Recent decisions from federal district courts in California are changing the landscape of consumer privacy law, particularly under the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). These rulings expand the ability of individuals to sue companies for collecting and sharing personal data without consent, marking a significant shift in how privacy rights are enforced. With implications reaching beyond California, these cases could influence privacy standards across the United States. The term that you are going to start hearing is a “Private Right of Action” as it relates to data privacy will come to mean a data subject who has their personal information breached or handled irresponsibly will be able to directly sue the business owner. As we’ve seen with Swigart Law and Pacific Trial Attorneys in California they are changing the landscape so aggressively that there are attempts to amend the California Invasion of Privacy Act.
New Interpretations of the CCPA
The CCPA, enacted in 2018, gives Californians rights to control their personal information, such as knowing what data companies collect, requesting its deletion, and opting out of its sale or sharing. Until recently, the law’s private right of action allowing consumers to file lawsuits was thought to only apply mainly to data breaches involving sensitive details like Social Security numbers or financial information. However, two Northern District of California cases have broadened this scope and this is where the floodgates for privacy litigation are going to break loose. Below we examine a few headline lawsuits that we’ve previously covered in our privacy litigations series.
Key Cases in California Privacy Litigation
M.G. v. Therapymatch, Inc. (No. 23-CV-04422-AMO, 2024 WL 4219992, N.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2024):
- Facts: The plaintiff alleged that Therapymatch used Meta Pixel and other third-party tracking tools on its website to collect and share personal information (e.g., IP addresses, browsing history) without obtaining user consent or providing an opt-out mechanism, violating the CCPA’s right to opt out of data sales or sharing.
- Ruling: The court denied Therapymatch’s motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff’s allegations of nonconsensual data collection via tracking tools stated a plausible claim under the CCPA. The court interpreted the CCPA’s definition of “personal information” broadly, including data collected through cookies and pixels, and held that unauthorized sharing with third parties could constitute a “sale” or “sharing” under the CCPA, triggering a private right of action.
- Significance: This decision expands the CCPA’s private right of action beyond traditional data breaches to include proactive data collection practices, aligning with the CCPA’s broader consumer protection goals.
John Doe v. Innotek, Inc. (No. 24-CV-05985-TLT, 2025 WL 714252, N.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2025):
- Facts: Similar to M.G., the plaintiff claimed that Innotek’s use of tracking pixels to collect personal information without consent violated the CCPA. The plaintiff sought to represent a class of users whose data was collected and shared with third parties, such as advertisers.
- Ruling: The court allowed the class action to proceed, rejecting Innotek’s argument that the CCPA’s private right of action is limited to data breaches. The court emphasized that the CCPA’s text and purpose support a private remedy for unauthorized data collection practices that infringe on consumer rights to control their personal information.
- Significance: This ruling reinforces M.G.’s interpretation, solidifying the precedent that nonconsensual tracking practices can trigger CCPA liability, even absent a data breach.
Legal Context
CCPA Overview: Enacted in 2018 and effective from 2020, the CCPA grants California residents rights over their personal information, including the right to know, delete, and opt out of the sale or sharing of their data. The private right of action under CCPA § 1798.150 is generally understood to apply to data breaches involving sensitive personal information (e.g., Social Security numbers, financial data) where companies fail to implement reasonable security measures.
Traditional Interpretation: Prior cases, such as Stasi v. Inmediata Health Grp. Corp. (501 F. Supp. 3d 898, S.D. Cal. 2020), limited private actions to breaches causing unauthorized access or disclosure of specific data types. Courts often dismissed claims involving non-breach violations, like unauthorized data sharing, as outside the CCPA’s private remedy scope (e.g., McCoy v. Alphabet, Inc., No. 20-CV-05427-SVK, 2021 WL 405816, N.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2021).
Shift in Interpretation: The M.G. and John Doe rulings diverge by interpreting the CCPA’s private right of action to include violations of the right to opt out of data sales or sharing, as defined in CCPA § 1798.120. The courts relied on the CCPA’s broad definition of “personal information” (§ 1798.140(v)) and its purpose to protect consumer autonomy over data.
Implications
Expanded Private Enforcement
These rulings empower consumers to sue for unauthorized data collection practices, increasing litigation risks for companies using tracking technologies without robust consent mechanisms. The potential for class actions amplifies financial exposure, as plaintiffs can seek statutory damages ($100–$750 per consumer per violation) or actual damages, whichever is greater (CCPA § 1798.150(a)(1)).
Impact on Business Practices
Companies must reassess their use of cookies, pixels, and other tracking tools to ensure compliance with CCPA’s opt-out requirements. Enhanced transparency (e.g., clear privacy notices) and consent mechanisms (e.g., opt-out links) are critical to mitigate liability.
Potential for Broader Precedent
The Northern District’s interpretation could influence other California courts, creating a more plaintiff-friendly CCPA enforcement landscape. These decisions may inspire similar interpretations in other states with privacy laws, such as Colorado, Virginia, or Connecticut, which also include private rights of action.
Broader Context
These rulings align with evolving privacy expectations, driven by consumer awareness and regulatory scrutiny. The California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) and the California Attorney General emphasize the right to opt out as a core CCPA protection. Additionally, public discussions on platforms like X reflect growing interest in these cases, highlighting their role in addressing modern data practices like pixel tracking.
Influence Beyond California
The effects of these rulings extend far beyond California’s borders. Other states with privacy laws, such as Colorado, Virginia, and Connecticut, have private right of action provisions that could be interpreted similarly. Courts in these states may look to California’s example when handling cases involving unauthorized data collection. For instance, a 2022 Illinois case involving TikTok considered CCPA claims alongside other state laws, showing how California’s framework influences broader privacy litigation. TikTok just this month was hit with a half a billion dollar fine for irresponsible data use.
Nationally, these rulings highlight the need for a federal privacy law. The U.S. currently lacks a comprehensive standard, and state-by-state variations create compliance challenges for businesses. Proposals like the American Data Privacy and Protection Act have stalled, but growing consumer lawsuits could push Congress to act. The Federal Trade Commission, which enforces privacy under its consumer protection authority, may also align its guidelines with these judicial interpretations, emphasizing consent for tracking practices.
Why District Courts Matter
Federal district courts are often the first to interpret new or ambiguous laws like the CCPA. Their rulings clarify legal standards and set precedents that guide future cases. In these privacy cases, judges have expanded consumer protections by focusing on the CCPA’s intent to give individuals control over their data. This judicial leadership is critical in a field where technology evolves faster than legislation.
District courts also influence business practices. The threat of lawsuits encourages companies to adopt stronger privacy policies, such as transparent notices and user-friendly opt-out tools. Over time, these changes can become industry standards, shaping privacy norms nationwide.
Challenges and Considerations
While these rulings strengthen consumer rights, they raise concerns. Some argue that expanding the CCPA’s private right of action goes beyond what lawmakers intended, potentially flooding courts with lawsuits. Small businesses, in particular, may struggle to afford compliance with complex privacy requirements. Additionally, until higher courts, like the Ninth Circuit, review these cases, companies face uncertainty about the law’s scope.
Despite these challenges, the shift reflects growing public demand for data privacy. Consumers are increasingly aware of how their information is used, and courts are responding by holding companies accountable. As technology advances, district courts will continue to play a key role in balancing individual rights with business needs.
Will You Get Sued Under CCPA?
CIPA is looking to be amended but if that happens expect CCPA to start up with new litigation trends. Similar to what we saw with ADA but with bigger fines. The M.G. v. Therapymatch and John Doe v. Innotek rulings mark a pivotal shift in CCPA enforcement, expanding private rights of action to cover unauthorized tracking practices. By interpreting the CCPA’s broad protections to include cookies and pixels, these Northern District of California decisions enhance consumer empowerment and increase corporate accountability. Within California, they set a plaintiff-friendly precedent, likely spurring litigation and regulatory alignment. Beyond California, they influence other states’ privacy laws, federal legislative debates, and FTC guidance, harmonizing privacy standards nationwide. District courts, through statutory interpretation and precedent-setting, drive privacy law evolution, filling gaps left by legislatures and adapting to technological change. However, businesses face heightened risks, necessitating robust compliance strategies. As these cases progress, potentially to the Ninth Circuit or beyond, they will continue shaping the privacy landscape, balancing consumer rights with economic realities for you to start abiding by otherwise expect to get sued and pay up if you are not respecting users privacy choices.
