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
© 2025 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 AllFired by Trump, EEOC's First Blind GC Lands at Nonprofit Targeting Abuses of Power
3 minute readTrump's Inspectors General Purge Could Make Policy Changes Easier, Observers Say
LSU General Counsel Quits Amid Fracas Over First Amendment Rights of Law Professor
7 minute readExits Leave American Airlines, SiriusXM, Spotify Searching for New Legal Chiefs
2 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Trump Taps McKinsey CLO Pierre Gentin for Commerce Department GC
- 2Critical Mass With Law.com's Amanda Bronstad: 700+ Residents Near Ohio Derailment File New Suit, Is the FAA to Blame For Last Month's Air Disasters?
- 3Law Journal Column on Marital Residence Sales in Pending Divorces Puts 'Misplaced' Reliance on Two Cases
- 4A Message to the Community: Meeting the Moment in 2025
- 5Ex-Prosecutor Denies on Witness Stand That She Tried to Protect Ahmaud Arbery's Killers
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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