Briefing materials

Why this matters

A small business uses analytics to understand visits and a separate booking tool to receive appointments. Those tools can send event information and identifiers to outside providers. Some lawsuits challenge that collection under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) and related laws.

Whether a transfer violates the law depends on the data, recipients, consent and legal theory. Responding costs money before those questions are resolved.

Defense costs can pressure an owner to settle before a disputed claim is tested. A documented filing restriction illustrates one court’s response to a specific litigant.

A reported business cost

Brandon Phipps of Bakersfield’s Second Star Technologies told KERO/23ABC that his business paid more than $20,000 in combined legal fees and settlement costs. Owner-reported fees and settlement combined. Read the full account. KERO/23ABC, May 6–7, 2026.

What HAIL would do

Representative Russ Fulcher’s H.R. 10263 would bar claims and enforcement under covered wiretapping, pen-register, trap-and-trace and eavesdropping laws for commercial-purpose collection, processing or disclosure. It also reaches covered proceedings already underway. The introduced bill includes business operations, marketing, consumer input and transactions. Introduced text, §2.

The privacy-rights question

The proposal is broader than small businesses or cases without harm. It contains no express exception preserving a covered claim when actual harm is shown, and it does not create a replacement remedy. Other legal routes depend on their own requirements and the bill’s application. Read the fuller explanation.

How SB 690 differs

Signed September 30, 2026 and effective January 1, 2027, California’s SB 690 addresses a narrower civil-action route for certain online pen-register claims, reserving that route to the Attorney General. It does not amend CIPA §§631 or 632. HAIL is a broader federal proposal. Read SB 690.