User consent bars website wiretapping claims brought under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”).  As we reported on here, one way users may consent to the use of third-party website technologies is during a checkout process, such as via a checkbox indicating agreement to a website’s privacy policy.  But is consent negated if a 10-minute timer begins counting down the moment a user enters that checkout process?  A California court answered no in Washington v. Flixbus, Inc., 2025 WL 1592961 (S.D. Cal. June 5, 2025), rejecting a plaintiff’s argument that a countdown timer “imposes undue pressure that negates any consent.”

The plaintiff, Charles Washington, alleged that he booked a bus ticket from San Diego to Los Angeles on the defendant Flixbus’s website.  According to the Complaint, Flixbus shared his online booking information with a third party through the use of a pixel tool, which Flixbus allegedly used to deliver targeted advertisements.  During the checkout process, the plaintiff admitted that he was required to click a checkbox acknowledging that he “read the Privacy Policy” and “agree[d] to the T&C of Booking and T&C of Carriage,” which disclosed the challenged data collection practices.  The plaintiff nonetheless asserted that Flixbus’s alleged data collection practices violated CIPA Section 631 and constituted an invasion of privacy under the California Constitution.

The Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims because the Complaint established “that Plaintiff consented to Defendant’s Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions, which disclose the data practices he challenges.”  The plaintiff’s arguments focused on “a ten-minute timer” that “begins counting down when a user enters the checkout process.”  According to the plaintiff, this meant that he did not consent because “the average user cannot read the entirety of those policies before the ten-minute checkout timer has expired” and because the timer otherwise “impose[d] undue pressure” to agree to those policies.  The Court rejected both arguments for a straightforward reason: the plaintiff was “under no obligation to complete the checkout process” if he needed more time to review Flixbus’s policies, which were available “at any time via hyperlinks at the bottom of Defendant’s website.”  Since the plaintiff “could not overcome the issue of consent,” the Court denied leave to amend.