Pre-emption a Top Issue in Federal Data Privacy Law
Federal data privacy legislation is complicated, and passing a comprehensive federal data privacy bill will involve two polarized sides coming together on the issue of pre-emption over state laws and other federal laws that govern data by sector or industry, according to experts.
February 21, 2019 at 06:38 PM
3 minute read
Federal data privacy legislation is complicated, and passing a comprehensive federal data privacy bill will involve two polarized sides coming together on the issue of pre-emption over state laws and other federal laws that govern data by sector or industry, according to experts.
James Shreve, a partner and cybersecurity group chair at Thompson Coburn in Chicago, said Thursday one issue with data privacy legislation is that each bill on the subject may have to go through as many as six different committees on Capitol Hill before it heads to a vote.
“Then you layer on the fact that preemption is very contentious. It's a contentious issue on both sides of the aisle,” Shreve said.
There appears to be a switch in ideology. Democrats would like to see a federal data privacy bill that allows any existing or future state laws governing data privacy to remain intact. Meanwhile, Republicans, and the tech companies that support federal legislation, would like to see a federal law pre-empt state laws.
Shreve said he believes once other states see how the California Consumer Privacy Act works, they will follow suit.
Debra Farber, the senior director of privacy strategy at BigID, said it's good to know that companies are now taking data privacy seriously. However, with the CCPA coming into effect in 2020, the efforts on behalf of industry are too little too late.
“It used to be that all of the tech companies, which are largely libertarian-based, would fight against a federal law and said it would stifle innovation,” Farber said. “There is validity in the argument, but having told that story for so long and now all of the sudden turning around and embracing privacy and wanting federal legislation only because you don't want every single state to do what California did; it's just too little too late.”
Farber said it would make more sense for companies to advocate for more clarity in the CCPA and to make sure it would not impact smaller companies.
“The scope of it right now is what businesses are up in arms about because they feel like it is too vague and it encompasses too many small businesses,” Farber said.
Shreve explained that California was the first state to pass a data breach notification law and now all 50 states have data breach notification requirements on the books. Further, he said companies are perhaps fearful of the stringent requirements that the CCPA entails and how other states may copy those requirements.
“I think that's the case. California has certainly been a leader on privacy for many years,” Shreve said.
The CCPA provides stringent protections to consumers of companies doing business in California akin to those of the EU's General Data Protection Regulation.
“The requirements to the CCPA are just well beyond what we've seen up to this point. It's not an incremental step; it's a significant step,” Shreve said.
Farber said besides finding a consensus on pre-empting state laws that govern data privacy, there is also the issue of pre-empting the sector-by-sector data privacy laws already on the books.
“We have so many federal privacy laws in various different sectors,” Farber said. “In order to get a consensus on the federal level we'd have to re-architect all of the privacy laws that have different regulators based on different sectors.”
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 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 AllAfter Solving Problems for Presidents, Ron Klain Now Applying Legal Prowess to Helping Airbnb Overturn NYC Ban
7 minute readNLRB Blisters Skilled Care Home Chain That Terminated Nursing Assistant Who Complained About Wages
6 minute read'Erroneous Assumption'?: Apple Challenges DOJ Antitrust Remedy in Google Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Perkins Coie Lures Former Longtime Wilson Sonsini Tech Transactions Partner
- 2‘The Decision Will Help Others’: NJ Supreme Court Reverses Appellate Div. in OPRA Claim Over Body-Worn Camera Footage
- 3MoFo Associate Sees a Familiar Face During Her First Appellate Argument: Justice Breyer
- 4Antitrust in Trump 2.0: Expect Gap Filling from State Attorneys General
- 5People in the News—Jan. 22, 2025—Knox McLaughlin, Saxton & Stump
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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