What the claim alleges
California's Invasion of Privacy Act contains a provision on pen registers and trap and trace devices, tools historically used to capture the numbers dialed to and from a phone line. Plaintiffs now argue that common website technologies, such as advertising pixels, analytics scripts, and identity resolution tools, capture similar addressing information, like IP addresses and device data, from visitors without consent. Because the statute allows statutory damages per violation, the potential exposure across many visitors can drive settlement pressure. These claims can reach companies based outside California if California residents use the site. Courts have reached different conclusions on whether website tracking fits the statute at all.
Unsettled law and moving targets
Some courts have dismissed these claims, reasoning that the provision was not meant for ordinary website analytics or that the data captured is not the kind the law protects. Others have allowed cases to proceed past an early motion. California has since enacted a law that, once it takes effect, leaves website and app claims under this provision to the state Attorney General rather than private plaintiffs, though how it applies to pending claims and to other privacy theories should be confirmed. Arbitration clauses and class waivers in website terms may matter, but only if users actually agreed to them in a way courts will enforce. These questions often decide whether a trap and trace lawsuit is worth contesting.
First moves after a demand
Before changing anything on the site, document which tools were running, what data they collected, which vendors received it, and what consent banners and privacy disclosures said during the relevant period, since that configuration is the evidence. Review vendor contracts for indemnity and for how each tool is described. Then we look at the demand itself: who sent it, whether a complaint has been filed, and whether your terms include an arbitration agreement. From there the choice among negotiating, moving to dismiss, or compelling arbitration can be made on facts rather than on the letter's figures.
