California SB 690 and the HAIL Act

California’s enacted SB 690 and the proposed federal HAIL Act take different approaches to internet wiretapping claims.

SB 690: signed September 30, 2026; effective January 1, 2027
Chapter 976, Statutes of 2026. Enacted, but its changes are not yet effective as of this October 13 update. Chaptered text · Governor’s signing message · What changed and what remains.

HAIL: introduced September 3, 2026; referred to House Judiciary. Not enacted. Official federal status · Checked September 27, 2026.

QuestionHAIL · H.R. 10263California · SB 690
Which rules?Specified federal and state pen-register, wiretapping, trap-and-trace and eavesdropping laws.Certain §637.2 civil actions against private actors for alleged §638.51 violations on websites and online or mobile apps.
Core approachWould bar covered private claims and government enforcement for commercial-purpose collection, processing or disclosure.Reserves this civil-action route to the Attorney General.
Pending proceedingsCovered proceedings underway at enactment could no longer continue.Applies to covered pending claims in actions begun within two years before January 1, 2027. Other claims in the same lawsuit may remain.
ScopeNo express business-size, consent or actual-harm exception. Privacy remedies under HAIL.Does not amend §§631 or 632 or repeal §638.51. No commercial-purpose or small-business condition in this restriction.
What remains?The introduced proposal addresses a broader set of surveillance laws; other remedies depend on their own requirements and the bill’s application.Other CIPA claims, the underlying §638.51 prohibition, and separate federal and state privacy obligations remain. Removing a pen-register count does not necessarily end the lawsuit.
When does SB 690 take effect?

SB 690 takes effect January 1, 2027. Its September 30, 2026 signature did not make the changes immediately effective. The retroactivity window reaches covered pending claims in actions commenced from January 1, 2025 through December 31, 2026; application in a particular case remains for the court.

Share the comparison