Tech's Efforts to Diminish Landmark California Privacy Law Fizzle, for Now
The demise of bills amending the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) over the course of a 12-hour committee hearing Tuesday marked the first significant defeat for tech companies.
July 10, 2019 at 10:13 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
Corporate-backed efforts to limit the reach of California's Consumer Privacy Act through legislative amendments ran into a political buzzsaw Tuesday as a state Senate committee killed one key bill and handcuffed another that organized labor had opposed.
The author of a third bill that would have allowed certain sales of personal data to government agencies shelved the measure without a vote after the Senate Judiciary Committee issued a critical analysis of the legislation.
The demise of the bills over the course of a 12-hour committee hearing Tuesday marked the first significant defeat for tech companies, business groups and their lobbies, which have been trying to redefine aspects of the landmark data privacy law since its hasty passage last year. The law goes into effect in 2020.
The bills cruised through the state Assembly this spring only to hit a roadblock: Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara. The chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Jackson has sought to add stronger enforcement measures to the privacy act, trying unsuccessfully earlier this year to give consumers, and not just the attorney general, the right to sue over violations. On Tuesday she called the law “a weak cup of tea” that would have been “turned into water” if some of the amending bills had passed.
Tuesday's marathon committee hearing had a special urgency with Wednesday's deadline for moving bills out of legislative policy committees looming. The most contentious bill debated in the committee's evening session was AB 873, a Chamber of Commerce-backed measure that would have broadened the definition of de-identified information—information that does not fall under the restrictions of the Consumer Privacy Act.
Bill author Jacqui Irwin, D-Thousand Oaks, called the law's current definition of de-identified data “unworkable” and warned her colleagues that if the state doesn't “get it right” with fixes to the privacy law “there will be federal pre-emption.”
Jackson, however, called Irwin's bill “dangerous” and asked the author to take a series of amendments. Irwin refused, leading the committee to reject the measure on a 3-3 vote.
The committee also voted to amend a bill that would have exempted employers from some data-collecting provisions in the privacy law. AB 25 will now require employers to tell workers what type of information they're collecting about them and why, although they won't have to share specific details about what they've gathered.
The amendment was a nod to organized labor and privacy groups, who had argued that the bill's original employment-based exemptions would have effectively condoned companies surreptitiously monitoring their workers through apps, computer keystroke logs or GPS tracking.
The workplace disclosure provision expires in January 2021, giving business groups, privacy advocates and labor unions a year to negotiate more narrowly tailored language governing employee data collection.
The Judiciary Committee on Tuesday also approved legislation allowing businesses to collect customer information through loyalty programs after the bill's author agreed to an amendment banning the sale of that data to third parties.
The Consumer Privacy Act-related bills that survived Tuesday's hearing will now be heard in the Senate Appropriations Committee after the Legislature returns from its summer recess.
Read more:
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
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
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