CCPA 2.0 Takes Steps Closer to Going on California's General Election Ballot
"Fewer businesses are covered [under the California Privacy Rights Act]. My intention all along with this was to regulate the businesses that cause problems," Alastair Mactaggart, founder of Californians for Consumer Privacy, explained.
May 12, 2020 at 12:00 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Corporate Counsel
The California Privacy Rights Act, the ballot initiative aimed to regulate large companies that collect large amounts of data, has enough signatures to be considered to be on the ballot during the November general election. However, in-house counsel and their companies have a while before they need to become concerned with its implications.
Californians for Consumer Privacy, the group headed by real estate developer Alastair Mactaggart, announced that 900,000 voters have signed on to have the CPRA go to the ballot in November.
Mactaggart said in an interview on Monday the organization is in the process of having those signatures verified by the counties. The ballot initiative will then have to be approved by the California Secretary of State. He said that process should be completed in the next couple of months.
However, even if the initiative gets approved to be on the ballot during the general election in November, in-house counsel have plenty of time to figure out how to comply with it. Right now, there are more pressing matters legal departments and their firms have to consider with regard to privacy in California.
"We are more concerned with the July 1 enforcement date of the CCPA," Natalie Prescott, an associate at Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo in San Diego, told Corporate Counsel.
She explained that attorney general Xavier Becerra has not yet published the final guidelines for the CCPA but intends on keeping the July 1 enforcement date despite businesses asking for more time because of work arrangements necessitated by the new coronavirus.
"All of the commentary that I am seeing indicates it [CPRA] is more likely to pass," Prescott explained.
Further, the CPRA wouldn't take effect until 2023. During that time, the California state government would have to create a new agency, the California Privacy Protection Agency, to oversee and enforce data privacy. The CPRA would also give California citizens a right to which would force businesses to stop using sensitive personal information without consent and triple fines for collecting and selling children's private information.
Mactaggart noted that he is facing less opposition from big corporations than he did when he introduced the CCPA as a ballot measure in 2018.
"I think the world has moved on a lot over the past couple of years and it is harder to oppose privacy policies," Mactaggart said.
According to data provided by Californians for Consumer Privacy, 88% of California voters, of 777 surveyed, said they would vote in favor of a law that expands privacy protections for personal information.
He also said the CPRA would decrease the number of businesses covered under the law.
"We go back to the threshold of covering companies that process over 100,000 pieces of information a year," Mactaggart said.
Right now the CCPA covers businesses that process 50,000 pieces of information a year. Mactaggart said the CCPA originally covered businesses that process 100,000 pieces of information a year, but that was changed when it went to the Legislature instead of being voted on for the general election.
"Fewer businesses are covered [under the CPRA]. My intention all along with this was to regulate the businesses that cause problems," Mactaggart explained.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMore Big Law Firms Rush to Match Associate Bonuses, While Some Offer Potential for Even More
Dog Gone It, Target: Provider of Retailer's Mascot Dog Sues Over Contract Cancellation
4 minute readIn Talc Bankruptcy, Andy Birchfield Skipped His Deposition. Could He Face Sanctions?
6 minute readGC Conference Takeaways: Picking AI Vendors 'a Bit of a Crap Shoot,' Beware of Internal Investigation 'Scope Creep'
8 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1'The Show Must Go On': Solo-GC-of-Year Kevin Colby Pulls Off Perpetual Juggling Act
- 2Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Match Group's Katie Dugan & Herrick's Carol Goodman
- 3Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Eric Wall, Executive VP, Syllo
- 4Battle for Top Talent Accelerates Amid Profit and Demand Surge
- 5Friday Newspaper
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250