved promptly rather than treating a configuration change as the resolution.