California Privacy Protection Agency Announces Joint Investigative Privacy Sweep
In an effort to bolster digital privacy enforcement, three states are looking into businesses that may be ignoring browser-based signals meant to allow consumers to exercise their privacy rights—with potential implications for any U.S. company doing business online.
On Sept. 9, 2025, the attorneys general of California, Colorado and Connecticut, and the California Privacy Protection Agency (collectively, the “Coalition”) announced a coordinated “investigative sweep involving potential noncompliance with the Global Privacy Control, or GPC, an easy-to-use browser setting or extension that automatically signals to businesses a consumer’s request to stop selling or sharing their personal information to third parties.” The Coalition will contact businesses that fail to process consumer requests to opt out of the sale and sharing of their personal information submitted through the GPC as required by law.
What is the GPC?
The GPC is a browser-based signal designed to help users automatically communicate their privacy preferences to all websites such user visits, particularly regarding the sale or sharing of personal information. The GCP is a “universal opt out mechanism,” which is another way the GPC is described under applicable privacy laws.
How does the GPC work?
The GPC signal is found in hypertext transport protocol (“HTTP”) messaging that is used to communicate between an individual’s browser and the company’s server. The HTTP messaging sent and received by a browser can be monitored. Under the GPC specification, the company’s server is obligated to return a response to the GPC signal sent from the individual’s browser. If no such response is received at the browser, it is obvious that the company does not support GPC. Furthermore, even if a response is received, the company operating the website must stop the sharing or selling of the individual’s personal information. Under certain state laws, the mere placement of a targeting cookie on an individual’s browser constitutes selling or sharing personal information.
Which companies must comply?
Compliance with the GPC is required under the privacy laws of the Coalition states and either is required or will soon be required in Delaware, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon and Texas. If a company has a website, it may be sharing data with a third party and thus would be required to comply with the GPC.
Unlike other privacy law violations that are difficult to detect, compliance with the GPC is easily determined through use of the developer tools within a browser. If a website stores targeted advertising cookies on visitors’ browsers and the business meets the threshold for compliance with a privacy law that requires compliance with the GPC, the Coalition (and any individual) can easily find evidence of non-compliance. Also, the process for detecting how a website handles a GPC signal, including determining whether targeting cookies have been removed after reception of the GPC signal, can be automated through the application of software that “crawls” the internet looking for noncompliant websites.
What happens next?
The Coalition has begun identifying businesses “refusing to honor consumers’ requests to stop selling their personal data and have asked them to immediately come into compliance with the law.”
Furthermore, once the applicable state attorney general has identified non-compliance with GPC, there are additional areas of risk that could be easily identified: the use of dark patterns, lack of opt-out manual options and a non-compliant (or non-existent) privacy policy.
If your business meets the threshold for compliance under any applicable state privacy law, GPC capability should be added to your website and privacy program.
This document is intended to provide you with general information regarding state efforts in data privacy enforcement. The contents of this document are not intended to provide specific legal advice. If you have any questions about the contents of this document or if you need legal advice as to an issue, please contact the attorneys listed or your regular Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP attorney. This communication may be considered advertising in some jurisdictions. The information in this article is accurate as of the publication date. Because the law in this area is changing rapidly, and insights are not automatically updated, continued accuracy cannot be guaranteed.
Recent Insights
Read MoreCalifornia’s New Rules for Private Construction Contracts Take Effect Jan. 1, 2026
Client Alert | December 23, 2025Bipartisan Permitting Deal Passes House, Senate Up Next with Speed Bumps Ahead
Client Alert | December 19, 2025President Trump Accelerates Marijuana Rescheduling and Expands Access to CBD
Podcast | December 17, 2025What to Expect in Colorado’s 2026 Legislative Session
Client Alert | December 16, 2025USCIT Denies Preliminary Injunction on IEEPA Tariffs – Why Filing Still Matters
Client Alert | December 16, 2025United States Establishes the Pax Silica Initiative
You have chosen to send an email to Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck or one of its lawyers. The sending and receipt of this email and the information in it does not in itself create and attorney-client relationship between us.
If you are not already a client, you should not provide us with information that you wish to have treated as privileged or confidential without first speaking to one of our lawyers.
If you provide information before we confirm that you are a client and that we are willing and able to represent you, we may not be required to treat that information as privileged, confidential, or protected information, and we may be able to represent a party adverse to you and even to use the information you submit to us against you.
I have read this and want to send an email.