Legal Professionals Expected a Federal Privacy Law in 2020. They're Likely Wrong
A new survey from Consilio found that a majority of legal professionals believed a national privacy law was "somewhat" or "very" likely in 2020. But even without the threat of COVID-19, that's likely overly optimistic.
April 14, 2020 at 11:30 AM
4 minute read
Forget soap operas: The U.S. and privacy are shaping up to be the ultimate will-they-or-won't-they story. A new survey from e-discovery and managed review provider Consilio showed that a large number of legal professionals were holding out hope that a federal privacy regulation could be passed in 2020. However, the reality could be that even without the threat of COVID-19, there are still too many obstacles that would prevent such legislation from passing before the end of the year.
The survey is comprised of 120 respondents, including legal professionals working inside law firms, corporations and government-affiliated entities. Consilio collected the responses in early February during the Legalweek New York conference, prior to the COVID-19 related business shutdowns and social distancing measures that were implemented across the country the following month.
At the time, it would seem that attitudes regarding the prospect of a federal privacy regulation were at least mildly optimistic, with 70% of respondents indicating that it was either "somewhat likely" or "very likely" that such a regulation would be passed in 2020. Matthew Miller, vice president of global information governance advisory services at Consilio, attributed this to the attention gained by various state privacy laws such as the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA).
Of course, respondents may have also been caught up in some wishful thinking. "I think the feeling of the community is this would be so much better. It would be easier for organizations to comply if there were some universal standard for data privacy. I think it was more of an aspirational hope," Miller said.
Miller added that he believes the COVID-19 outbreak will likely delay a national privacy law beyond 2020.
Christopher Ballod, a partner at Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, agreed that it would be unlikely to see federal regulations on the subject while so many attorneys general already have their hands full addressing the various ramifications imposed by the pandemic.
However, he's also not confident that a federal privacy law would have been any more likely absent the virus. Compliance can be an expensive process, and politicians may be reluctant to come across as "tough on business" during an election year. Plus, Ballod indicated that many of his clients are not building their privacy compliance programs under the assumption that a national standard is imminent.
"Nobody is expecting it … None of my clients are saying, 'Well, can we wait for the federal standard?' The idea is even written off. At this point it's, 'What do we do to deal with the patchwork of 50 states that are going to be passing these [privacy laws]?'" Ballod said.
To be sure, the emerging patchwork of state privacy laws was identified by the majority (56%) of respondents as their top concern regarding information governance regulations, followed by international federal privacy regulations (51%), the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (34%) and potential forthcoming federal privacy regulations (30%). But achieving simultaneous compliance with a multitude of state privacy laws may not be as arduous as it sounds.
"In most senses, they are overlapping duties or obligations placed upon a corporation by the different states," Miller said.
Ballod at Lewis Brisbois often advises clients to aim for compliance with the very rigorous CCPA, since that will ultimately tick many of the same boxes laid out by other states. "If you have a CCPA-compliant program, there's not a lot more you have to do. But it does mean you have to have a privacy infrastructure. If a company isn't willing to do that, it doesn't really matter," Ballod said.
And there does seem to be some concern among survey respondents that their organization's information governance posture isn't quite where it needs to be. Only 48% indicated that they were "very confident" in their company's standing compliance policies, procedures and technologies.
Per Ballod, because the reputational harm associated with befalling a data breach or cyber incident is diminishing as the public becomes increasingly used seeing those events make headlines, companies outside the purview of the CCPA or other formidable privacy regulations may not have much incentive to prioritize information governance. However, Miller at Consilio thinks COVID-19 may be forcing companies to reemphasize data privacy as they adapt to a more virtual workforce and the threat of hackers deploying pandemic-themed phishing attacks.
"That means each corporation is still fighting, if not harder than they had to before, to protect the consumer's personal information that they maintain," Miller 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
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 2Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 3Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 4Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
- 5Zoom Faces Intellectual Property Suit Over AI-Based Augmented Video Conferencing
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