Organizations Are Prioritizing Privacy—Just Not With Legal Spend
Exterro's Annual Study of Legal Spend Management indicates that organizations are expecting to spend less on compliance with privacy laws in 2020 as they wait to see how new regulations like the CCPA are enforced first.
April 29, 2020 at 10:00 AM
4 minute read
Corporations may be crossing their collective fingers as the California Consumer Privacy Act's (CCPA) July 1, 2020, enforcement deadline continues to inch closer. Exterro's Annual Study of Legal Spend Management was released last week in conjunction with the Blickstein Group and Corporate Counsel Business Journal, and the results indicate that organizations may not be putting their money where their mouths are when it comes to privacy compliance goals.
Responses were collected from 52 corporate legal department employees working across a variety of industries. Among those respondents, 71% indicated that providing defensibility and complying with new privacy laws such as the CCPA would be a top priority for their department in 2020.
However, 65% of respondents also indicated that they believe legal spend geared towards compliance with new privacy laws will decrease in 2020. For example, just over 50% of respondents indicated that they would be spending less than $0.5 million on compliance with privacy laws, compared to the slightly more than 40% who said the same in 2019.
So if companies are making privacy compliance a top priority this year, why doesn't the spend reflect that goal? "A lot of organizations—which I think could be detrimental for their risk mitigation efforts—are taking a wait-and-see approach with the CCPA," said Michael Hamilton, senior managing director of marketing at Exterro.
Organizations may be banking on regulatory authorities not being ready enforce certain aspects of the CCPA straight away. Hamilton noted that this echoes the approach that some organizations also took to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and its tenants around the right to know and right of access.
Similar provisions are found in the CCPA and allow customers to see and obtain copies of any information a company has collected about them. Putting the necessary infrastructure in place to satisfy those data subject access requests can be pricey for a corporation, though regulators may already be finding the requirement difficult to enforce.
"What we've seen with the GDPR so far is that it's been hard for the EU Commission to really enforce the GDPR at a detailed level, meaning that they are not really able to monitor all of these different requests for personal data and deleting that personal data and anonymizing that personal data," Hamilton said.
But aside from the "wait-and-see" approach, it's possible that businesses are just allocating their privacy-related spend under a different heading. The Legal Spend Management survey, for example, shows that the majority of respondents (51%) believe the most risk for increased costs comes from litigation.
"I think that continues to be the highest amount of risk—the highest amount of risk associated with spend—based on increased litigation from the data privacy laws," Hamilton said. As for the 7% of respondents who rated the specified privacy category as being of the most risk for increased costs, Hamilton believes that refers to creating a defensible process for compliance.
Survey respondents were also asked to rate such privacy initiatives by importance using a scale of 1 (least important) to 5 (most important). Creating an online portal for individuals to request data rated at the top with a 4.5, followed by building an automated data subject access request process at 2.8. Repurposing e-discovery technology to identify, collect and review data subject access requests placed last with a 2.4 rating.
Hamilton thinks that companies could be in trouble come the July CCPA compliance date if they don't have efficient and defensible processes for managing the intake of data subject access requests. "Organizations are, I think, unfortunately going to be getting a wake-up call," he 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
© 2024 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
- 1Maryland Atty Pushes Judge to Grant Discovery in Reverse Discrimination Suit Against King & Spalding
- 2Thompson Coburn Hit With Class Action Over Data Breach
- 3The Coming of Trump's Judicial Picks Spurs Liberals to Press for Biden's
- 4'We Should Be Pragmatic': Meet the Possible Next FTC Chair
- 5Bank of America's Cash Sweep Program Attracts New Legal Fire in Class Action
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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