It's 2020, And Companies Want Clarification on Proposed CCPA Regulations Soon
Attorneys who have to guide companies on how to navigate through the California Consumer Privacy Act would like clarification sooner than later on the proposed regulations the state's attorney general set out.
January 22, 2020 at 01:00 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Corporate Counsel
Attorneys who have to guide companies through the California Consumer Privacy Act would like clarification sooner than later on the proposed regulations the state's attorney general set out last year.
In October, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra released 24 pages of draft regulations concerning the CCPA that will be finalized by July 1, 2020, at the latest. The date is significant because Becerra has said that his office will not begin enforcing the law until then.
"For the most part we are assuming that the proposed regulations will be implemented as they were initially drafted," Michelle Hon Donovan, a partner at Duane Morris in San Diego, said.
She said there is no clarity on some of the definitions, and businesses will need to be given direction in order to comply with the law, which came into effect on Jan. 1. One of those includes a definition of personal information.
"A business shall not provide a consumer with specific pieces of personal information if the disclosure creates a substantial, articulable, and unreasonable risk to the security of that personal information, the consumer's account with the business, or the security of the business's systems or networks," the proposed rule says.
"That language is unclear and can be interpreted very broadly," Hon Donovan said.
Jean-Marc Chanoine, global head of strategic accounts and legal counsel at Templafy in New York, said while there is a grace period now, the California Office of Attorney General will ultimately be going after companies for minute procedures in which the language on how to comply is vague.
For example, if someone requests what information a company has on them, a company may need to collect more information on that person to verify they are not a bad actor trying to steal information. There are questions, Chanoine said, on whether that is allowed and how long a company can retain that additional information.
"Anyone can request information on data that is being collected on them," Chanoine said. "That data could be used by bad actors. How are companies supposed to know what is a legitimate request?"
Chanoine said while the attorney general is not aiming to punish companies that are trying to do the right thing, the attorney general still has not defined which efforts would show good faith and which would not.
Chanoine would like to see some kind of protection for companies from frivolous class action lawsuits. One of the most notable changes to the CCPA is that consumers now only have a private right of action for a data breach. If the suit is successful, consumers who have their data exposed in a breach can be given anywhere from $100 to $750.
"What is the attorney general doing to make sure there are not abuses in class action lawsuits?" Chanoine asked. "Let's make sure we're protecting consumers and companies and not causing more harm than good."
The timing is what is largely concerning to clients, said Jim Halpert, a partner at DLA Piper in Washington, D.C. He said some of these changes would take a while because there is no technology to handle some of the proposed requirements. One involves having "do not sell" notices that could be sent through a browser signal, Halpert explained.
"There is not the technology to do this and it is unclear how, beginning on July 1, businesses would be able to comply with that," Halpert explained. "The CCPA has been a moving target and the regulations include some new ideas which are a little difficult for entities to comply with."
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
- 1'A Death Sentence for TikTok'?: Litigators and Experts Weigh Impact of Potential Ban on Creators and Data Privacy
- 2Bribery Case Against Former Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin Is Dropped
- 3‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
- 4State Appeals Court Revives BraunHagey Lawsuit Alleging $4.2M Unlawful Wire to China
- 5Invoking Trump, AG Bonta Reminds Lawyers of Duties to Noncitizens in Plea Dealing
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