
CCPA privacy policy: what it says on selling and sharing
At a glance
US-04HighCal. Civ. Code §§1798.115(c), 1798.130(a)(5)(C), 1798.120(b), 1798.140(ad), (ah); 11 CCR §7011(e)(1)(D)-(F)
Peeky compares the advertising tools a page loads with what the privacy policy says about selling and sharing personal information.
Last checked against the source:
The rule
The CCPA asks a business to be open about what it does with personal information, and the privacy policy is where the answer on selling and sharing has to be written down. Two definitions decide what counts.
“Sell” means “selling, renting, releasing, disclosing, disseminating, making available, transferring, or otherwise communicating” a consumer’s personal information to a third party “for monetary or other valuable consideration.” “Share” means doing the same thing “for cross-context behavioral advertising, whether or not for monetary or other valuable consideration, including transactions between a business and a third party for cross-context behavioral advertising for the benefit of a business in which no money is exchanged.”
Cross-context behavioral advertising (§1798.140(k)) is advertising targeted from a consumer’s activity “across businesses, distinctly branded internet websites, applications, or services.” A tag from an ad network that profiles visitors across sites is the usual example.
The disclosure itself is required by two provisions read together. Section 1798.115(c) obliges a business that sells or shares to disclose the categories of personal information “it has sold or shared,” and “if the business has not sold or shared consumers’ personal information, it shall disclose that fact.” Section 1798.130(a)(5)(C) puts this in the online privacy policy as two separate lists, one for personal information sold or shared and one for personal information disclosed for a business purpose, covering the preceding 12 months. If nothing was sold or shared, the business “shall prominently disclose that fact in its privacy policy.” The policy must be updated at least once every 12 months.
The regulations fill in the detail. Section 7011(e)(1)(D) to (G) of the CCPA Regulations asks the policy to name the categories sold or shared, the categories of third parties receiving each, the business or commercial purpose, and whether the business has actual knowledge that it sells or shares the information of consumers under 16.
The same facts trigger further duties. Under §1798.120(b) and §1798.135(a)(1), a business that sells or shares must tell consumers they have the “right to opt out” and give a clear link titled “Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information” on its homepage. Whether that link works is the subject of US-02, and the browser signal that does the same job is covered in US-03.
A “business” under §1798.140(d) does business in California and meets one of three thresholds: annual gross revenue above $25 million (adjusted for inflation; $26,625,000 on the CPPA’s threshold page), buying, selling or sharing the personal information of 100,000 or more consumers or households, or earning 50 percent or more of revenue from selling or sharing it. The second counts sharing, so an ad-funded site with modest turnover can be inside it.
Penalties come in two forms. The California Privacy Protection Agency can impose administrative fines under §1798.155, and the Attorney General can recover civil penalties under §1798.199.90. Each statute caps the amount at “$2,500 for each violation”, or $7,500 for intentional ones and those involving minors, adjusted for inflation. The CPPA’s current figures are $2,663 and $7,988. The statute sets the amount “for each violation” and does not define the unit. This article does not estimate a total for any company.
What PeekWell checks and how
US-04 asks one question: given the advertising tools a page loads, does the privacy policy say anything about selling or sharing? The check applies when a site’s markets include California.
The scan is automated. It notes the advertising and tracking tools your public pages load. It also finds your privacy policy and reads it for what the rule asks for: whether it mentions selling or sharing, whether it lists the categories of information and of third parties, and whether it says plainly that nothing is sold or shared. If the page loads ad tools and the policy says nothing to match them, that’s a finding. The scan never says a business sold anything.
The limits are those of a visit from outside. The scan sees public pages, and the members area when you give it a sign-in, and it does not open addresses nobody linked to. It cannot see data sent from your servers to a partner, so a page with no ad tags can still sell, and it cannot see the contracts that decide whether a vendor is a service provider. A Passed means the observed ad tools and the policy line up on the pages scanned. It does not say the business complies. The comparison works the way EU-04 does for processors: what was observed set against what the policy discloses.
Why it matters for a company
The enforcement record shows the Attorney General reading the sale definition widely and then checking the policy. In the Sephora settlement of 24 August 2022, the Attorney General said that allowing third-party analytics and advertising companies to monitor consumers was a sale, and that Sephora did not tell consumers about the sale or let them opt out. The settlement was $1.2 million with updated disclosures, support for the Global Privacy Control signal and reports to the Attorney General. The allegations were settled, not decided in court.
DoorDash, on 21 February 2024, settled for $375,000. The Attorney General alleged that DoorDash sold customer names, addresses and transaction histories by taking part in marketing cooperatives, which in the Attorney General’s words “enable businesses to trade personal information.” The complaint alleges the sale breached the CCPA, and separately alleges that DoorDash’s posted privacy policy did not state that it disclosed personal information to the cooperatives, under the California Online Privacy Protection Act. This one turned on a sale the policy did not mention, not on a tag.
Healthline Media settled for $1.55 million on 1 July 2025 over allegations that its trackers kept sharing data after consumers opted out and that it lacked the required contracts with advertising partners.
The facts are findable from outside, because a policy is public and so are the requests a page makes. A policy copied from a template may say “we do not sell” while a tag on the same page shares with an ad network, and the definition does not depend on what the policy calls it. These matters also rested on more than disclosure: opt-outs that did not work, or contracts that were missing.
Smaller companies and larger companies
The rule has a size test, but it is lower than many founders expect. A smaller company is inside it if it has an audience of 100,000 California consumers or households and shares their data with an ad network, whatever its revenue. Below that, and below the revenue line, the CCPA does not apply to it, though other states’ laws may (see US-11).
In a smaller company the policy usually comes from a generator and says “we do not sell your personal information”. Someone in marketing then adds a retargeting tag or an affiliate network, and the sentence no longer matches what the pages do. The California Attorney General’s own page lists anonymised examples, such as a telehealth portal and several online retailers, that changed their notices and tools after a notice of alleged noncompliance. The page does not say how large they are.
In a larger company the sale can sit outside the website. Customer lists go to marketing cooperatives, data partners or loyalty-programme vendors through back-office exports, as at DoorDash, and the policy is owned by a legal team that never sees them.
Enforcement cases
Published decisions about other companies, listed for context. Each links to the authority's own page. They say nothing about any particular website.

Larger companies
Sephora
The California Attorney General alleged that Sephora did not tell consumers it was selling their personal information and did not honour opt-out requests sent through Global Privacy Control. The Attorney General's position was that letting third-party analytics and advertising companies track consumers in return for benefits was a sale under the CCPA.
Read the California Attorney General (United States) publication about SephoraDoorDash
The California Attorney General alleged that DoorDash sold customers' names, addresses and transaction histories by trading them to a marketing cooperative. The complaint alleges its privacy policy did not state that this information was disclosed.
Read the California Attorney General (United States) publication about DoorDashGeneral Motors
The Attorney General said GM sold the names, contact details, geolocation and driving behaviour data of Californians to two data brokers, while its privacy policy said it did not sell driving or location data. GM settled and agreed to stop selling such data to consumer reporting agencies for five years and to delete retained driving data.
Read the California Attorney General and partners (United States) publication about General Motors2080 Media, Inc. (PlayOn Sports)
The CPPA's stipulated order alleged that tracking technologies on PlayOn's ticketing sites amounted to selling and sharing personal information, while its privacy policy, not updated since July 2022, said PlayOn did not sell personal information and did not tell consumers of their right to opt out of sharing. PlayOn admitted some facts but did not admit liability.
Read the CPPA (California, United States) publication about 2080 Media, Inc. (PlayOn Sports)Tractor Supply Company
The CPPA's Board decision said Tractor Supply did not maintain a privacy policy that notified consumers of their rights, alongside an opt-out mechanism that did not work and disclosures of personal information to other companies without contracts. The decision resolved the allegations.
Read the CPPA (California, United States) publication about Tractor Supply CompanyTicketNetwork, Inc.
The Attorney General said the online ticket marketplace's privacy notice was largely unreadable, left out key data rights and contained rights mechanisms that were misconfigured or did not work, and that the company did not fix these within the cure period after a November 2023 notice. It agreed to comply with the Connecticut Data Privacy Act and report on rights requests.
Read the Connecticut Attorney General (United States) publication about TicketNetwork, Inc.TaxAct
The Attorney General's investigation found that from 2018 to 2022 the online tax preparation company used Meta and Google tracking technologies that sent customers' income, refund and deduction details to those companies, without telling taxpayers first, while its privacy notices promised to safeguard their privacy and to stop third parties sharing its data. The settlement requires a review committee for trackers, a record of tracked data points, a tag monitoring system that scans the website and two independent audits.
Read the Connecticut Attorney General (United States) publication about TaxAct
Smaller companies
Easy Healthcare Corporation (Premom)
The FTC alleged that the fertility app promised users it would not share their health information with third parties without consent, while software kits from AppsFlyer, Google and two China-based firms built into the app sent identifiable health and device data to those companies. The proposed order bars it from sharing health data for advertising.
Read the FTC (United States) publication about Easy Healthcare Corporation (Premom)Monument, Inc.
The FTC alleged that the alcohol addiction treatment service told users their information was 100% confidential and would not be disclosed without consent, while pixels and APIs sent health-related events, email addresses and IP addresses to Meta and Google for advertising from 2020 to 2022. The order bans it from disclosing health information for advertising.
Read the FTC (United States) publication about Monument, Inc.Goldenshores Technologies, LLC and Erik M. Geidl (Brightest Flashlight Free)
The FTC alleged that the flashlight app's privacy policy said the information collected would be used by the company but did not mention that the app sent users' precise location and device identifier to third parties, including advertising networks. The order requires a just-in-time disclosure and affirmative consent before location data is collected or shared, and deletion of the data collected.
Read the FTC (United States) publication about Goldenshores Technologies, LLC and Erik M. Geidl (Brightest Flashlight Free)
How to fix it
Start from what the site does, then change the policy to match. Changing only one side leaves the gap open.
- List every advertising and analytics tool. Open your site in a private window with the network tab open and write down each third-party request on the home page, a product page and a form page. Add the tools you know about that do not show up there, such as customer-list uploads to ad platforms and marketing cooperatives.
- Decide for each one whether it is a sale, sharing, or a service. A tool that sends visitor data to an ad network for targeting across other sites is sharing. A tool that only works for you under a contract that limits its use may be a service provider. Your legal adviser should confirm the classification. Peeky reports only what it observes.
- Write the two lists. In the privacy policy, list the categories of personal information sold or shared in the last 12 months and the categories of third parties that received them. List separately what you disclosed for business purposes. If you sold or shared nothing, say so in a sentence that stands out.
- Add the opt-out pieces. If anything is sold or shared, add the “Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information” link to the homepage header or footer, and make sure it stops the tags it names. See US-02 and US-03.
- Put the contracts in place. Section 1798.100(d) requires an agreement with each third party that receives personal information, limiting the purposes and binding the third party to the same level of protection.
- Set a review date. The statute asks for a policy update at least every 12 months; add a check whenever a tag is added.
- Re-scan. Run a scan after the policy and tags are changed. The finding should clear once the policy discloses what the page does.
Questions
Does a privacy policy have to say whether a business sells or shares data?
Yes. A business covered by the CCPA must list the categories of personal information it sold or shared in the past 12 months, or say prominently that it has not. The list sits in the privacy policy and has to be refreshed at least once every 12 months. The rule has the wording.
Does sending data to an ad network count as selling it?
It can, even when no money changes hands. The CCPA defines selling as handing personal information to a third party for money or other valuable consideration, and sharing as handing it over for cross-context behavioral advertising whether or not anything is paid. The California Attorney General treated ad-tech tracking as a sale in the Sephora matter.
What is the difference between selling and sharing?
Selling needs payment or other valuable consideration, while sharing is defined by its purpose, targeted advertising across different sites and apps. The sharing definition exists so that ad-tech arrangements in which no money is exchanged are covered too. Both trigger the same notice and opt-out duties.
Do we need a Do Not Sell or Share link?
Only if the business sells or shares personal information. Then it needs a clear link on its homepage titled "Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information", or a recognised opt-out signal handled instead. A business that does neither does not need the link but still has to say so in its policy.
How does Peeky check the selling and sharing disclosure?
Peeky records the advertising and tracking requests a public page makes, reads the privacy policy, and compares the two. A page with ad tools and a policy that never mentions selling or sharing becomes a finding with both pieces of evidence attached. It does not port-scan, try to get in where it isn't allowed or run any security test. How a scan works has the full path.
Filed with
The rule
California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, Cal. Civ. Code §§1798.100, 1798.115, 1798.120, 1798.130(a)(5), 1798.135 and 1798.140(ad), (ah) (text effective 1 January 2026)
Read the rule (California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, Cal. Civ. Code §§1798.100, 1798.115, 1798.120, 1798.130(a)(5), 1798.135 and 1798.140(ad), (ah) (text effective 1 January 2026))Sources
The law
- California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, as amended, text effective 1 January 2026 (CPPA copy, posted December 2025)
- CCPA Regulations, 11 CCR §§7000 and following, effective 1 January 2026 (CPPA copy)
- Cal. Code Regs. tit. 11, § 7011, Privacy Policy (LII)
- Cal. Code Regs. tit. 11, § 7013, Notice of Right to Opt-out of Sale/Sharing (LII)
- 15 U.S.C. 45, FTC Act Section 5 (LII)
Guidance
- CPPA, Updated monetary thresholds in the CCPA (adjustment of 1 January 2025)
- CPPA, Frequently Asked Questions
- California Attorney General, California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) page
- California Attorney General, CCPA enforcement case examples (updated 24 August 2022)
- Connecticut Attorney General, Connecticut Data Privacy Act enforcement report for 2025 (privacy notice sweeps)
- FTC, Health Privacy business guidance and related cases
Decisions and cases
- California Attorney General, General Motors privacy settlement of $12.75 million (8 May 2026)
- CPPA, Stipulated Final Order, 2080 Media, Inc. d/b/a PlayOn Sports, Case No. ENF24-S-PL-24 (adopted 27 February 2026)
- CPPA, Tractor Supply Company decision announced 30 September 2025
- California Attorney General, Healthline Media settlement, 1 July 2025
- Connecticut Attorney General, $85,000 settlement with TicketNetwork under the Connecticut Data Privacy Act (8 July 2025)
- Connecticut Attorney General, $275,000 settlement with TaxAct over sharing of sensitive taxpayer data with Meta and Google (19 August 2026)
- California Attorney General, Settlement with DoorDash, 21 February 2024
- FTC, Alcohol addiction treatment firm will be banned from disclosing health data for advertising to settle FTC charges (11 April 2024)
- FTC, Ovulation tracking app Premom will be barred from sharing health data for advertising under proposed FTC order (17 May 2023)
- FTC, Android flashlight app developer settles FTC charges it deceived consumers, Goldenshores Technologies (5 December 2013)
- California Attorney General, Settlement with Sephora, 24 August 2022
Last checked against the source:
For information only. Not legal advice.
