On July 20, 2026, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District issued a notable decision in Mata v. Digital Recognition Network, Inc.,[1] which addresses the standing requirements for private claims under California’s Automated License Plate Recognition (“ALPR”) law. At the heart of the decision lies the question whether a violation of the
Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) technology is facing increasing legal scrutiny as courts, regulators and individuals attempt to examine and expose the various ways in which license plate data is captured, collected, shared and used. Recent disputes over ALPR technology have shifted away from issues of public safety and toward whether the private sector businesses and governmental organizations, among others, that utilize ALPR adequately disclose its use and sharing, as well as implement proper safeguards around this potentially sensitive, location-based personal information.
The private sector’s use of ALPR technology is facing challenges and possible legal exposure. In February of this year, California’s First Appellate District addressed the requirements imposed by the state’s ALPR Law in Bartholomew v. Parking Concepts, Inc., and in particular addressed what constitutes sufficient “harm” under the law to state a claim.1,2 In that matter, the plaintiff alleged that a parking garage owned and operated by Parking Concepts collected his license plate data without making a privacy policy regarding the collection publicly available. First, the Court determined that the parking garage camera system constituted a ALPR system under the law – that is, that it was “a searchable computerized database resulting from the operation of one or more mobile or fixed cameras combined with computer algorithms to read and convert images of registration plates and the characters they contain into computer-readable data.” But more importantly, the Court concluded that using ALPR technology without a publicly disclosed privacy policy stating when and how ALPR is collected and used violates an individual’s “right to know” of the activity, which is sufficient to allege harm under the law.
Continue Reading Automated License Plate Reader Technology Raises Concerns Over Private Sector Compliance and Government Overreach
On Friday, October 17, 2025, U.S. District Court Judge Vince Chhabria issued a biting Order granting defendant Eating Recovery Center, LLC’s (“ERC”) motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff Jane Doe’s California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) claims, a law enacted in 1967 to address the increasing use of wiretapping to eavesdrop on private phone
On July 24, 2025, the California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA”) unanimously voted to adopt a package of Proposed Regulations for the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”), marking a significant development in California privacy law. These cover Automated Decision-making Technology (“ADMT”), mandatory Cybersecurity Audits, Risk Assessments, and clarifications for the CCPA’s applicability to Insurance Companies. The package will move into its final review stage before formal enactment, once filed with the California Office of Administrative Law.
This is a clear signal that privacy compliance expectations in California are trending toward a more operational phase. The new rules are designed to give Californians greater control over how their personal information is used while pushing businesses toward higher levels of transparency and accountability, especially when automated decision-making and high-risk data processing is involved. For companies, this is more than just a theoretical update – it’s a clarion call to ensure these requirements are built into day-to-day governance, technology and process design, and vendor management practices.
Continue Reading California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) Finally Voted to Adopt Much Debated Update to CCPA Regulations: What Your Business Should Know
On June 3, 2025, the California Senate unanimously passed Senate Bill 690 (SB 690), a bill that seeks to add a “commercial business purposes” exception to the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA).
After multiple readings on the Senate floor, SB 690 passed as amended, and will now proceed to the California State Assembly. SB
California Senate Bill 690 (SB 690), introduced by Senator Anna Caballero, is continuing to proceed through the California state legislative process. The proposed bill would amend the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) by adding an exception to the statute which has the effect of permitting use of tracking technologies for “commercial business purposes.” CIPA
The California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA”) issued and discussed draft regulations on Cybersecurity Audits and Risk Assessments late in the summer. The CPPA Board plans to discuss the draft regulations at its upcoming December 8th public meeting, along with a presentation on the regulations.
Continue Reading CPPA Considers Next Set of CPRA Regulations Covering Cybersecurity Audits and Risk Assessments
The California Superior Court in Sacramento decided to give businesses in California an early present for the 4th of July. The regulations promulgated by the California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA”) back in March will not be enforceable on July 1, 2023. The new enforcement date will be March 29, 2024.
This is a result of the Court finding (account to access required) that it was the intent of the voters to require a 12-month “grace period” for businesses to build out their CCPA compliance programs. As a bit of background, and as we mentioned in our article back in April that you can find here, the California Chamber of Commerce (“the Chamber”) filed suit against the CPPA in March of this year seeking a delay in enforcement. The suit argued that the CCPA regulations passed by the CPPA should only be enforceable only after 12 months from the final promulgation of all the required regulations set out in Proposition 24 and sought injunctive relief to delay CPPA’s enforcement. The Chamber lawsuit was filed the day after the CPPA finalized their regulations across 12 of the 15 areas of the CCPA which rulemaking is required under Proposition 24.
Continue Reading California Courts Give an Independence Day Present – CCPA Regulation Enforcement DelayedThe rush for California to get all of the “rules of the road” ready for next year has seemed to cause a bit of confusion with California’s privacy law. Draft regulations were published the same day the Governor signed into law a series of amendments to the underlying law. It is all a bit confusing, However, now that the Governor has signed the last raft of amendments, and the dust has somewhat settled, the question on everyone’s mind is: What changed in the California Consumer Protection Act (“CCPA”)? How does this effect the draft regulations that the Attorney General published?
Fortunately, there are a number of significant changes which help clarify the CCPA, as well as materially change the scope of the CCPA – even if the AG didn’t include some of these changes into the initial draft regulations announced earlier this month. The most impactful changes across industries are as follows:
Business employees
To start off, the issue of employee coverage under the CCPA has been a fractious one. On one hand, business has rightly claimed that the relationship with an employee is not the same as the relationship with a customer. On the other hand, privacy advocates have claimed that employees shouldn’t give up privacy rights just because they are employees.
Continue Reading CCPA Amendments – What did California Actually Do?
Attorney General Becerra’s office posted the long-awaited draft CCPA regulations a little before 2:00 pm (PST) October 10th. It was a bit of a curve ball, to be perfectly honest (considering the final swath of amendments to the CCPA are not even final until Governor Newsom signs them, or on October 13th). Tellingly, the California Administrative Procedure Act requires the California Department of Finance to approve “major regulations” (and they have 30 days to do that) prior to publication. Based on this, it would seem that these regulations were drafted prior to the amendments to the CCPA going through the legislature. This does not seem like an effective way to draft regulations, but hey, no one should tell the AG he shouldn’t jump the gun! They are now out there so, one reviews anyway.
Topping out at a modest 24 pages (the CCPA itself is 19 pages), the regulations are organized into seven articles. We’re directing our comments to the issues that pop out to us initially, and as always, we’ll post further observations as things progress.
Continue Reading And the Wait for CCPA Rules is Over …. Kind Of