GDPR vs. CCPA: Privacy Counsel Weigh In on Compliance Challenges
California and European privacy laws are bringing change—and stress—to in-house compliance teams. Privacy counsel discussed Thursday the differences between GDPR and CCPA, and how lawyers can approach each.
March 21, 2019 at 07:57 PM
4 minute read
Sweeping privacy and data protection regulatory changes in California and the European Union are keeping in-house counsel busy, especially at tech companies.
In May 2018, the European Union implemented its General Data Protection Regulation, which expanded consumers' rights over their data. Later that year California became the first U.S. state to pass a privacy law, the California Consumer Privacy Act. It's set to go into effect in 2020.
The laws have similarities. But panelists at a Santa Clara University event Thursday said the laws are also different, a challenge for in-house counsel whose companies need to comply with both. Panelist Anna Gassot, an associate at Fieldfisher and former in-house counsel, said GDPR's definition of personal data is broad. And unlike CCPA, its definition of data controllers isn't limited to for-profit organizations.
"If I'm a privacy officer or a compliance manager and I'm thinking about [GDPR's and CCPA's] definitions, quite frankly I'm going to take a fairly practical broad view and say, a controller is like a covered business, which is the same as a covered entity in [the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act]," said Barbara Lawler, vice president and chief privacy and data ethics officer at Looker Data Sciences.
Lawler said the broad definition of processing data was unclear at first but is "helpful now" that she's framed it to include "anything you do with data."
Unlike GDPR, CCPA explicitly includes data that could identify a "household" as well as a person, a source of confusion for some in-house counsel that panelists said could be clarified before the law goes into effect next year.
CCPA also includes a clause intended to prevent discrimination, such as varying prices for consumers based on their data, which Gassot said could impact loyalty programs. Lawler said companies seek clarity on this clause as well.
Because of CCPA and GDPR's differences, panelists debated whether or not companies should offer different privacy notices to California and European Union residents. Panelist Lydia de la Torre, a privacy law fellow at Santa Clara Law and former in-house privacy lawyer for Axiom and PayPal, favored separate notices with local language and concepts.
But Gassot noted that could get complicated as more countries and U.S. states move toward implementing privacy laws. Lawler proposed a middle ground. Companies could issue one standard privacy notice, with specifics for each country or region listed outside of the main text.
"I think the bottom line is, how are you delivering notices today? And building on that," Lawler said. She said she hasn't yet decided whether Looker's privacy notice will combine California and the EU.
In-house lawyers still figuring out what CCPA compliance will look like should, panelists said, at least take the first step: mapping their data collection and processing. Then, they can share that information with information technology and other departments.
Gassot said companies who mapped their data for GDPR should still conduct a similar exercise in preparation for CCPA because the "questions were not exactly the same and the information that was needed was not exactly the same."
Complying with changing privacy regulations can be stressful, but Lawler said companies should view it as a business opportunity to increase consumer trust.
"This is a chance to think about how you communicate, and be more transparent about your data handling practices with consumers," she said. "And I think that's just good consumer relations."
Read More:
Dazed and Confused: Gray Areas in the Golden State's New Privacy Law
House Hearing on Federal Privacy Law Takes Aim at GDPR, CCPA
Real World Scenarios for the California Consumer Privacy Act
Business Groups Lobby for Changes to California Data Privacy Law
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
© 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 AllHow Marsh McLennan's Small But Mighty Legal Innovation Team Builds Solutions That Bring Joy
Aggressive FTC May Force Merging Companies to Bolster Legal Defenses
4 minute readBest Legal Departments: How Blackstone's Legal and Compliance Team Got the All-Clear to Grow Business
CEOs Want Data-Based Risk Management; GCs Lack the Tech to Do So.
Trending Stories
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