A proposed California bill aimed at modernising privacy laws has become a focal point for debate over data collection, legal protections, and the impact on immigrant communities, revealing deep political and legal divisions.
California’s SB 690 was designed as a privacy fix, but the debate around it has widened into a fight over the future of digital litigation, the reach of an old wiretap law and, unexpectedly, the politics of immigration. The bill, written by Senator Anna Caballero, is meant to narrow the California Invasion of Privacy Act, a 1967 law that was originally aimed at analogue wiretapping but is now being used against website analytics, ad trackers and third-party cookies.
That modern use of the law has drawn a wave of claims against businesses, non-profits, health providers and public agencies. Law firms and business groups say the suits are often based on routine web tools that many organisations use to measure traffic or serve content, yet they can expose defendants to large damage claims and costly settlements. Supporters of SB 690 say the legislation is intended to curb what they describe as predatory litigation, and the bill has attracted backing from the California Chamber of Commerce and dozens of local chambers, along with a wide range of commercial interests.
The proposal has also become a proxy battle over consumer privacy. Opponents, including the ACLU, labour groups and LGBTQ+ advocates, argue that the measure would weaken one of California’s strongest privacy statutes and hand technology companies broader room to collect and monetise personal data. According to committee analysis and legislative text, the amended version of SB 690 now focuses on pen register and trap-and-trace claims and would remove the private right of action for qualifying cases, leaving enforcement to the state attorney general. Supporters say that narrower approach still offers meaningful relief to businesses facing litigation over standard website and app technologies.
The argument has become more politically charged because both sides have tried to frame it through the experience of immigrant communities. Usama Kahf, a partner at Fisher Phillips, told Capitol Weekly that immigration had no connection to the CIPA claims at the centre of the bill and called the issue a distraction from the underlying legal problem. Robert Herrell of the Consumer Federation of California disagreed, telling the publication that the wider effort to dilute wiretap protections could affect sensitive information, including immigration status and reproductive health data, especially if large technology firms gain greater freedom to exploit user data.
The fight also reflects a broader legal pattern seen in other states, where old privacy and wiretap laws have been used against newer forms of digital tracking. Bill supporters argue that California’s framework has been stretched far beyond what lawmakers intended when they enacted the statute more than half a century ago. Critics counter that weakening the law could leave consumers with fewer tools to challenge data collection practices that are often invisible and difficult to police. For now, SB 690 remains stalled in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, with its future uncertain as the legislative session moves towards its end.
Disclaimer: This content is intended for informational purposes only. Readers are advised to exercise their own judgement, conduct due diligence, or consult a qualified expert before acting on any information provided.
