Lawyers are calling it the ruling that called it like it is. The world of digital privacy and corporate compliance is frequently defined by nuanced interpretations and subtle legal shifts. It is rare for a federal judge to cut through the noise with such unambiguous clarity that it sends shockwaves through the legal and business communities. This is precisely what happened last month.
In a “must read” decision, Judge Vince Chhabria of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a candid and forceful rebuke of a foundational, and increasingly problematic, California privacy law. The case was Doe v. Eating Recovery Center LLC, and the law was the California Invasion of Privacy Act, commonly known as CIPA. In granting summary judgment to the defendant, Judge Chhabria used “unusually direct language” to describe the statute, calling it “a total mess”.
This assessment was not a passing frustration. The judge elaborated on his critique, noting that CIPA “was a mess from the get-go, but the mess gets bigger and bigger as the world continues to change and as courts are called upon to apply CIPA’s already-obtuse language to new technologies”. This single statement perfectly frames the central conflict at the heart of a wave of recent class-action litigation: a law enacted in 1967 to criminalize telephonic wiretapping and eavesdropping is now being “borderline impossible” to apply to the modern internet.
This legal crisis is driven by a fundamental technology translation problem. Concepts from the analog era, such as “wiretapping,” are being stretched to cover the ubiquitous, and technically distinct, functions of modern websites. Plaintiffs have increasingly targeted companies for using standard digital tools such as analytics trackers, advertising pixels, and session-replay scripts, arguing these tools constitute illegal “eavesdropping.” The result has been a chaotic landscape of “conflicting rulings” where businesses “have no way of telling whether their online business activities will subject them to liability”.
Judge Chhabria’s ruling in Doe v. Eating Recovery Center is far more than a simple victory for a single defendant. It is a critical judicial intervention that exposes the untenable state of digital privacy law in California. More importantly, it provides a powerful new defensive strategy for businesses by invoking the “rule of lenity”. Finally, it serves as a direct, public indictment of the California Legislature’s persistent failure to “step up” and modernize this broken statute. This report deconstructs the ruling, its technical and legal reasoning, and the actionable strategies businesses must now consider.
How the Defense Won in Doe v. Eating Recovery Center
The case, Jane Doe v. Eating Recovery Center LLC, case number 23-CV-05561, centered on claims that have become all too familiar to corporate counsel. The plaintiff, “Jane Doe,” visited the website for the Eating Recovery Center (ERC) to research anorexia treatment for herself. She later noticed she was receiving targeted advertisements related to eating disorders. The lawsuit alleged that ERC’s use of the standard Meta Pixel (formerly Facebook Pixel) on its website caused Meta to receive sensitive URL and event data from her interactions, which in turn violated CIPA.
The plaintiff’s case was built on the theory that ERC was allowing Meta to “wiretap” the communication between the user (Jane Doe) and the ERC website. ERC moved for summary judgment, arguing its conduct did not violate the statute. On October 17, 2025, Judge Chhabria granted the motion, effectively dismissing the CIPA claim. The victory for the defense rested on two novel and powerful arguments: a technical one about the meaning of “in transit,” and a legal one about the “rule of lenity.”
The “In Transit” Fallacy and Technical Reality
The plaintiff’s case hinged on a specific provision of CIPA that makes it illegal to “read, or attempt to read” the contents of a communication “while the same is in transit”. The core of Judge Chhabria’s finding was that Meta, via its Pixel, did not read the communication’s contents while they were “in transit”.
This decision was not based on a broad legal theory but on a deep, technical analysis of how the Meta Pixel actually functions. Based on testimony regarding Meta’s internal processes, the court found that data was processed only after the defendant, ERC, had already received the communication from the user’s browser. The court highlighted Meta’s internal filtering processes, which occur post-receipt to remove information Meta does not wish to store, including information it deems privacy-protected. This filtering happens before Meta logs the data it obtains from the website.
This finding is a legal earthquake for CIPA litigation. It makes the millisecond-level technical architecture of data transfer the new legal battleground. The court drew a dispositive line between:
- A traditional wiretap: Intercepting a communication during its transmission from Point A (user) to Point B (website).
- The Meta Pixel: A third-party script that receives data after the communication has already arrived at Point B.
In this analysis, the Meta Pixel was not an “interceptor” but a “recipient” of data after the primary communication was complete. This technical distinction proved to be the defendant’s winning argument on this point.
This technical victory, however, immediately creates a new compliance nightmare. CIPA liability for businesses now depends on the specific, and often opaque, internal workings of third-party tools. A company’s legal team cannot easily audit the precise moment Meta’s servers process data, nor can they control it. If Meta, Google, or any other vendor changes its pixel architecture tomorrow to process data simultaneously (or “in transit”), liability for every website using that tool could flip overnight. This ruling means compliance teams can no longer just know that they use a pixel; they must be prepared to litigate the exact technical implementation of that pixel.
The “Rule of Lenity” as a New Defensive Shield
The most significant and broadly applicable part of the ruling was Judge Chhabria’s application of the “rule of lenity”. This was the “emergency brake” the judge pulled to stop what he saw as an untenable application of the law.
The rule of lenity is a foundational principle of legal interpretation, primarily from criminal law. It states that if a criminal statute is ambiguous, the court must resolve that ambiguity in favor of the defendant.
Judge Chhabria applied this rule to a civil CIPA case. His reasoning was as follows: CIPA is not merely a civil statute; it is a criminal statute that imposes “criminal liability and punitive civil penalties”. Even in a civil action, the “Rule of Lenity” applies because the statute is punitive in nature. The judge found CIPA’s “obtuse language” to be deeply ambiguous, especially when applied to “new technologies”.
Given this ambiguity, and the severe penalties involved, the judge held that “it would not be appropriate to interpret the ‘in-transit’ requirement… so broadly as to cover conduct”. He then laid down a new “tie-breaker” rule for other courts to follow, concluding that until the California Legislature clarifies the law, “courts should generally resolve CIPA’s many ambiguities in favor of” a narrower interpretation, which means in favor of the defendant.
This is a powerful new defensive argument for all CIPA cases involving technology, not just those related to the Meta Pixel. The judge, finding it “borderline impossible” to apply the law fairly, has essentially told other courts: “When in doubt, rule for the defendant.” This defensive shield exists as a direct consequence of the “shakedown lawsuit” nature of these claims. The plaintiffs’ bar, by seeking high-stakes “punitive civil penalties” under an ambiguous law, has inadvertently provided the very justification for this powerful new defensive doctrine.
The Hidden Risk: Why “Contents” Are Still a Problem
While the Doe ruling is a major victory for the defense, it is critical to understand its limits. The defendant won on the process (it was not “in transit”) and the legal standard (the rule of lenity), but they quietly lost on a key point: the substance of the data.
Judge Chhabria held that URLs and associated click events can qualify as “contents” of a communication. This is a crucial, and dangerous, detail. In his ruling, the judge “diverged from some other courts that view similar data as mere metadata”.
This finding is a significant, if hidden, victory for the plaintiffs’ bar. It reinforces a central pillar of their arguments. The Doe ruling essentially says: “Yes, the data you are concerned about (sensitive URLs, user clicks) is protected as ‘contents.’ However, in this specific case, the defendant wins because the technology they used (the Meta Pixel) did not intercept that data ‘in transit,’ and even if it was a close call, the rule of lenity means we rule for the defendant.”
This does not “erase the risk”. It merely narrows the attack vector. It signals to plaintiffs that their next lawsuit should focus on a different technology, perhaps a session-replay script or a third-party chatbot, which does capture and transmit data “in transit” (i.e., simultaneously). If they can find such a technology, the Doe ruling suggests that Judge Chhabria would agree the “contents” of the communication are, in fact, protected.
“Borderline Impossible to Apply”: The Judicial View on CIPA’s Chaos
Judge Chhabria’s ruling was an explicit reaction to the broader legal chaos surrounding CIPA. He described the statute as “virtually impossible to apply… to the online world” precisely because the “obtuse language” has forced judges to become technologists, leading to a landscape of contradictory and irreconcilable decisions.
As the judge noted, “courts are issuing conflicting rulings, and companies have no way of telling whether their online business activities will subject them to liability”. This legal uncertainty is the “total mess” he condemned. It has created an untenable position for businesses, where compliance is a moving target.
This confusion is not limited to the “in transit” element. Courts are divided on almost every key question, from whether class actions are appropriate to what constitutes “contents”. While some federal courts in California have certified class actions for CIPA claims, other rulings have found plaintiffs to be unfit class representatives, highlighting the highly individualized nature of these tracking claims.
To substantiate Judge Chhabria’s claim of “conflicting rulings”, the following table summarizes the key points of legal conflict in the CIPA “mess”:
CIPA in Conflict: A Summary of Judicial Chaos
| Legal Question | The “Progressive” Plaintiff View | The “Narrow” Defense View | The Doe v. ERC Ruling (N.D. Cal. 2025) |
| Are URLs, click events, and referrer paths “contents” of a communication? | Yes. They reveal the substance of the user’s interaction and intent. | No. They are “metadata,” like the address on an envelope, not the letter inside. | Held: Yes, they can be “contents”. (This was a point in favor of the plaintiff’s theory). |
| What does “in transit” mean in the context of website technology? | Any simultaneous or near-simultaneous access by a third-party script. | Only a literal “man-in-the-middle” interception between the user’s browser and the intended server. | Held: Post-receipt processing is NOT “in transit”. (A major point for the defense). |
| Is a third-party tech vendor (like Meta) a “party” to the communication? | No. They are an uninvited “eavesdropper.” (A key, unresolved conflict point). | Yes. They are a “party” to the communication, providing a service to the website. | (This was not the central holding in Doe, but the “in transit” analysis has a similar effect). |
| What is the proper legal standard for this “ambiguous” statute? | CIPA is a strict liability statute. Intent does not matter. | CIPA is a criminal law that requires specific intent to eavesdrop. | Held: Ambiguity defaults to the defense via the “Rule of Lenity”. (A powerful new standard for the defense). |
The Legislative Power Vacuum: Why SB 690’s Failure Leaves Businesses Exposed
Judge Chhabria’s decision was not just a ruling; it was a direct plea for legislative intervention. He “urged the California Legislature ‘to step up'” and “bring CIPA into the modern age”. His frustration was so profound that he suggested lawmakers should not just “go back to the drawing board,” but “erase the board entirely and start writing something new”.
An attempt was made to provide this clarity. Senate Bill 690 (SB 690) was introduced as a direct response to this wave of litigation. This bill would have been a massive relief for businesses operating online. As written, SB 690 proposed to:
- Exempt activities conducted for “a commercial business purpose” from several key CIPA provisions.
- Shield businesses from liability for interception when done for a commercial purpose.
- Clarify that the use of pen registers and trap-and-trace devices for commercial purposes is not a CIPA violation.
- Eliminate the private right of action for many of these online tracking claims conducted for commercial business purposes.
This bill would have effectively ended the “total mess” of CIPA litigation against online businesses. However, the legislative response to the crisis was one of paralysis.
Despite unanimously passing the California Senate in June 2025, SB 690 failed to advance out of committee in the Assembly. The bill is now a “two-year bill”, meaning it has stalled and will not move forward until 2026 at the earliest, “if at all”.
This legislative inaction is an active, not passive, driver of corporate risk. The legislature’s decision “leaves the ‘total mess’ that is CIPA in place even longer”, leaving businesses “vulnerable” to the very “shakedown lawsuits” the bill was designed to stop. This failure to act, especially in the face of Judge Chhabria’s direct plea, means the legislature has implicitly chosen to allow the litigation chaos to continue.
The path of SB 690 reveals a deep political fracture. A unanimous, pro-business-clarity Senate was stopped by an Assembly committee, likely under pressure from the plaintiffs’ bar or more aggressive privacy advocates. This political deadlock all but guarantees that the CIPA “mess” will continue, making judicial defenses, such as the Doe ruling, the only viable strategy for businesses.
The Risk Is Not Erased, It Is Changed
The primary takeaway is that the ambiguity in CIPA now favors defendants in some jurisdictions, at least for now. The “rule of lenity” argument is powerful, and courts may be “more willing to dismiss CIPA claims early” based on this precedent.
However, this is not a silver bullet. The “contents” ruling was a win for plaintiffs. Businesses must not become complacent. They must instead understand that the legal “battlefield” has shifted from broad principles to highly specific technical and legal arguments.
Audit Your Tech Stack, Not Just Your Policy (Use Captain Compliance to Achieve Privacy Compliance with CIPA)
This is the most critical lesson from the Doe ruling. The case was won on the technical implementation of the Meta Pixel. Therefore, businesses must immediately “review website tracking tools”. This audit must go beyond a simple inventory and include:
- All Third-Party Scripts: Analytics, chat widgets, advertising pixels, session-replay tools, and all other trackers.
- The “When” Question: The compliance team must now work directly with IT, marketing, and engineering to ask the dispositive legal question: When does this tool collect data? Does it “read” data simultaneously with our server (potentially “in transit”), or only after our server has received it (post-receipt)?
The answers to these engineering questions are now the answers to CIPA liability questions.
Why CCPA Compliance Is Not a CIPA Defense
A critical and dangerous blind spot for many businesses is assuming that compliance with one California privacy law equates to compliance with all. Legal analyses are clear: compliance with the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) “will not safeguard a business from the risk of CIPA litigation”.
This creates a “whipsaw” effect where businesses are trapped by California’s own contradictory privacy regime. The problem is:
- CCPA: Generally requires an “opt-out” framework for cookies and tracking (for non-sensitive data). A business can be 100% compliant with CCPA by simply providing a “Do Not Sell/Share” link.
- CIPA: Plaintiffs in CIPA suits are asserting that the failure to obtain explicit, opt-in consent constitutes “wiretapping”.
This is the legislative “total mess” in practice. A business can follow CCPA’s rules perfectly and still be sued under CIPA for failing to meet a stricter “opt-in” standard that is not even written in the CIPA statute. This makes consent “a risk tolerance issue” that each business must evaluate with its legal counsel, rather than a simple compliance checklist item.
The “100% Confidential” Trap (Reviewing Disclosures)
A subtle but crucial lesson from the Doe case is that “privacy statements still matter”. The defendant in the case, ERC, had reportedly promised “100% confidentiality” in its privacy statement.
This created a separate, self-inflicted wound. While ERC won its CIPA claim on a technicality, its own privacy policy’s absolute language was demonstrably false; it was, by its own admission, sharing data with Meta. This kind of hyperbolic, absolute language is a legal liability. It could invite other lawsuits for unfair competition, false advertising, or breach of contract.
The lesson is clear: Do not use absolute terms like “100% confidential.” Businesses must ensure their disclosures “clearly and accurately explain how consumer data is being collected, used, and shared” in plain, defensible language.
Navigating the Landscape Until the Law Catches Up
The Doe v. Eating Recovery Center ruling is a landmark, but not because it “fixed” CIPA. It is a landmark because it is a judicial “white flag.” Judge Chhabria has, on the record, declared the 1967 statute “a total mess” and “borderline impossible” to apply to the modern digital world.
In doing so, he has provided a powerful, if temporary, defensive shield for businesses by applying the “rule of lenity”. This move, which resolves ambiguity by defaulting to the defendant, offers a path to early dismissal that did not robustly exist before.
However, the underlying “mess” remains. The California Legislature has failed to act, leaving SB 690 stalled and businesses “vulnerable”. The risk is not gone; it has simply changed form.
The final advice for compliance leaders is this: The battle has shifted. It is no longer just about if tracking is happening, but about the technical specifics of how and when it happens (the “in transit” analysis) and the punitive nature of the statute (the “rule of lenity” defense). Businesses must now remain “ahead of emerging trends” by pairing deep technical audits of their digital tools with precise, defensible, and honest privacy disclosures. This is the new playbook for navigating CIPA’s chaos, at least until the California Legislature finally “steps up” and cleans up the mess it created.
If you enjoyed this piece please book a demo and see how Captain Compliance can automate your privacy compliance requirements with CIPA and other privacy frameworks.
Works cited
- California Federal Court Narrows CIPA “In-Transit” Liability for …, accessed November 6, 2025, https://blogs.duanemorris.com/classactiondefense/2025/10/21/california-federal-court-narrows-cipa-in-transit-liability-for-common-website-advertising-technology-and-urges-legislature-to-modernize-privacy-law/
- California Federal Court Narrows CIPA “In-Transit” Liability for …, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.rittergallagher.com/insights/california-federal-court-narrows-cipa-in-transit-liability-for-common-website-advertising-technology
- Judge Calls CIPA “a Total Mess” in Major Privacy Ruling — Bubeck …, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.bubecklaw.com/privacyspeak/judge-calls-cipa-a-total-mess-in-major-privacy-ruling
- “Untenable.” Federal California District Court Calls for Legislative …, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/untenable-federal-california-district-6711687/
- Judge Tosses California Digital Wiretapping Claim: Here’s the Good …, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/news-insights/judge-tosses-california-digital-wiretapping-claim.html
- Federal Court Calls On California Legislature To “Step Up” And Fix …, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.hunton.com/hunton-retail-law-resource/federal-court-calls-on-california-legislature-to-step-up-and-fix-the-total-mess-that-is-cipa
- Court Grants Summary Judgment for CIPA Defendant after Invoking …, accessed November 6, 2025, https://perkinscoie.com/insights/blog/court-grants-summary-judgment-cipa-defendant-after-invoking-rule-lenity
- Federal Judge Denies CIPA Lawsuit’s Class Certification: 5 Key Takeaways for Businesses, accessed November 6, 2025, https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/news-insights/federal-judge-denies-cipa-lawsuits-class-certification.html
