The CCPA Is Coming and So Are Data Breach Class Actions
Companies that do business in California can expect to see class action litigation if they become the victim of a data breach, but showing a good cybersecurity posture and implementing arbitration agreements may be the best defense.
November 08, 2019 at 06:09 PM
3 minute read
Companies that do business in California can expect to see class action litigation if they become the victim of a data breach, but showing a good cybersecurity posture and implementing arbitration agreements may be the best defense.
"I think those of us on the defense side are speculating over whether it's going to be [on] Jan. 1 or Jan. 2," Anne Johnson Palmer, a partner at Ropes & Gray in San Francisco, said. "Any company that experiences a data breach is likely to see one of these cases."
Since June 28, 2018, the California Consumer Privacy Act has undergone several changes. Most notably, consumers now only have a private right of action for a data breach. If the suit is successful, consumers who have their data exposed in a breach can be given anywhere from $100 to $750.
"There is the private right of action and the statutory damages. That is new and a game changer because defendants have historically challenged these data breach class actions on the basis that there isn't a sufficient allegation about damage or injury," Palmer explained.
She said because there are damages built into the statute, companies may have a harder time challenging the validity of any class action which arises from a data breach. As the law stands now, there is only a private right of action for a data breach and no other part of the statute.
Michelle Hon Donovan, a partner at Duane Morris in San Diego, said in-house counsel should begin looking at their consumer-facing agreements and find ways to get around a class action lawsuit. One of those measures would include adding an arbitration provision to the online agreements.
"You have to get the consumers to agree," Donovan said. "The companies can't just change their terms. That is going to be one of the big things to protect themselves against class action lawsuits."
Donovan said the language of the CCPA "appears to be making an attempt to circumvent" a contractual provision such as an arbitration agreement. However, she noted the CCPA does say that the act will not apply if the application is preempted by federal law. She said the U.S. Supreme Court case Kindred Nursing Centers v. Clark would preempt the CCPA's attempt to circumvent arbitration agreements. In Kindred, she explained, the court ruled that federal arbitration law preempts any state laws that attempt to limit arbitration.
"If you just put it on your website, it is not going to be enforceable," Donovan said.
Palmer added it's important to show how a company has been improving its cybersecurity and to create internal policies in the event of a data breach.
"Focus on data security to have a record to be able to demonstrate that you have a security posture," Palmer said.
Even if companies are prepared for the CCPA, those responsible for compliance and regulation should be keeping an eye on what other states are doing.
"The one thing that is becoming an emerging area is that other states are following the lead of California and enacting their own laws," Palmer said. "The CCPA is the first phase of a frontier of state statutes in this area. The CCPA is not going to be standing alone as time passes."
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 AllHow Amy Harris Leverages Diversity to Give UMB Financial a Competitive Edge
5 minute readDog Gone It, Target: Provider of Retailer's Mascot Dog Sues Over Contract Cancellation
4 minute readLululemon Faces Legal Fire Over Its DEI Program After Bias Complaints Surface
3 minute readGC Conference Takeaways: Picking AI Vendors 'a Bit of a Crap Shoot,' Beware of Internal Investigation 'Scope Creep'
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1AI: An Enhancement, Not a Replacement for Attorneys
- 2Fowler White Burnett Opens Jacksonville Office Focused on Transportation Practice
- 3Auditor Finds 'Significant Deficiency' in FTC Accounting to Tune of $7M
- 4'A Mockery' of Deposition Rules: Walgreens Wins Sanctions Dispute Over Corporate Witness Allegedly Unfamiliar With Company
- 5Call for Nominations: TLI's Pennsylvania Legal Awards 2025
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