Building a CCPA Tech Solution Costs Money—But There's Another Way
Partnerships with security or tech companies may be a viable alternative for firms who don't have the resources to become tech developers themselves.
September 24, 2019 at 11:15 AM
3 minute read
The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) doesn't officially touch down until January 1, 2020, but law firms have long since begun offering internally-built compliance apps geared towards helping client's transition into full compliance. But could there be a better—or at least cheaper—way?
Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck thinks so. Last week, the firm announced that it had entered into a partnership with the secure systems and solutions provider EC Wise to provide hands-on assistance to clients who still need help before they can claim mastery of the CCPA. The firm will handle legal issues related to policies or vendor contracts, while EC Wise will fill in the gaps around data security and deletion.
Katherine Catlos, a partner at Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck, stressed that the technical experience EC Wise brought to the table when it came to helping companies secure data was not something that was not necessarily in deep supply at the firm.
"I think other law firms probably have tech inside, in-house, that can assist with these sort of things, but our firm doesn't and so it seemed like it was the right thing to do," Catlos said.
To be sure, Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck isn't alone in looking for an alternative to building tech in-house.
Tomu Johnson, an attorney with Parsons Behle & Latimer and CEO of its subsidiary, Parsons Behle Lab, noted that while many firms are increasingly examining the option of producing their own tech, the expenditure of resources needed to successfully assemble a team and bring a product to market can be a splash of cold water.
"I think that the costs are largely out of reach for most law firms," Johnson said.
Partnerships in the vain of EC Wise and Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck circumvent such a hefty investment because there isn't a "product" or a technological framework that needs to be built first in order to facilitate the service. This is also something that may better suit the needs of the middle-market companies the partnership is looking to address, many of whom may be at the beginning of their compliance journeys and require more hands-on services now that the CCPA is only a little more than 3-months out.
Per Catlos, many of the people that Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck speaks with are still largely unfamiliar with the regulation, possibly because they don't think it will apply to them.
"I think that what's helpful in having a company that's familiar with privacy and security is taking the steps to make sure that the data is secure and that the appropriate patches are there and following the data lifecycle," Catlos said.
Parsons Behle & Latimer's Johnson agreed, adding that he believes that such partnerships will provide a viable alternative to firms unable to produce their own tech, and expects to see more of them moving forward.
However, he said that doesn't preclude a spot in the ecosystem for law firm-produced apps like Parson's own CCPA IQ, which uses a series of questions to help customers generate compliance-related documents. In that instance, paying a law firm to perform those tasks on an on-going basis might be more costly than the one-time investment of the app.
"[Law firm] service hours are going to be much more structured than they would be without the app in the first place," Johnson said.
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
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