California Senate Bill 690, which strips individuals of the right to sue businesses under the state's Invasion of Privacy Act, has become law with advocacy support from Lofty.

The legislation removes private standing under CIPA — the California wiretap statute that has produced high-volume litigation against any operator whose website transmits user data through embedded analytics or chat tools. SB 690 leaves enforcement to public prosecutors.

What does this mean for photo businesses?

CIPA has become a primary litigation vector for working photographers, photo labs and stock platforms. Studios operating booking sites, client proofing portals, gallery logins and online storefronts typically run the same embedded tools at the center of recent suits — website analytics, remarketing pixels, payment gateways and contact-form handlers. Plaintiffs have pursued statutory damages in cases where the underlying technology captured no audio or actual interception.

How did Lofty get involved?

Lofty, a vendor serving small-business operators, helped shepherd the bill through the California legislature. Lofty's product line covers tools used by operators in the same litigation crosshairs as photo studios. The specifics of the legislative coalition, the sponsor list and final amendment language were not detailed in the available reporting.

For photographers, the underlying cost calculus has been familiar. Studios have paid nuisance settlements to avoid six-figure defense bills tied to conduct that rarely matched CIPA's wiretap language.

What changes after the bill takes effect?

Photo operators in California — and those serving California clients — face no private litigation risk under CIPA once the bill's operative date is reached. Demand-letter mass actions targeting portfolio pages, print-order portals and gallery logins effectively lose their California forum.

Operators should pull the enrolled text from the California Secretary of State once filed to confirm:

• The operative date
• Any retroactivity clause
• Carve-outs preserving private standing in specific contexts

Public enforcement continues. The California Attorney General and county prosecutors retain standing. CIPA's substantive prohibitions remain on the books, and operators should not treat the new law as blanket permission to ignore wiretap compliance.

What about other states?

CIPA-style private-standing statutes remain active elsewhere in the U.S. Plaintiffs who filed in California because of convenient venue may shift forums. Operators with multi-jurisdiction exposure should track parallel filings, since private CIPA litigation outside California may now absorb cases previously routed to California.

What should operators do next?

Practical steps:

• Pull the chaptered text from the California Legislative Information portal once posted
• Audit site telemetry against CIPA's substantive prohibitions
• Review vendor contracts for indemnification covering state privacy actions
• Track parallel litigation in jurisdictions that retain CIPA-style private standing

The bill's passage ends the most aggressive private litigation track of recent years for small California photo and creative operators, removing a structural legal cost that had priced many studios out of independent defense.