Where Is the Consumer In Consumer Privacy Legislation?
In the past several months, the amount of state legislative activity around consumer data privacy laws has been frantic, by state legislatures standards. So much so, it is not easy to discern the cause for all this effort.
June 25, 2021 at 12:02 PM
8 minute read
PrivacyIn the past several months, the amount of state legislative activity around consumer data privacy laws has been frantic, by state legislatures standards. So much so, it is not easy to discern the cause for all this effort; is it that consumers are demanding action, are market forces lobbying for the least restrictive options, or have legislators initiated these efforts on their own seeing their citizens simply must be protected from more than data breaches, but also be encouraged to exercise control over their personal information?
|State of Laws
In the U.S., existing consumer privacy laws are either sectoral based (think, healthcare and financial services) or state-law based. Despite several federal bills being introduced over the past few years, the U.S. Congress has failed to pass any comprehensive consumer-based data privacy laws to date. (See, "Information Transparency & 12 Personal Data Control Act" introduced by Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-WA) March 10, 2021; "Consumer Data Privacy and Security Act" introduced by Sen. Jerry Moran (R-MO) May 6, 2021; "Setting an American Framework to Ensure Data Access, Transparency, and Accountability (SAFE DATA) Act" introduced by Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) Sept. 17, 2020. See also, Consolidating US privacy legislation: The SAFE DATA Act, aipp.org).
Instead, as it often does, California led the way with its groundbreaking California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) in 2020 and Virginia followed abruptly in April this year with its "CCPA-like" Virginia Consumer Privacy Act. Also, there are a variety of proposed consumer data privacy laws currently pending in 13 other states (AB, AL, CO, CT, IL, MA, MN, NC, NJ, NY, RI, SC, and TX). As of May 5th, state lawmakers have introduced bills in 26 states and 10 states (AZ, FL, KY, MA, MI, ND, OK, UT, WA, and WV) have rejected these legislative attempts.
This content has been archived.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 All'Innovation Over Regulation': Tech Litigators and Experts Share Insights on the Future of AI, Data Privacy and Cybersecurity Under Trump
Old Laws, New Tricks: Lawyers Using Patchwork of Creative Legal Theories to Target New Tech
3 AI Bills in Congress for Employers to Track: Proposed Laws Target Automated Systems, Workplace Surveillance, and More
9 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Legal Departments’ Lack of Third Party Oversight Leaving Small, Midsize Banks Exposed
- 2Walmart Accused of Misrepresenting 'Cheese' Ingredients in Great Value's Macaroni & Cheese
- 3Manhattan Lawyers' Group Prepares to Challenge Trump’s Plan for Mass Deportations
- 4Deal Watch: Simpson, Freshfields, Wachtell Lead Big Deals as SPACs, IPOs Crank Up
- 5In Mafia Case, Justices Ponder: Is Murder Always Violent?
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