A new California trial court decision offers website operators some long-awaited relief in the ongoing wave of website privacy suits under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA). In early December, the Los Angeles County Superior Court, rejected an increasingly common theory that routine website analytics and tracking tools function as illegal “pen registers” or “trap and trace” devices under CIPA. Rodriguez v. Ink America Int’l Group LLC, LASC 25STCV153 (Dec. 10, 2025).

Although Rodriguez is not binding precedent (it is only a state trial court ruling), its reasoning may help businesses push back on expansive CIPA theories, particularly where plaintiffs attempt to repackage ordinary website operations as criminal wiretapping-style conduct.

Enacted in 1967, CIPA was aimed at traditional telephone wiretapping and eavesdropping. In recent years, however, plaintiffs have invoked CIPA to challenge common web technologies, such as cookies, pixels, chat tools, beacons, and session replay, arguing that these tools “intercept” communications or capture routing information in a manner supposedly comparable to pen registers and trap-and-trace devices. This theory has fueled a surge of class actions seeking statutory damages based on everyday website functionality.

In Rodriguez, the plaintiff alleged that Ink America operated a website that:

• collected users’ IP addresses;
• deployed analytics and beacon software; and
• did so without user consent.

The complaint asserted that these tools enabled third parties to collect and link identifiers such as IP addresses, browser and operating system information, geolocation data, and email addresses. Based on those allegations, the plaintiff claimed Ink America’s analytics practices amounted to the unlawful use of a pen register or trap and trace device under CIPA.

The court dismissed the CIPA claims without leave to amend, concluding that the complaint failed to state a viable claim. The ruling is notable for several reasons:

• The Court Treated CIPA as Ambiguous in the Website Context and Looked to Legislative Intent: Rather than assuming CIPA clearly applies to internet analytics, the court found the statute’s language ambiguous when mapped onto modern web technologies. To resolve that ambiguity, the court looked at how California’s privacy framework functions today, particularly the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA).
• The Court Found a Conflict with the CCPA if Plaintiffs’ Theory Were Adopted: The CCPA expressly contemplates that businesses will collect and use certain data through website operations, provided they give appropriate notice and honor consumer rights (such as opt-out and deletion rights). The court reasoned that if ordinary analytics tools were treated as criminal “pen registers” under CIPA (i.e., illegal absent a court order), then the CCPA’s compliance structure would be undermined. Put differently, the plaintiff’s interpretation would effectively turn routine, CCPA-regulated website conduct into a criminal act, creating a regime that “punish[es] compliance” rather than improving consumer protection. The court ultimately concluded that the pen register statute “did not, and does not, criminalize the process by which websites communicate with users who choose to access them.”
• The “Service Provider” Concept Helped the Website Operator: The court also held that website operators can qualify as “electronic communication service providers” under CIPA 638.50(b). Even assuming IP address collection could be framed as pen-register-like, § 638.51(b) contains an exception allowing recording or use of such information when necessary to operate, maintain, test, or protect the service. That analysis provides another pathway for defendants to challenge CIPA pen register/trap-and-trace claims at the pleading stage.
• The Court Reaffirmed CIPA’s Pen-Register Focus on Telephonic-Style Surveillance: Lastly, the court emphasized that CIPA’s pen register provisions were designed to address telephonic-style surveillance, not the normal operation of commercial websites and analytics tools. Given the ambiguity, the court declined to stretch CIPA into a broad regulator of standard website analytics practices.

Many prior website privacy cases have treated CIPA as straightforwardly applicable to modern web tracking. Rodriguez stands out because the court:

• acknowledged the ambiguity in applying decades-old statutory language to modern web technologies;
• examined legislative intent and California’s broader privacy framework; and
• dismissed the claims outright (and without leave to amend).

If other courts adopt this reasoning, it could significantly narrow—and possibly eliminate—pen register and trap-and-trace theories based on routine website analytics. That said, the litigation risk is not over; until a binding appellate decision issues, outcomes can still vary across California trial courts.

Even with Rodriguez as helpful authority, businesses should continue to manage risk proactively by prioritizing CCPA compliance, inventorying and auditing website technologies, tightening vendor and “service provider” contractual terms, monitoring CIPA case law and coordinating compliance and litigation strategies.

Rodriguez signals meaningful judicial skepticism toward efforts to transform ordinary website analytics into criminal wiretapping conduct under CIPA. While not the final word, it is a useful, defense-friendly decision that may help recalibrate how courts evaluate CIPA claims in the online context, especially where plaintiffs’ theories would collide with the CCPA’s established compliance framework.