A CCPA Class Action Is Coming and Preparedness Is The Best Way to Avoid It
As the law is currently written, consumers have a private right of action when their non-encrypted and nonredacted information is stolen. The law also allows consumers to file a claim even if they do not show actual damage from the data breach, according to a blog post by consulting company Epiq.
June 21, 2019 at 05:22 PM
3 minute read
The California Consumer Privacy Act is set to go into effect Jan. 1, 2020, and, according to experts, class action litigation is coming and in-house lawyers would do well to make sure their companies are working toward compliance.
“We're past the time where companies should have started preparing for the CCPA,” Edward McAndrew, a partner at DLA Piper in Wilmington, Delaware, said.
In April, the 2019 Carlton Fields Class Action Survey indicated that the next wave of class action suits will result from data breaches. The report, citing responses from over 300 general counsel and senior in-house attorneys, indicated that state data privacy laws such as the CCPA will be the reason for an expected uptick in these kinds of class action suits.
As the law is currently written, consumers have a private right of action when their non-encrypted and nonredacted information is stolen. The law also allows consumers to file a claim even if they do not show actual damage from the data breach, according to a blog post by consulting company Epiq.
Cameron Azari, vice president at Epiq, said because it is difficult to show actual damage, historically data breach suits have mixed results. However, not having to show actual damage may make it easier for plaintiffs to succeed.
“I think that plaintiffs attorneys are going to be on the watch for wherever there is a recognized exposure of data,” Azari said.
Active preparation and documenting the steps made to become compliant with the law will also show a presiding court that a company was not negligent with data in the event of the breach. McAndrew said the questions the courts will ask are: Did the company act reasonably and did they act reasonably upon discovery of the breach?
“There is going to be potential liability if the plaintiff can establish that the company did not act reasonably in terms of attempting to secure the data,” McAndrew said.
He said at DLA Piper, he and his colleagues are working on building compliance programs for the CCPA.
Companies should also be preparing for the cost of litigation. McAndrew previously said the cost of discovery alone in one of these cases could be high.
“I suspect that if they aren't budgeting this year, they'll be budgeting next year,” McAndrew said.
It will not just be the multibillion-dollar companies of the world, Azari said. He said he would also expect plaintiffs attorneys to look at smaller companies that can still hold the personal data of tens of thousands of people. Because of the wide net the CCPA and other laws like it cast, compliance departments are becoming more sophisticated.
“None of these corporations want to be involved in a data breach,” Azari said. “I would think it's going to make defendants even more vigilant.”
For best practices, McAndrew said legal departments should look at some of the best practices that state regulators have published on best ways to protect data.
“If companies adopt those, they're going to be well-positioned to argue that they didn't act unreasonably,” McAndrew said.
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'Be Comfortable Being Uncomfortable': Pearls of Wisdom From 2024 GC Q&As
Trending Stories
- 1Lawyer’s Resolutions: Focusing on 2025
- 2Houston Judge Exonerated on Appeal, Public Reprimand Vacated
- 3Bar Report - Dec. 30
- 4Employment Law Developments to Expect From the Second Trump Administration
- 5How I Made Law Firm Leadership: 'It’s Imperative That You Never Stop Learning,' Says Ian Ribald of Ballard Spahr
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