'Plowing New Ground': California Unveils Draft Rules for Enforcing the CCPA
The release of the 24-page regulations and accompanying documents starts the clock on a two-month public comment period that will include four hearings around the state.
October 11, 2019 at 01:00 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
Attorney General Xavier Becerra on Thursday unveiled draft rules for enforcing the California Consumer Privacy Act, the sweeping data protection rules that take effect next year.
The release of the 24-page regulations and accompanying documents starts the clock on a two-month public comment period that will include four hearings around the state. Final comments are due by Dec. 6.
The draft rules detail how companies must notify customers about the personal information they collect about them as well as how they must respond to and verify consumers' requests for collected data. The regulations also attempt to attach a price tag to consumer information by requiring companies that offer incentive programs to devise "a good faith method" for calculating the value of that data.
"This is plowing new ground," Becerra told reporters at a San Francisco press conference. "We're better than Captain Kirk and the Enterprise. We're going really where no one in America has gone before."
The regulations are the product of a year of work by Becerra's point person on privacy, Supervising Deputy Attorney General Stacey Schesser, longtime state privacy official Joanne McNabb and a team of consumer protection lawyers in the state Department of Justice. Schesser has been with the attorney general's office for more than nine years.
The attorney general's office was charged last year with writing compliance and enforcement rules for the Consumer Privacy Act, after the Legislature approved the measure to ward off an expensive ballot initiative fight. Lawmakers continued to tinker with the law this year as tech and business groups lobbied to restrict its reach.
The rules offer consumers broad opportunities to bar the selling of their personal information. One provision requires businesses to treat user-enabled privacy controls, including browser's "do not track" features, as valid requests to opt out of the sale of their information.
The rules also place additional record-keeping and training requirements on businesses that collect information about more than four million Californians. Those companies will have to track the number of customer record requests they receive as well as how long it took to respond to those requests, Schesser said.
An economic analysis of the proposed regulations released by the attorney general's office estimates that coming into compliance could cost businesses as much as $15 billion. The same report pegged the value of Californians' collected data at approximately $10 billion.
Critics of the new law have seized upon the potential compliance costs and what they say are vague or unworkable standards to plead with federal lawmakers for a national standard that would preempt California's law.
"This study includes troubling points for businesses that must comply with the California Consumer Privacy Act and shows the potential for a significant negative impact on the California economy," TechNet executive director for California Courtney Jensen said in a prepared statement.
With no concrete action to date in Congress, however, other states have enacted new privacy policies. A Nevada law that took effect Oct. 1, for instance, gives residents there the power to opt out of businesses' use of their personal information.
"We may be the first in the nation," Becerra said Thursday. "I guarantee you we won't be the last."
Becerra declined to comment on a new privacy initiative proposed for the 2020 ballot by Consumer Privacy Act author Alastair Mactaggart, noting that his office will have to write the ballot title and summary for the measure if it qualifies.
Although the California Consumer Privacy Act is set to take effect Jan. 1, the law will not be enforced until the attorney general finalizes rules July 1.
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
- 1Church of Scientology Set to Depose Phila. Attorney in Sexual Abuse Case
- 2An AG Just Specified How AI Could Get You in Hot Water
- 3Supreme Court Appears to Lean Toward Letting TikTok Ban Take Effect
- 4Standing Spat: Split 2nd Circuit Lets Challenge to Pfizer Diversity Program Proceed
- 5Judge Jablonski and Chief Justice Rabner Both Acted Completely Properly
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