检查清单
Does SB 690 end all CIPA website lawsuits?
Public summaries say SB 690 narrows some private pen-register claims. It does not end every CIPA theory. Still test pre-consent tracking. Not legal advice.
In brief
No. Public summaries of SB 690 describe a narrowing of some private pen-register-style website and app claims, not every CIPA theory. Wiretap-style theories stay in those summaries. Operators should still test what loads before consent and after Reject. As of September 24, 2026 the official status page listed the bill as enrolled and with the Governor, not enacted. A free US-baseline scan is not a California legal conclusion. This page is not legal advice.
Not legal advice
This FAQ summarizes public reporting and law-firm client alerts about California SB 690 and how operators talk about CIPA website-tracking suits. It is not legal advice, not a prediction of any case outcome, not a guarantee that any demand letter or lawsuit ends, and not a certificate. ConsentProbe reports are technical observations of storefront tracking. They do not decide CIPA liability.
Last updated September 24, 2026. Readers with a pending matter should talk to their own counsel. The SB 690 guide holds the timeline. The pen-register versus wiretap guide holds the theory map. This page answers the headline question and points at the still-test checklist.
Short answer
No. Public firm alerts about SB 690 describe a narrowing of private plaintiffs' ability to bring certain CIPA pen-register and trap-and-trace claims tied to website or app tracking. If the bill becomes law, those alerts say Attorney General enforcement would cover that slice. The same public summaries say wiretap and eavesdropping-style theories remain.
Operators should still test what loads before a choice and after Reject. On September 24, 2026 the official status page listed SB 690 as an active enrolled bill, House location Governor. The latest history action was September 4, 2026: enrolled and presented to the Governor at 2 p.m. That history did not show a signature or a veto. Confirm the live page before you describe the bill as law.
For the theory map, see the CIPA pen-register versus wiretap guide. For the longer SB 690 page, see California SB 690 and website tracking. ConsentProbe can capture pre-consent evidence for the still-test loop. A free US-baseline scan is not a California legal conclusion. ConsentProbe does not install a CMP. This page is a public-source FAQ and a testing reminder, not legal advice.
What the public summaries focus on
Open the SB 690 guide for the timeline, the Governor check, and the cited firm alerts. The headline change those alerts describe is private enforcement for a pen-register-style website and app slice. This FAQ does not restate the enrolled text.
Bill status moves. The September 24, 2026 reading above is a check of the official status page on that date, not a standing description of the law. Re-check the legislature page, and re-check the SB 690 guide, before you tell a team the bill is in effect.
What to do with the headline
A headline that sounds like the end of website suits is a reason to open the longer pages, not a reason to archive the test plan.
- Take the timeline from the SB 690 guide, then confirm the live status page, before you say the bill is in effect.
- Take the theory labels from the pen-register versus wiretap guide before you treat one theory as the whole conversation.
- Keep the pre-consent and Reject checks. The checklist still belongs after the headline.
- Take a demand letter to your own counsel. This page does not forecast a dismissal, a settlement, or a fine.
Where the theories sit
Pen-register and trap-and-trace style website claims are where the SB 690 discussion concentrates in the public alerts. Wiretap and eavesdropping-style website theories stay on the map in those same summaries. The labeled theory map is the CIPA pen-register versus wiretap guide. This FAQ does not copy that page.
Still test the storefront
The rows below are observations. They are not a prediction that a tag pattern produces a lawsuit, and they do not name a penalty. The pre-consent checklist owns the pass order. Reject All leftovers own the network check after the click.
| Check | What to observe | Why it still belongs |
|---|---|---|
| Fresh visit, no click | Marketing or other non-essential cookies and pixels before a choice | Theories that public summaries say remain, and other regimes, still depend on runtime |
| Reject All, then navigate | Ads and analytics hosts stay gated, or they match the Accept run | Banner UI and the script gate are separate. See the Reject All leftovers guide. |
| Optional California pair | GPC-off versus GPC-on network and cookie diff | Separate from SB 690. Use the GPC test guide and the GPC versus CMP claims guide. |
Store the Fresh and Reject files
After you have the headline answer, run the storefront URL and keep Fresh and Reject evidence linked to a request, a cookie, or a screenshot. The free US-baseline visit is the format pass. California conclusions need counsel plus a regional testing context. The free versus paid guide states that limit.
ConsentProbe does not install a CMP and does not advise on pending litigation. A scan records what fired. It does not decide CIPA risk.
FAQ
Does SB 690 end all CIPA website lawsuits?
No. Public summaries describe a narrowing of certain private pen-register-style site and app claims, not every CIPA theory.
Which theories should I read about next?
The pen-register versus wiretap map is the CIPA theory guide. The timeline and the firm-alert summary are on the SB 690 guide.
Should I stop testing cookies after SB 690?
No. Still run pre-consent and Reject checks. The pre-consent checklist is the pass order.
Does a ConsentProbe scan decide my CIPA risk?
No. It records what fired. Counsel owns legal conclusions. ConsentProbe does not install a CMP.
Does a free US-baseline prove a California outcome?
No. A free US-baseline scan is not a California legal conclusion. See the free versus paid guide.
Is this legal advice or a case-outcome forecast?
No. It is a public-source FAQ and a testing reminder. It does not predict a case, a demand letter, or a fine.
Limits of this page
This page answers whether public summaries say SB 690 ends every CIPA website lawsuit theory. It is not legal advice, not a case-outcome forecast, and not a certificate. As of September 24, 2026 the official status page listed the bill as enrolled and with the Governor, not enacted. ConsentProbe reports remain technical observations. A free US-baseline scan is not a California legal conclusion.
Related guides
Open the SB 690 guide for the timeline, the pen-register versus wiretap guide for the theory map, and the pre-consent checklist for the checks that remain.
- What does California SB 690 change for website tracking lawsuits?
- What is the difference between CIPA pen-register and wiretap theories for website tracking?
- Pre-consent audit checklist: what to verify before Accept
- Pre-Consent Cookie Audit: A Storefront Checklist
- Reject All Still Tracking: What to Check After You Say No
- What does a free US-baseline cookie audit prove vs paid EU or California scans?
- GPC vs CMP Claims: How to Spot a Mismatch
- Which cookie consent test should you run first?
- ConsentProbe methodology
- Pricing and listed regional products
Sources
These links cover the platform and regulatory context used in this guide. Applicability still depends on the organization and jurisdiction.
保存一次美国基线技术记录
完成自行检查后，可以跑一次免费美国基线审计：在加州以外做一次浏览器访问，把 Cookie、请求和截图存成证据。这次访问不会跑欧盟拒绝/接受，也不会跑加州 GPC。欧盟、加州和 Global 2 可在登录后的账单页购买。