Privacy LitigationWiretapping Laws
Why Are CIPA Lawsuits Being Paired with Website Accessibility Claims?
Some California lawsuits pair a CIPA tracking claim with a website accessibility claim in the same complaint. In late August 2026 alone, individual plaintiffs filed near-identical versions against restaurant and entertainment chains, each capping the relief sought at $74,999.
By Alex Proctor
Published September 26, 2026
Summary
In a recent batch of California lawsuits, blind plaintiffs allege that businesses' websites did not work with screen readers and that they ran tracking code without consent. The same website visits support two claims, a CIPA pen register claim at a minimum of $5,000 per violation and an Unruh Civil Rights Act claim at a minimum of $4,000 per violation. The $74,999 cap is likely intended to keep each case below the $75,000 threshold for federal court, so that the matter stays in California state court. Settling these cases does not address the underlying tracking exposure or fix the accessibility problems on the websites.
What Do These Complaints Allege?
The multi-part complaints follow the same structure. A plaintiff who is legally blind visits a business's website multiple times using screen-reading software. The plaintiff alleges that the site's images, buttons, and menus are not labeled for a screen reader, and that this kept them from using the site or from visiting a physical location.
The same complaint then alleges that the website loaded advertising and analytics tools, such as Google Ads, the Meta Pixel, and Microsoft Clarity, without the visitor's consent. It treats those tools as pen registers under Penal Code section 638.51, on the theory that they capture routing and addressing information such as IP addresses and URLs. The complaints may also add claims under California's computer data access law and its Unfair Competition Law.
The defendants in this pattern share a profile. They are restaurant and entertainment chains with physical locations in California and websites used for menus, ordering, and reservations. They range from regional restaurant groups to publicly traded companies.
Why Pair Tracking with an Accessibility Claim?
Both statutes award damages without proof of actual harm. CIPA sets a minimum of $5,000 per violation, and the Unruh Act sets a minimum of $4,000 per violation. The complaints seek both amounts for the same visits.
| Claim | Damages | What the complaint alleges |
|---|---|---|
| CIPA pen registerPenal Code 638.51 | $5,000 minimum per violation | Trackers capture routing information without consent or a court order |
| Unruh Civil Rights ActCivil Code 51 and 52 | $4,000 minimum per violation | A screen reader cannot use a website tied to a physical location |
Based on the California Penal Code and Civil Code, as of September 2026.
The Unruh Act also treats any violation of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act as a violation of state law, under section 51(f). California courts have held that a website is covered when it has a nexus to a physical place of business, such as a restaurant, and that the website of a purely online business is not. That is why each complaint ties the website to the business's physical locations, and some name the specific location the plaintiff says they were deterred from visiting.
For the business, the result is two separate problems arising from the same website. Fixing the tracking does not resolve the accessibility claim, and fixing the accessibility does not resolve the tracking claim.
Why Cap the Relief at $74,999?
Federal courts hear lawsuits between citizens of different states only when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, under 28 U.S.C. section 1332. These complaints raise only California claims, so that threshold is their only route to federal court. When a complaint demands less in good faith, the removal statute treats that demand as the amount in controversy. A cap of $74,999 generally keeps a case against an out-of-state company in California state court.
Some complaints also limit the cost of the injunctive relief they seek, such as $25,000 for website changes, likely so that the value of an injunction does not push the case over the threshold. The complaints do not state the reason for the cap. Regardless, the effect is to keep each case in front of a state court judge.
What Does This Mean for a Business?
A capped case is small enough that many businesses may choose to settle it through counsel. Settling does not remove the trackers or fix the accessibility problems, so another plaintiff can file the same complaint against the same website.
Governor Newsom signed SB 690 on September 30, 2026. Starting January 1, 2027, only the California Attorney General may bring pen register claims over website tracking, including in lawsuits filed on or after January 1, 2025. That removes the pen register claim from these complaints, but the Unruh Act claim and CIPA's wiretapping provision remain available to private plaintiffs.
I recommend addressing the root issues that lead to these claims. For the tracking claim, that generally means a consent management platform that works as described and honors each visitor's choice, which my audits test. For the accessibility claim, it means a Web Content Accessibility Guidelines review, which my audits do not cover.
Questions
Is a business website covered by the Unruh Civil Rights Act?+
It can be. California courts have held that a website connected to a physical place of business, such as a restaurant or store, is covered. The website of a purely online business is not.
Does fixing the website end a lawsuit that has already been filed?+
No. The claims rest on visits that already happened, and changes made afterward do not undo them. Fixing the website does reduce the risk of the next complaint, and it may narrow the injunctive relief a plaintiff can seek.
Does SB 690 end these lawsuits?+
Not entirely. Starting January 1, 2027, SB 690 lets only the California Attorney General bring pen register claims over website tracking, including in cases filed since January 1, 2025. Private plaintiffs can still bring the accessibility claim and a CIPA wiretapping claim under Section 631(a).
Briefings are informational and do not constitute legal advice.
Received a letter?
I'll test the claims against your live site.
Website Privacy Audits include a detailed video review of your live site, a written report for your team or counsel, and a remediation review call. Priority audits add 72-hour delivery and testing of demand letter claims.
Standard $449. Priority $649.
My audits are most useful when you have a consent management setup to validate, a demand letter with specific claims to assess, or a team or client that needs an external web privacy expert. If you already know you have major gaps, your budget may be better spent addressing them directly. I recommend Captain Compliance, the platform I help build, for privacy technology needs.