4 Ways Firms Can Keep Compliant With the CCPA
From updating their websites to understanding exemptions, lawyers offer their suggestions on how law firms can meet their new CCPA requirements.
February 18, 2020 at 10:00 AM
3 minute read
The more regulatory requirements are enacted, the busier lawyers are counseling clients toward compliance. However, law firms aren't immune from the massive data privacy laws themselves, especially the relatively new California Consumer Protection Act.
The CCPA applies to businesses operating California that either have annual revenue surpassing $25,000,000; sell, processes or hold the personal information of 50,000 Californians; or earn half of their revenue is from selling Californians' personal information.
Law firms that fall under the CCPA's scope have a variety of obligations, including updating their website's privacy notices, implementing "reasonable" cybersecurity and being aware of the exemptions unique to legal services.
Below, lawyers provide their top CCPA compliance tips for law firms.
Update the Firm's Website
A law firm's website should describe California residents' rights including their right to authorize personal data deletion, or allow disclosure of information and notice of collection. What's more, a firm must also provide opt-outs for the selling of consumer information.
If a law firm sells such information, it would specifically need to have a "do not sell" button on its website, noted Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman senior counsel Catherine Meyer.
Check E-Discovery and Outside Vendor Contracts
Law firms leveraging outside vendors, such as e-discovery providers, to store or process data that includes Californians' personal information should update their vendor contracts to ensure that such information is not used for anything outside of specified services, said Jackson Lewis principal Joseph Lazzarotti.
Under the CCPA, a service provider's use of personal information must be "reasonably necessary and proportionate to achieve the operational purposes for which the personal information was collected or processed."
Have Data Subject Requests Procedures
Law firms need to prepare for data requests, which includes having a system to process such requests and protocols to find data and verify a requester's identify.
Law firms may face more difficulties in this regard compared to other businesses because of the data large sets corporate clients send them.
"One of the tricky things for law firms is their obligations come from the clients they represent, [and] they may not be even aware of individuals' data they are getting from clients is subject to the CCPA," Lazzarotti said.
Implement 'Reasonable Security Procedures'
Lazzarotti noted the CCPA provides statutory damages for anyone whose "nonencrypted or nonredacted public information" was breached because a company lacked "reasonable security procedures and practices." Plaintiffs could be awarded $100 to $750 per consumer per incident or actual damages, whichever is greater, and injunctive or declaratory relief.
"That can be substantial. It's really imperative for firms to have reasonable safeguards to maintain the data," he said.
While the CCPA doesn't thoroughly define how a business meets "reasonable security procedures," Lazzarotti noted a 2016 report released by then-California Attorney General Kamala Harris recommended 20 Center for Internet Security security controls as minimum security standards businesses should meet. Still, companies must review and perform ongoing audits of their cybersecurity to assess any exposure.
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
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
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