What You May Have Overlooked in the Run-Up to CCPA Compliance
From how to handle web browser cookies to overlooked security requirements, here are four things to consider before the CCPA compliance date.
December 26, 2019 at 09:00 AM
4 minute read
With just days to go before the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) compliance date, some companies may be scrambling to get their data collection and management processes in order. Others, however, might be taking a wait-and-see approach before fulling investing into large-scale changes. Whatever an organization's plan, there are certain things all covered entities should know about the far-reaching privacy law before January 2020.
From how to handle web browser cookies to overlooked security requirements, here are four things to consider before the compliance date:
The CCPA Is Mostly Ready
Those waiting to see how the "final" CCPA takes shape may be too late. Amendments to the CCPA that passed California legislature in September 2019 have been signed into law, and the state's Attorney General released proposed CCPA regulations in October 2019. As of the end this year, the CCPA is ready for prime time.
"I would say 95% of the puzzle is [set] so companies should get on that 95% instead of waiting for that 5% to be finalized around the edges," said Dominique Shelton Leipzig, chair of adtech privacy and cybersecurity group at Perkins Coie.
To be sure, the attorney general's regulations are only proposed. But while the CCPA will evolve over time, Leipzig believes any changes will likely be minor. "I wouldn't expect radical departures from what we see in the regulations already."
Cookies Are Likely for Sale
One of the unique mandates of the CCPA is allowing customers to opt out of having their data sold to third parties. While that may seem straightforward, it can get complicated when considering what exactly constitutes a sale. Take for example, "cookies," which are lines of code that track a user's web browsing and often used to create targeted online advertisements.
"I would think seriously about having a do not sell link if a company has third-party cookies on their site," Leipzig said. "There are different points of view in terms of whether cookies constitute a sale, but I can say that my understanding is the Attorney General's Office considers third-party cookies that go across multiple websites to be a sale under the statute."
Of course, this view could change over time. "As we know the California Attorney General regulations are still proposed; they're not finalized—and we won't see a finalized version for some months," said Mark Schreiber, partner at McDermott Will & Emery. But as for now, it might be better to safe than sorry.
Enforcement Action Is Delayed, but Not Litigation
Those waiting to see how enforcement action will shape up under the CCPA will have to wait a while longer. While the compliance date for the regulation is Jan. 1, the date the state attorney general can start enforcing the CCPA is set to be no later than July 1.
But even without an active attorney general, there are likely to be plenty of CCPA battles before the summer. "With regard to the private right of action that exists under the statute, there is no delay to bring [those] actions," Leipzig said.
And there are already signs that litigation may ramp up quickly. "We are already seeing that there are some 13 cases in California that have already been filed that expressly mention the CCPA, and there's another 14 that lift language from the CCPA," Leipzig added.
'Reasonable' Security Is Required
The CCPA isn't all about privacy. In fact, the regulation also mandates that covered entities maintain reasonable security procedures, something that does not get as much attention as the data handling requirements. "It certainly hasn't been focused on and it ought it to be," Schreiber said.
To be sure, exactly what constitutes "reasonable" security isn't clarified in the CCPA. Still, Schreiber said that there are hints in what the state expects given its past positions. "The California attorney general years ago in other pronouncements identified the 20 CIS [security] controls —which is this fairly intense and robust set of security standards—as being what California would look to. So that's been out there for some years and those are fairly granular in terms of the different components that need to be looked at."
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
- 1'Didn't Notice Patient Wasn't Breathing': $13.7M Verdict Against Anesthesiologists
- 2'Astronomical' Interest Rates: $1B Settlement to Resolve Allegations of 'Predatory' Lending Cancels $534M in Small-Business Debts
- 3Senator Plans to Reintroduce Bill to Split 9th Circuit
- 4Law Firms Converge to Defend HIPAA Regulation
- 5Judge Denies Retrial Bid by Ex-U.S. Sen. Menendez Over Evidentiary Error
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