California has amended its invasion-of-privacy framework through SB 690, and the change directly affects website tracking litigation under CIPA (the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the state wiretapping statute at the center of thousands of tracker-related lawsuits). The amendment reshapes how plaintiffs can bring claims over session-recording tools, analytics pixels and chat software on commercial websites — the same tools most photography businesses run on their portfolio and booking pages.

The practical stakes are straightforward. Photographers who operate e-commerce storefronts, client galleries or booking systems typically deploy third-party scripts such as Google Analytics, Meta pixels or session-replay recorders. Those scripts have been the basis of CIPA claims arguing that the tools intercept website visitors' communications without consent.

What does SB 690 change?

The amendment adjusts the litigation landscape around these claims rather than banning tracking outright. Under the prior environment, plaintiffs filed suits asserting that a website operator's use of tracking technology amounted to an unlawful interception under CIPA. SB 690 narrows that theory of liability at the state level.

For photo businesses, the key operational read is this: the amendment reduces one avenue of lawsuit exposure tied to website trackers, but it does not eliminate the underlying privacy obligations. Consent banners, disclosure of third-party trackers and documented data practices remain the baseline defense posture.

Why should working photographers care?

Litigation under CIPA has targeted businesses of all sizes, not only large platforms. A studio selling prints through Shopify, a wedding photographer embedding a chat widget, or an agency running retargeting pixels has the same technical footprint that drew claims in earlier cases.

The mechanism matters more than the statute's name. Each third-party script on a site can collect visitor behavior — pages viewed, forms filled, cursor movement — before any consent is recorded. That is the conduct plaintiffs have framed as interception. SB 690 changes how courts and plaintiffs can pursue that framing going forward.

What should photo businesses do now?

A short audit covers most of the exposure:

• Inventory every third-party script on your portfolio, gallery and checkout pages.
• Match each script to a named entry in your privacy policy.
• Confirm consent tools fire before trackers load where required.
• Keep records of when tools were added and what disclosures existed at the time.

The amendment's full effect will depend on how California courts apply it to pending and future cases, and legal counsel should review any active claims or demand letters against the new statutory text.