Alert for Privacy Counsels Vivek Shah and the Rising Tide of CIPA Private Right of Action Lawsuits

The landscape of website privacy litigation in California is rapidly evolving, posing an urgent risk to companies that have not implemented a robust, all-party consent mechanism. At the forefront of this new wave of exposure is the rise of private right of action claims for privacy violations. Recent filings and demand letters sent from a  Vivek Shah, a prominent “serial litigant” whose name is now synonymous with private right of action lawsuits filed under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA).

For corporate privacy leads and legal counsel, the pre-litigation demand letters, often titled “Violation of California’s Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Penal Code § 631(a)”, are a critical warning. While these may not yet be filed complaints, they signal a systematic and sophisticated effort to target businesses, particularly those operating without a functional cookie consent mechanism.

Below is an example of the document that Shah’s violation notice opens up with showcasing the violation of CIPA Cal Penal Code 631:

The CIPA § 631(a) “Wiretapping” Theory

The core of the legal threat stems from CIPA § 631(a), which prohibits the unauthorized interception of confidential communications—an outdated wiretapping statute being aggressively applied to modern web technology. If a business is using Captain Compliance’s consent management software they are able to avoid these expensive litigation cases but those who have not signed up yet are at risk of legal threats not just from Vivek but other plaintiffs firms.

The Theory of Violation in Private Right of Action CIPA Claims:

The argument, successfully advanced by firms working on behalf of plaintiffs like Shah, is that a website violates CIPA when it uses third-party tracking tools (such as Meta Pixel, Google Analytics, or session replay scripts) to collect and transmit user data.

• Confidential Communication: A user’s activities on a website (clicks, searches, form fills) are characterized as a confidential electronic communication.
• Unauthorized Interception: The embedding of a third-party tracker allows the vendor (the third party) to secretly “eavesdrop” on this communication in transit, violating CIPA’s all-party consent rule.

This litigation strategy is gaining traction, backed by plaintiff’s firms like Tauler Smith and Swigart Law Group, which are filing legitimate claims. Defendants who choose to litigate these cases without a strong consent defense are facing adverse rulings and significant statutory exposure of $5,000 per violation. The underlying issue in these losses is a simple failure in fundamental compliance: the absence of proper privacy software and notification.

Shah’s History: A Pattern of Litigation

Vivek Shah’s focus on privacy violations is part of a broader, well-documented history as a litigant in areas of digital law, demonstrating his persistent and active engagement with intellectual property and personal rights claims.

• Copyright and DMCA Litigation: Prior to his focus on CIPA, Shah was involved in notable lawsuits concerning copyright infringement and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). For example, he sued media outlets over the use of photographs taken of him at Hollywood parties.
• Focus on Authorship: The central legal question in those cases was who held the copyright to a photograph when Shah composed the image and owned the camera, but a bystander pressed the shutter button. His claims often failed due to the court finding he could not prove sole or joint authorship, nor did he have standing for a DMCA claim without copyright ownership.

This background illustrates that Shah is an informed and active litigant, making the recent flood of CIPA demand letters a serious operational risk, not merely a boilerplate nuisance. He also is asking for $50,000 in statutory damages in every letter he sends out along with other fees, costs, and relief.

The Captain Compliance Solution: Mitigating CIPA Risk

The vulnerability highlighted by these lawsuits is preventable. The losses sustained by defendants who fight and lose these claims are often due to a lack of defensible, auditable consent protocols.

For companies seeking to neutralize this litigation risk, the most effective defense is a demonstrably compliant and legally sound consent framework. Solutions that automate the deployment of a legally sound cookie banner and integrate with third-party tracking technologies to ensure no data is collected until all necessary consent is secured are essential and you’re able to set it up this way with a Captain Compliance banner.

By failing to adopt and properly configure a comprehensive privacy compliance platform, businesses expose themselves to an ever-growing threat landscape, where repeat litigants like Vivek Shah stand ready to exploit the statutory damages provisions of California law. Investing in a robust platform is now a necessary cost of doing business online, protecting against statutory damages that can quickly escalate into multi-million dollar liabilities.