- with Finance and Tax Executives
- with readers working within the Aerospace & Defence industries
If you think compliance with state privacy laws like the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) means your website’s cookie consent mechanism is legally sound, it may be worth taking a closer look.
A growing wave of litigation invoking wiretapping statutes, particularly the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA)¹, is placing website tracking practices under increased scrutiny and exposing a critical gap in how many organizations approach consent. Claims involving tools like Meta Pixel and session replay tools are targeting a common issue: tracking technologies being deployed before users meaningfully consent.
These developments highlight a critical operational gap between how organizations describe consent and how their tracking technologies (cookies, pixels, and similar tools) actually function, creating significant risk exposure.
This two-part series examines how evolving wiretapping laws and enforcement trends are reshaping website tracking compliance. Part 1 explores the legal frameworks driving this risk, and Part 2 outlines practical considerations and steps organizations can take to address it in implementation.
Two Legal Frameworks At Play
Most U.S. companies approach cookie consent through the lens of privacy laws, such as the CCPA/CPRA and similar state statutes. These frameworks generally permit an opt-out approach for non-essential cookies, provided users receive notice and a mechanism to decline.
However, a separate set of laws governing communication interception and wiretapping introduces a different standard. These laws, such as CIPA, may require prior consent (opt-in) before certain tracking technologies intercept or capture user interactions.
As a result, U.S. websites may need to satisfy two overlapping legal frameworks, each with different expectations around consent.
Wiretapping Laws in the Digital Context
In the U.S., wiretapping and communication interception laws generally fall into two categories: one-party and two-party (or “all-party) consent.
- One-party consent laws (the majority of states) generally permit recording or interception of communication if one party consents. Website operators may be considered a party to a communication with their users, potentially satisfying this requirement. However, additional risk may arise where third-party tracking vendors are involved.
- All-party (or two-party) consent laws² require the consent of all parties to a communication before it can be recorded or intercepted.
Courts are increasingly applying these laws to website technologies that capture or transmit user interactions, including:
- Session replay tools that capture user interactions
- Keystroke logging or form field capture
- Chat transcripts and real-time messaging
- Technologies that intercept the contents of communications between a user and a website
In this context, the key issue is not just what a privacy policy discloses about tracking users on a website, but when tracking begins relative to when consent is obtained.
From Legal Frameworks to Enforcement Risk
Recent enforcement activity underscores how regulators are evaluating these issues in practice.
The CA Attorney General’s 2024 enforcement action against Tractor Supply Company highlights the importance of aligning consent policies with actual technical implementation.
Regulators alleged, among other things, that the company:
- Deployed tracking technologies (including pixels, analytics, and session replay) that transmitted user data before users had an opportunity to consent or opt out
- Failed to honor user opt-out requests due to technical implementation failures
- Provided inaccurate disclosures regarding data practices and third-party vendors
- Provided inadequate disclosures regarding data sales and sharing
The result was a record breaking $1.35 million penalty from the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA), along with required remediation of tracking practices and disclosures.
What This Means for Website Operators
For U.S. website operators, these developments highlight a key point:
Traditional cookie consent models, particularly those relying on opt-out consent, may not fully address the risks presented by wiretapping laws.
The Bottom Line
Website tracking compliance is no longer just about privacy disclosures or consent banners.
The intersection of privacy laws and wiretapping statutes has created a more complex legal landscape, one where timing, technical behavior, and system configuration play a central role.
Organizations that focus solely on policy language may overlook the operational realities that drive risk.
Part 2 of this series outlines practical steps organizations can take to align their tracking technologies, consent mechanisms, and disclosures with these evolving expectations.
Footnotes
1. Originally designed to prevent unauthorized wiretapping and recording of communications, CIPA requires all parties to consent before communications are recorded or intercepted. Plaintiffs are now bringing CIPA-based claims targeting website tracking tools, alleging that user interactions are being recorded and shared with third parties before users consent.
2. Currently, CA, DE, FL, IL, MD, MA, MT, NV, NH, PA, WA are all two-party consent states.
GC provides outside general counsel services to companies of all sizes, offering project-based support, subject-matter expertise, and day-to-day GC services through a team of partner-level business attorneys. For more information visit: Outside General Counsel Corporate Legal Services.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]