CCPA Uncertainty May Put Cloud Agreements Up in the Air
With the CCPA touching down in under two months, organizations may be running out of time to successfully update their cloud provider deals or other agreements to avoid running afoul of the stringent privacy regulation.
November 18, 2019 at 09:30 AM
4 minute read
Whether anyone asked for the California Consumer Privacy Act for Christmas or not, the law is scheduled to officially go into effect on Jan. 1, 2020, and it's possible that many businesses still have some prep work ahead of them when it comes to updating their cloud agreements.
That insight arrives courtesy of Baker McKenzie's 2019 Cloud Survey, which garnered 190 responses from professionals across the globe working in roles that include legal, information security, sales, marketing, information technology, procurement and C-suite level.
While 80% of those respondents indicated they had amended cloud agreements as a result of the EU's General Data Protection Regulation, only 26% had done the same for the CCPA. An additional 44% said "not yet" with regards to the CCPA, while 30% answered "no."
So with the CCPA's implementation date right around the corner and enforcement expected to begin by July 2020, will organizations be able to make the necessary updates to their cloud agreements before the buzzer sounds?
"Certainly it's not an ideal time to be starting, but it's definitely not too late," said Adam Aft, a partner at Baker McKenzie.
He indicated that responses for the survey were actually collected over the summer and expects that the "yes" column might skew a little higher if respondents were asked the same question about their cloud agreements and the CCPA now.
Part of the delay may be attributable to the CCPA itself. Jarno Vanto, a partner at Crowell & Moring, pointed out that the final text of the privacy regulation won't be solidified until December.
"So that's made it somewhat challenging, for example, to come up with language for [cloud or other] agreements that will meet the CCPA requirements," Vanto said.
However, time may be a luxury that organizations can't afford. Christopher Ballod, a partner a Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, said that by the time December rolls around, the process of ironing out all of the mechanics involved in a cloud agreement, including putting mechanisms in place to satisfy subject data requests, may be too much to accomplish before the CCPA's implementation date.
While having previously undertaken a similar process to comply with the GDPR may provide impacted parties with a data map and a framework to start from, the CCPA adds a new wrinkle in the form of a private right of action that could find organizations and their cloud providers embroiled in a protracted game of hardball negotiations over where the burden of that liability falls.
"The risk is potentially uncapped, right? You have an unknown as to what litigation can end up looking like," Ballod said.
Beyond the scope of the risk involved, there's also the reality that organizations have more agreements than just those pertaining to a cloud provider that need to be brought up to speed with CCPA. According to Vanto, all agreements involving a vendor that has access to a consumer's personal information will have to be revisited to ensure compliance.
"It's reasonable to say that there will not be enough time. In some cases, we're looking at hundreds of agreements per company and thousands of agreements," Vanto said.
The enforcement timeline may buy companies more time to get up to speed, but it would not be wise for organizations to treat the Jan. 1 implementation date too flippantly. Aft indicated that movement toward compliance is not the same thing as actually being compliant in the eyes of regulators.
"That would be great if that were the case, but unfortunately that's not quite the way it works," Aft 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
© 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 AllLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Exits Leave American Airlines, SiriusXM, Spotify Searching for New Legal Chiefs
- 2Etsy App Infringes on Storage, Retrieval Patents, New Suit Claims
- 3The Secret Prior Art Problem Rears Its Ugly Head
- 4Four Things to Know About Florida’s New Law to Protect Minors Online
- 5US Supreme Court Considers Further Narrowing of Federal Fraud Statutes
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