5 Takeaways: MCCA Conference Panel Provides Insight on Privacy Law Compliance
In-house counsel, privacy professionals and employment lawyers brought unique perspectives to a panel on California privacy law at the Minority Corporate Counsel Association's Global TEC Forum in San Francisco.
April 04, 2019 at 07:45 PM
4 minute read
The Minority Corporate Counsel Association kicked off its 2019 Global TEC Forum in San Francisco on Thursday afternoon with a lunchtime plenary session on the compliance complications of California's privacy law.
Hogan Lovells partner Mark Brennan moderated the discussion on “The California Consumer Privacy Act and What It Means” with four panelists: Ravi Inthiran, the senior director of compliance and privacy officer at Ripple Labs Inc.; Joanne Charles, a Microsoft Corp. privacy and regulatory affairs attorney; Heather Vigil, a shareholder at Littler Mendelson; and Stuart Lee, the chief privacy officer of VMware Inc. Here are five key takeaways from the session.
- Don't copy and paste compliance procedures from other privacy laws. Companies impacted by the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation, which went into effect last May, likely have a leg up in CCPA compliance. But Lee said privacy counsel should still approach CCPA as its own separate law. “You can't just lift and shift your individual rights program for GDPR and put it on top of CCPA,” Lee said.
- Employees' data may be impacted. Vigil said it's not yet clear how CCPA will apply to employees. The law could give employees the right to request all data employers have collected on them, including sensitive information exchanged in emails or about their browsing history. “It's not the California Consumer and Employee Privacy Act, but when you start digging into some of these definitions that are used within the law itself, you've got personal information identified as employment information,” Vigil said.
- “Unstructured data” could complicate compliance. In-house counsel can scour spreadsheets and databases for impacted personal information. They also may need to check videos and recordings, Inthiran said, which could count as “unstructured” personal data. “The question becomes, how do you track that? How do you think about it? Is that considered personal information if you have a CCTV, a recording device in your office and you're recording people walking through the building. How are you associating that with an individual that's checking in?” Inthiran said.
- Children have stronger consumer protections. Companies that know, or suspect, minors under 16 years of age use their services should take extra precautions with CCPA. Inthiran said CCPA requires opt-in consent for certain subsets of minors and parents sign-off. That's true even if a child uses an app or service on a device owned by an adult, panelists said. “It's unlikely that a 5-year-old has a phone but if you're collecting usage data on a game that is designed for under-5, even though you only have information about the household, it becomes identifiable and I think it falls under the statute,” Charles said.
- Form cross-functional teams. Lee said counsel can't approach CCPA “in a silo, as your privacy program.” As the 2020 deadline for CCPA implementation approaches, he suggested privacy counsel partner with information technology teams and other business leaders to design a compliance strategy that involves all relevant departments. “You have to engage cross-functionally,” Lee said.
Read More:
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 AllAggressive 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.
InCloudCounsel Hires First GC to Continue Expansion in Asia
Trending Stories
- 1Voir Dire Voyeur: I Find Out What Kind of Juror I’d Be
- 2When It Comes to Local Law 97 Compliance, You’ve Gotta Have (Good) Faith
- 3Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Virginia Griffith, Director of Business Development at OutsideGC
- 4Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Bill Tanenbaum, Partner & Chair, AI & Data Law Practice Group at Moses Singer
- 5Morgan & Morgan Looks to Grow Into Complex Litigation While Still Keeping its Billboards Up
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