Now That It's 2020, Companies Want Clarification on the Proposed CCPA Regulations Soon
Attorneys who have to guide companies on how to navigate through the California Consumer Privacy Act would like clarification sooner than later on the proposed regulations the state's attorney general set out.
January 21, 2020 at 05:41 PM
4 minute read
Attorneys who have to guide companies through the California Consumer Privacy Act would like clarification sooner than later on the proposed regulations the state's attorney general set out last year.
In October, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra released 24 pages of draft regulations concerning the CCPA that will be finalized by July 1, 2020, at the latest. The date is significant because Becerra has said that his office will not begin enforcing the law until then.
"For the most part we are assuming that the proposed regulations will be implemented as they were initially drafted," Michelle Hon Donovan, a partner at Duane Morris in San Diego, said.
She said there is no clarity on some of the definitions, and businesses will need to be given direction in order to comply with the law, which came into effect on Jan. 1. One of those includes a definition of personal information.
"A business shall not provide a consumer with specific pieces of personal information if the disclosure creates a substantial, articulable, and unreasonable risk to the security of that personal information, the consumer's account with the business, or the security of the business's systems or networks," the proposed rule says.
"That language is unclear and can be interpreted very broadly," Hon Donovan said.
Jean-Marc Chanoine, global head of strategic accounts and legal counsel at Templafy in New York, said while there is a grace period now, the California Office of Attorney General will ultimately be going after companies for minute procedures in which the language on how to comply is vague.
For example, if someone requests what information a company has on them, a company may need to collect more information on that person to verify they are not a bad actor trying to steal information. There are questions, Chanoine said, on whether that is allowed and how long a company can retain that additional information.
"Anyone can request information on data that is being collected on them," Chanoine said. "That data could be used by bad actors. How are companies supposed to know what is a legitimate request?"
Chanoine said while the attorney general is not aiming to punish companies that are trying to do the right thing, the attorney general still has not defined which efforts would show good faith and which would not.
Chanoine would like to see some kind of protection for companies from frivolous class action lawsuits. One of the most notable changes to the CCPA is that 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.
"What is the attorney general doing to make sure there are not abuses in class action lawsuits?" Chanoine asked. "Let's make sure we're protecting consumers and companies and not causing more harm than good."
The timing is what is largely concerning to clients, said Jim Halpert, a partner at DLA Piper in Washington, D.C. He said some of these changes would take a while because there is no technology to handle some of the proposed requirements. One involves having "do not sell" notices that could be sent through a browser signal, Halpert explained.
"There is not the technology to do this and it is unclear how, beginning on July 1, businesses would be able to comply with that," Halpert explained. "The CCPA has been a moving target and the regulations include some new ideas which are a little difficult for entities to comply with."
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 Dana Rao Built a 'Yes' Culture at Adobe and Why He Walked Away
FTC Sues Cash-Advance Fintech Dave, Says It Deceives the 'Financially Vulnerable'
Discover Hires Interim Legal Chief as $35B Sale to Capital One Faces New Hurdles
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4How I Made Practice Group Chair: 'If You Love What You Do and Put the Time and Effort Into It, You Will Excel,' Says Lisa Saul of Forde & O'Meara
- 5Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
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