First Honda was fined by CalPrivacy last year and now we have the plaintiffs firms coming after another Japanese automaker in California.
Toyota Motor Corporation is the latest major company to be targeted in the ongoing wave of California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) litigation. A proposed class action filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court accuses the automaker of secretly tracking, de-anonymizing, and monetizing visitor data through its website — even after users interact with consent banners.
The lawsuit, brought by lead plaintiff Brittany Conner, highlights a growing trend: plaintiffs are increasingly challenging the gap between what websites promise in their consent interfaces and what actually happens behind the scenes with tracking technologies.
Details of the Toyota Lawsuit
According to the complaint, visitors to Toyota.com are presented with a familiar cookie consent banner offering “Accept” or “Decline” options. Plaintiff Conner claims she repeatedly chose to reject third-party cookies, yet the company allegedly deployed tracking technology that continued to collect and share detailed information.
The suit describes “fingerprinting” techniques that combine browsing history, device information, user inputs, geolocation data, and other signals to identify and profile otherwise anonymous visitors. This data is allegedly used for cross-device advertising and sold or shared with third parties.
Conner is represented by Scott Ferrell and Victoria Knowles of Pacific Trial Attorneys. The case leverages CIPA’s “trap and trace” provisions, a 1967 law originally aimed at wiretapping that has been repurposed in the digital age to challenge unauthorized interception of electronic communications.
Broader CIPA Litigation Trends
Toyota is not alone. According to OneTrust data, more than 800 CIPA cases were filed in 2025 alone. High-profile settlements in recent months include Forbes Media ($10 million) and the Los Angeles Times ($3.85 million). Similar actions have targeted companies like DraftKings and even the NFL.
These cases often focus on the technical reality versus the user experience: consent banners may appear, but tracking scripts, pixels, or fingerprinting can activate before users make a choice — or despite their choice to decline.
This “bait and switch” theory has proven effective at surviving early challenges and driving settlements. It also pairs well with claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), which can expand remedies to include restitution of advertising revenues.
Why This Matters for Businesses
Website tracking is a core part of modern digital marketing, analytics, and personalization. However, as CIPA litigation demonstrates, the line between acceptable practices and unlawful interception is being actively tested in court.
Key risks include:
- Statutory damages of up to $5,000 per violation under CIPA.
- Expanded exposure through UCL or CLRA claims seeking profits attributable to the data.
- Reputational harm and loss of consumer trust.
- Discovery into internal technical implementations and consent management processes.
Practical Compliance Recommendations
Organizations can reduce risk by treating consent as a technical and legal requirement that must actually work in practice:
- Audit Technical Implementation — Use traffic analysis tools to verify that tracking scripts, pixels, and fingerprinting only activate after affirmative consent (or are properly suppressed on opt-out).
- Ensure Symmetrical Choice — Make accepting and declining equally easy. Avoid multi-step opt-out processes paired with one-click “Accept All.”
- Document Everything — Maintain records of consent flows, testing results, and change management for consent-related features.
- Review Privacy Notices and Banners — Ensure language accurately reflects actual practices and clearly explains tracking purposes.
- Consider Server-Side Alternatives — Where feasible, move to server-side tracking or privacy-enhancing technologies that reduce client-side data collection.
- Monitor Emerging Litigation — Stay informed on CIPA, UCL, and similar cases, as court interpretations continue to evolve.
FAQs: CIPA Website Tracking Lawsuits
Q: Is all website tracking illegal under CIPA?
A: No. Lawful consent, proper implementation, and legitimate business purposes can support tracking. The key issues in these lawsuits are often lack of timely consent or tracking that occurs despite user objections.
Q: What should I do if my company receives a CIPA demand letter?
A: Engage experienced counsel immediately. Conduct a technical audit of consent mechanisms and preserve relevant records. Early evaluation often leads to favorable resolutions.
Q: Does this only affect California residents?
A: Primary exposure is under California law, but websites accessible to California users can face claims. Companies with national or global reach should consider broader implications.
Conclusion: Consent Must Be More Than a Banner
The Toyota lawsuit underscores a critical point in digital privacy: a consent banner is only as good as the technology behind it. When tracking occurs before or despite user choices, companies face increasing legal, financial, and reputational risk under CIPA and related laws.
Businesses that invest in proper technical implementation, ongoing testing, and transparent practices will be better positioned as CIPA litigation continues to evolve. In an environment where over 800 cases were filed in 2025 alone, proactive compliance is not optional — it is essential risk management.
At Captain Compliance, we help organizations audit and strengthen website consent mechanisms, map tracking technologies, respond to CIPA demands, and build sustainable privacy programs that reduce litigation exposure while supporting business objectives.
Concerned about website tracking practices or CIPA risk? Contact Captain Compliance today for a confidential technical and legal review of your digital properties.
Stay informed on CIPA developments, website privacy compliance, and practical risk mitigation strategies with Captain Compliance.