Are You Prepared? Dealing with GDPR-like Rules Spreading Across the Nation
While implementation for the new California privacy law is more than one year away, companies should be planning their compliance efforts now, given the timeline and economic ramifications of the law.
December 21, 2018 at 07:00 AM
5 minute read
This article appeared in Cybersecurity Law & Strategy, an ALM publication for privacy and security professionals, Chief Information Security Officers, Chief Information Officers, Chief Technology Officers, Corporate Counsel, Internet and Tech Practitioners, In-House Counsel. Visit the website to learn more.
California's Consumer Privacy Act, signed into law earlier this year, follows a growing line of consumer privacy laws, such as the European General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR), Canadian Breach of Security Safeguards Regulations of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), and related New York Department of Financial Services Cybersecurity Rules and Regulations (NYCRR 500).
As New York's NYCRR 500 regulations serve as the gold standard for cybersecurity protocols, California's CCPA will likely serve as the U.S. standard for privacy. Like its European GDPR counterpart, California's privacy act establishes consumer rights and corporate responsibilities, which will be enforced with penalties up to $7,500 per violation.
As motivation for the law, the California Act notably cites the tens of millions of people whose personal data was misused by the data mining firm Cambridge Analytica, a greater desire to heighten data privacy controls and transparency of data practices, and the people's desire for privacy and more control over their information. The Act provides specific provisions:
- Full disclosure regarding the collection of personal information, including details of the collected information, sources, the purpose, whether the data is disclosed or sold to another party, and if so, the third party's details.
- An opt-out right to prevent a business from selling their personal information to third parties.
- The right to be deleted (like with GDPR's right to be forgotten).
- The right to equal service and pricing, even if the individual exercises their rights under the Act (the net neutrality of privacy).
The Act mandates traceable transparency of consumer data collection, use, distribution, and the GDPR-like right to be forgotten. These requirements must be made public through general policy, by specific request, and cannot form the basis of bias or discrimination on the part of the business. A company cannot tie goods or services to the ability to resell consumer information or offer discounts or other incentives in exchange for this ability. This moves consumer privacy rights from the domain of often ignored fine print to the front page.
The Act, which comes into effect on Jan. 1, 2020, could have a serious impact on the economic models of many companies collecting and reselling data to other parties. Transparency in data movement and resale will open the eyes of consumers who, until now, blindly agree to user contracts and never question why an app on their phone needs access to their location, contacts, or other services.
The Act is similar in a way to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) that enforced transparency in consumer credit reporting and gave people the ability to correct errors. Until the FCRA, credit reporting was a dark venture between agencies and banks, with little to no opportunity for consumers to understand how the ratings were determined, distributed or used.
Companies will likely have to expend significant resources to move toward compliance. Opt-out and opt-in mechanisms differ slightly between CCPA and GDPR and require multiple mechanisms. It could lead to confusion both on the company side and for the consumer. While the law is more than one year away, companies should be planning their compliance efforts now, given the timeline and economic ramifications of the law.
Like privacy and security legislation before it, many companies will ignore the Act assuming it doesn't affect them, only to discover that it does. Moreover, many companies may opt to sit back and wait for enforcement actions to hone their cost versus benefits model.
But like other laws, ignorance is no excuse. As we've experienced with data breaches, organizations that aren't prepared and then experience a business altering event will likely take far too long to discover the breach, struggle to resolve the issue and end up fined under the new Act. It's not a new story. We've seen it before with other privacy laws like HIPAA — reviewing the public resolutions and penalties reads like a who's who of cyber sinners. With privacy, the finger pointing throughout the data transfer chain could become dizzying and cause protracted investigations and actions.
So, what should organizations do to prepare for these new regulations?
First, acknowledge that your business is affected because you do control assets (data, records, banking information, etc.). Conduct an assessment to determine what information is collected, for what purpose, and where it moves. Minimize what's collected and start building the opt-in/out mechanisms and procedures to respond to specific consumer inquiries.
Consumer privacy has become a main stage topic, which means similar legislation will appear in other states, further confusing what is already compliance nightmare for national companies.
Mark Sangster is a cybersecurity evangelist who has spent significant time researching and speaking to peripheral factors influencing the way that legal firms integrate cybersecurity into their day-to-day operations. In addition to Mark's role as VP and industry security strategist with managed cybersecurity services provider eSentire, he also serves on our Board of Editors and as a member of the LegalSec Council with the International Legal Technology Association (ILTA). 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 AllTrending Stories
- 1Meta’s New Content Guidelines May Result in Increased Defamation Lawsuits Among Users
- 2State Court Rejects Uber's Attempt to Move IP Suit to Latin America
- 3Florida Supreme Court Disciplined 17 Attorneys
- 4Sex Work at Wyndham? Judge Allows 10th Human-Trafficking Suit
- 5A&O Shearman To Lose Another 5 Lawyers
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