What CCPA Preparedness? Companies Repeating Privacy Compliance Mistakes, Study Says
Half of U.S. companies included in this new survey missed the GDPR deadline, and 70% said their compliance systems won't adapt to new regulations. Despite those foreboding findings, the majority of companies said they'd could meet the CCPA compliance deadline, which is less than seven months away.
May 16, 2019 at 09:20 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Corporate Counsel
U.S. companies haven't learned much from the missteps they made while preparing for the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation, suggests a new study on data privacy regulation compliance.
About half of the survey respondents whose companies are affected by GDPR revealed they had failed to meet last May's deadline to comply with the regulations—and 70% said the data privacy compliance systems they established or plan to have in place are incapable of adapting to new regulations.
“The interesting thing here was that, in preparing to become GDPR ready, a lot of the companies tried to build something in-house to try to scramble, if you will, to become GDPR ready,” said Daniel Barber, co-founder and CEO of DataGrail.
The San Mateo, California-based data privacy management software company surveyed 301 U.S.-based privacy professionals in information technology, operations, legal, and risk and compliance in April for its report, “The Age of Privacy: The Cost of Continuous Compliance.”
While most respondents reported it took them at least seven months to prepare for GDPR, 71% believed they could be ready for the California Consumer Privacy Act compliance deadline in less than six months. The CCPA deadline is Jan. 1, 2020.
The majority of companies are still approaching privacy regulations on a case-by-case basis, and half are using manual processes to manage GDPR privacy rights requests, which often involves a couple dozen employees and “thousands of touch points with the potential to introduce human error,” the report states.
Barber said the study's findings show that “most companies still rely on piecemeal technology solutions and manual processes, when they should be turning to privacy management solutions purpose-built for privacy regulations.”
He added, “Companies will need to integrate and operationalize their privacy management to avoid the time-consuming and error-prone manual processes to comply with these regulations.”
According to the report, most companies said the murkiness and complexities of GDPR make compliance a challenge.
Other major hurdles included lacking the time and human resources to plan and implement compliance programs and struggling to integrate compliance solutions across multiple systems and services.
The top challenges for CCPA compliance were virtually the same as those listed for GDPR.
Other findings from the report include:
- The average company held between 2,000 and 4,000 hours of meetings preparing for GDPR, while some spent more than 9,000 hours, or more than a year, in meetings.
- Nearly 80 percent of companies reported shelling out at least $100,000 on GDPR and CCPA compliance, while 20% have spent more than $1 million.
- Nearly 60% of companies have at least 26 employees managing data subject access requests under GDPR, and 84% have a system in place to help prevent human errors that could arise during the process.
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 AllTrending Stories
- 1The Key Moves in the Reshuffling German Legal Market as 2025 Dawns
- 2Social Media Celebrities Clash in $100M Lawsuit
- 3Federal Judge Sets 2026 Admiralty Bench Trial in Baltimore Bridge Collapse Litigation
- 4Trump Media Accuses Purchaser Rep of Extortion, Harassment After Merger
- 5Judge Slashes $2M in Punitive Damages in Sober-Living Harassment Case
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