California’s New Data Protection Law Impacts Florida Companies
Florida-based companies enjoy the benefits of a low-regulation state government. In fact, when it comes to requirements for data privacy protection, Florida has comparatively few applicable laws and regulations.
August 14, 2019 at 10:01 AM
5 minute read
Florida-based companies enjoy the benefits of a low-regulation state government. In fact, when it comes to requirements for data privacy protection, Florida has comparatively few applicable laws and regulations. But like the tourists who travel far and wide to visit the Sunshine State, data protection laws from other U.S. states, and even foreign countries, now apply to Florida corporations because of the far-reaching nature of the internet. Case in point, the California Consumer Privacy Act, or the CCPA, is having a seismic impact on companies everywhere, including Florida.
|CCPA’s Extraterritorial Impact
Passed unanimously last year by both chambers of the California legislature, the CCPA is an ambitious effort to control the collection and sale of consumer personal data by any business that collects and uses it. Most critically, it requires businesses to provide a “do not sell my personal information” link on their websites. Given California’s clout as the fifth largest economy in the world, the CCPA has vaulted the state to the very leading edge of the privacy debate.
It is that same economic strength that is driving the application of the CCPA outside the borders of California. The CCPA applies to any company “doing business” in the state that has a gross annual revenue of $25 million, or annually deals in the personal information of 50,000 or more California consumers, households or devices. The act also impacts companies that derive more than 50% of their annual revenue from selling California personal information. Even sharing common branding with a company that meets these criteria subjects a business to the act’s requirements.
At first blush, the $25 million threshold seems like an easy out, but the threshold is $25 million overall, regardless of the specific amount coming from California. And “doing business” can mean that the company actively engages in any transaction for the purpose of financial or pecuniary gain or profit in California, including paying compensation to a single California employee.
If a Florida company falls within that definition, the CCPA gives California residents a number of rights, including requesting that a business:
- Disclose the categories and specific pieces of personal information it has collected;
- Disclose the categories of sources from which the personal information is collected;
- Disclose the business or commercial purpose for collecting or selling the personal information;
- Disclose the categories of third parties with whom the business shares the personal information;
- Delete any personal information about the consumer that the business has collected from a consumer, subject to certain exceptions; and
- Not “sell” (broadly defined) the consumer’s personal information (the “do not sell” opt-out).
Businesses typically must respond to these requests within 45 days of receipt, and must provide certain easily accessible, cost-free methods for exercising these rights.
Moreover, the CCPA adds several new required substantive requirements that must be included in a privacy notice or policy, beyond existing California-specific requirements, including:
- A description of consumers’ rights under the CCPA;
- A description of the categories of personal information collected by the business in the preceding 12 months;
- The commercial and business purposes for which the personal information is collected;
- The categories of personal information sold or disclosed for a business purpose in the preceding 12 months;
- The categories of third parties with whom personal information is shared;
- A link to a “do not sell my personal information” web-based opt-out tool;
- A description of any financial incentives for providing data or not exercising rights (e.g., if the company offers a 15% discount to individuals who provide their email address for marketing purposes, this incentive must be disclosed in the privacy policy); and
- Two or more designated methods for submitting information requests, including a toll-free number and a website address (if applicable).
The law requires compliance with its provisions as of January 2020, which means immediate action is required to meet that deadline. Violations of the CCPA are subject to enforcement by the California Attorney General’s office, which can seek civil penalties of $2,500 for each violation or $7,500 for each intentional violation after notice and a 30-day opportunity to cure have been provided.
|What Should You Be Doing Now?
If a Florida company meets the “doing business” requirements, what steps can it take to determine whether its compliant? First, create a data inventory of all the personal information collected, how its being used, and how its shared. Its critical to identify all the vendors and other third parties with whom personal information is being shared and review the existing contracts with those parties for compliance with CCPA requirements. Second, test what happens when a consumer makes a CCPA demand that your company not “sell” their information. Businesses should assess whether they can continue to operate and provide services if that request prevents processing by third party vendors. Lastly, the CCPA unlocks private causes of actions with potentially devastating statutory damages, but only in connection with certain data breaches. Businesses need to stay on top of their security practices to prevent that possibility.
Luis Salazar is the founder of Salazar Law, a minority-owned law firm specializing in complex data privacy and compliance matters. The Department of Justice has appointed him 25 times as Consumer Privacy Ombudsman to protect more than 40 million data profiles for consumers. He can be reached at [email protected].
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 AllAs a New Year Dawns, the Value of Florida’s Revised Mediation Laws Comes Into Greater Focus
4 minute readData Breaches, Increased Regulatory Risk and Florida’s New Digital Bill of Rights
7 minute readNavigating Florida's Products Liability Law: Defective Products, Warnings and the Pursuit of Justice
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Deal Watch: Latham, Paul Weiss, Debevoise Land on Year-End Big Deals. Plus, Mixed Messages for 2025 M&A
- 2Bathroom Recording Leads to Lawyer's Disbarment: Disciplinary Roundup
- 3Conn. Supreme Court: Workers' Comp Insurance Cancellations Must Be Unambiguous
- 4To Avoid Conflict, NYAG Hands Probe Into Inmate's Beating Death to Syracuse-Area DA
- 5Scripture-Quoting Employee Sues Company for Supporting LGBTQ Pride
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