Companies agree to app privacy rules
A recent settlement, reached between California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris and six companies, may change the way app makers handle personal data as well as the way app users download their apps.
February 24, 2012 at 06:25 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
A recent settlement, reached between California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris and six companies, may change the way app makers handle personal data as well as the way app users download their apps.
The six companies—Apple Inc., Google Inc., Amazon.com Inc., Microsoft Corp., Hewlett-Packard Co. and Research In Motion Ltd.—will require all apps to have privacy policies. The California law requires that any app that collects personal data must have a clear privacy policy that discloses what information it collects and what it will do with that information.
According to the agreement, the apps must give app users the opportunity to read the privacy policy before installing the app, and that policy must be easy to find on the application-download screen. App makers who don't comply with the new law may be in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law or False Advertising Law.
The new law is expected to benefit app users everywhere, not just those in California.
Read more about the new law.
A recent settlement, reached between California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris and six companies, may change the way app makers handle personal data as well as the way app users download their apps.
The six companies—
According to the agreement, the apps must give app users the opportunity to read the privacy policy before installing the app, and that policy must be easy to find on the application-download screen. App makers who don't comply with the new law may be in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law or False Advertising Law.
The new law is expected to benefit app users everywhere, not just those in California.
Read more about the new law.
This content has been archived.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 All
Crypto Groups Sue IRS Over Decentralized Finance Reporting Rule
SEC Penalizes Wells Fargo, LPL Financial $900,000 Each for Inaccurate Trading Data
US Reviewer of Foreign Transactions Sees More Political, Policy Influence, Say Observers
Pre-Internet High Court Ruling Hobbling Efforts to Keep Tech Giants from Using Below-Cost Pricing to Bury Rivals
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1To Speed Criminal Discovery, NY Bill Proposes Police-to-Prosecutor Pipeline For Records
- 2Merchan Rejects Trump's Bid to Delay Manhattan Sentencing
- 3High-Low Settlement Agreement 'Does Not Alone Establish Bias:' State High Court Affirms $20M Med Mal Verdict
- 4NYAG Preparing to Withdraw From Defense of Four Correction Officers' Federal Lawsuits
- 52 Judges: Meet the New Chief Justice and the GC Who Just Rose to the Bench
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
