In-House Counsel Should Keep Track of 'CCPA 2.0' Amid COVID-19, CCPA Compliance
"I don't think anyone has any doubt that he'll [Mactaggart] be able to get it on the ballot this year," Kim Phan, a partner at Ballard Spahr in Washington, D.C., said in an interview.
April 14, 2020 at 04:30 PM
3 minute read
As companies are still preparing for what enforcement under the California Consumer Privacy Act could look like, in-house counsel should begin paying attention to the ballot initiative for the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020.
Following the passage of the CCPA last year, Alastair Mactaggart, a San Francisco real estate developer who founded Californians for Consumer Privacy, put forth the CPRA, also widely referred to as CCPA 2.0, to be put on the ballot in the November 2020 general election. The law expands on the CCPA and gives consumers rights over the use and sale of their data similar to the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation.
Rita Heimes, general counsel and data protection officer at the International Association of Privacy Professionals in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, said in-house counsel should begin to look to GDPR to understand how to comply with CCPA 2.0 if it makes it to the ballot.
"There is always an advantage to CCPA compliance if a company has been building data processing practices to GDPR standards," Heimes said.
In the CCPA 2.0, Heimes explained, there are provisions that encourage data minimization and require opt-in rights around the use of sensitive data. Right now, the CCPA only requires companies to allow consumers to opt out of using data. One of the big provisions in the proposed ballot measure, Heimes said, is how the amended version of the law requires transparency for artificial intelligence and decision-making tools that are often used in the personal lending and insurance industries.
"That would require more disclosure to consumers who are unintentionally caught up in those kinds of decision-making tools," Heimes explained.
Under California law, the organization will need to get 623,000 signatures on the petition by April 21 to be on the ballot in November. A spokesperson for Californians for Consumer Privacy did not respond to request for comment on how many signatures the initiative currently has. However, early in March, a spokesperson reported the organization had roughly 500,000 signatures. It is not clear if the new coronavirus has since stymied the organization's efforts to get enough signatures to make the ballot in November.
"I don't think anyone has any doubt that he'll [Mactaggart] be able to get it on the ballot this year," Kim Phan, a partner at Ballard Spahr in Washington, D.C., said in an interview.
Phan said her clients have not become too concerned with the proposed ballot measure. Although she noted she has been keeping a casual eye on it. Partially because even if it is passed, it will not come into effect until January 2023.
The delay largely comes because the law would create a new agency to enforce the law. She did say that COVID-19 could present an issue relevant to the CCPA 2.0 because the proposed law includes geolocation as a form of personal data. There has been a call from governments and businesses to track movements around the spread of the virus.
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 AllGC Pleads Guilty to Embezzling $7.4 Million From 3 Banks
GC With Deep GM Experience Takes Legal Reins of Power Management Giant
2 minute readUS Reviewer of Foreign Transactions Sees More Political, Policy Influence, Say Observers
'Unlawful Release'?: Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Hochul Vetoes 'Grieving Families' Bill, Faulting a Lack of Changes to Suit Her Concerns
- 2Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Customers: Developments on ‘Conquesting’ from the Ninth Circuit
- 3Biden commutes sentences for 37 of 40 federal death row inmates, including two convicted of California murders
- 4Avoiding Franchisor Failures: Be Cautious and Do Your Research
- 5De-Mystifying the Ethics of the Attorney Transition Process, Part 1
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