California Codes

Cal. Civil Code § 1798.1 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The Legislature declares that the right to privacy is a personal and fundamental right protected by Section 1 of Article I of the Constitution of California and by the United States Constitution and that all individuals have a right of privacy in information pertaining to them. The Legislature further makes the following findings:

(a)The right to privacy is being threatened by the indiscriminate collection, maintenance, and dissemination of personal information and the lack of effective laws and legal remedies.

(b)The increasing use of computers and other sophisticated information technology has greatly magnified the potential risk to individual privacy that can occur from the maintenance of personal information.

(c)In order to protect the privacy of individuals, it is necessary that the maintenance and dissemination of personal information be subject to strict limits.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 13 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1981–2024 · leading case: In re Carrier IQ, Inc., 78 F. Supp. 3d 1051 (N.D. Cal. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In re Carrier IQ, Inc., 78 F. Supp. 3d 1051 (N.D. Cal. 2015). “, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.1 (“The Legislature declares that .”

Pioneer Elec. (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court, 150 P.3d 198 (Cal. 2007). “), an act that contains legislative findings that “(a) The right to privacy is being threatened by the indiscriminate collection, maintenance, and dissemination of personal information and the lack of effective laws and legal remedies[;] Q] (b) The increasing use of computers…”

In re Adobe Sys., Inc. Privacy Litig., 66 F. Supp. 3d 1197 (N.D. Cal. 2014). “has greatly magnified the potential risk to individual privacy that can occur from the maintenance of personal information.”

Bd. of Trs. v. Superior Court, 119 Cal. App. 3d 516 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981). “Giving effect to its finding that “In order to protect the privacy of individuals, it is necessary that the maintenance and dissemination of personal information be subject to strict limits” (Civ. Code, § 1798.1, subd. (c)), the Legislature enacted the state’s Information…”

Gilbert v. City of San Jose, 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10953 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003). “(Civ. Code, § 1798.1.) In general, the IPA prohibits a state agency, absent written consent, from disclosing personal information linked to the individual to whom the information pertains unless certain exceptions apply.”

Lorig v. Med. Bd., 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1306 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000). “” (Civ. Code, §§ 1798.1, subd. (a), 1798.24.”

Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith v. Superior Court, 27 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1321 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998). “” (Civ. Code, § 1798.1.) Civil Code section 1798.”

California Teachers Ass'n v. California Comm'n on Teacher Credentialing, 3 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8043 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003). “(a)), and disclosure of personal information by a state agency is limited. “No agency may disclose any personal information in a manner that would link the information disclosed to the individual to whom it pertains” except in specified situations.”

Doe v. Washington Twp. Health Care Dist. (N.D. Cal. 2023). “); California Civil Code § 1798,82; Common Law Invasion of Privacy – Intrusion Upon Seclusion; the Information Practices Act of 1977 ( Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.1 et seq.), 26 and a violation of the California Constitutional Invasion of Privacy (Art.”

Freitag v. La Jolla Bridge, LLC (S.D. Cal. 2022). “at 3, 11 (Defendants relying on “[t]he fundamental right to privacy 14 in California” codified in California Civil Code § 1798.1, and citing state court case law 15 “recognizing the inalienable right to privacy under the California Constitution ‘extends to 16 one’s confidential…”

Doe v. Cnty. of Santa Clara (N.D. Cal. 2024). “82; (6) Common Law Invasion of Privacy Intrusion Upon Seclusion; and (7) Violation of the 16 Information Practices Act (“IPA”) Cal. Civil Code § 1798.1 , et seq. 17 The County moves to dismiss each claim.”

Houghton v. Rancho Mesquite Casino, Inc. (D. Nev. 2024). “6 The plaintiffs here allege that Eureka’s knowing failure to ensure adequate safeguards of 7 their PII violated several California statutes, including Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.1 (“The Legislature 8 declares that .”

Show all 13 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.