CCPA Wants to Know Value of Consumer Data. So Do Businesses
The CCPA requires companies to disclose the value that consumer data holds to their organization, but for many businesses those numbers don't yet exist on paper or anywhere else.
June 30, 2020 at 10:00 AM
4 minute read
On July 1, the California Attorney General's Office can begin enforcing the California Consumer Privacy Act. But some companies may still be struggling with one requirement in particular. The CCPA mandates businesses publicly disclose the value that consumer data holds to their operation. But chances are that many organizations don't have an exact dollar figure lying around somewhere.
The "financial incentives" requirement stems from a second round of CCPA revisions that were published by California's attorney general in March. It prohibits businesses from offering a different price or service based on a consumer's willingness to exchange personal data, unless that difference is "reasonably related to the value of the data."
Jarno Vanto, a partner at Crowell & Moring, used video streaming services as an analogy. Users with a standard subscription typically have to engage with some kind of advertising during their viewing experience, while those who wish to forgo commercials altogether will likely have to pay a higher monthly rate in order to compensate for the lost advertising revenue.
But when it comes to consumer data and the CCPA, businesses need consistent metrics or valuations in place in order to defend such a practice. "They actually have to give thought to it [and] document the process in order to justify why they are treating people who exercise their privacy rights differently from those that don't," Vanto said.
However, while data has become increasingly important to businesses situated across a variety of industries, that reality isn't necessarily reflected in an organization's cultural or accounting practices. Dominique Shelton Leipzig, co-chair of Perkins Coie's ad tech privacy and data management practice, indicated that many companies don't even list data on their accounting statements along with other intangible assets such as trademarks or copyrights.
"I have yet to see a client that has an accounting statement that reflects data that's not a data company," she said.
Companies may still be murky on the value of their data even as the CCPA's Wednesday enforcement data looms closer. Leipzig believes that many businesses were hopeful that the California Attorney General's Office would take into account the comments and feedback rendered by various trade groups and associations citing the novelty of the financial incentives requirement and asking for more time to comply.
So far, those hopes have gone unfulfilled and assembling data valuations from scratch likely isn't a project that can be accomplished in just a few days. Outside of the legal counsel businesses might be accustomed to working with on matters of CCPA compliance, Leipzig recommended that companies also engage the services of a third-party accountant to validate their valuation methodology.
"Initially, I would be surprised if you saw a lot of companies with actual dollar amounts in their valuations. I think what you'll see is an attempt to explain how data will be valued. And we think that's a sufficient explanation to start getting a handle on this in this evolving area," Leipzig said.
But exactly how much legal jeopardy an organization could face if it did come under regulatory scrutiny is unclear. Crowell & Moring's Vanto pointed out that given the variety of business interests at play that can impact the price or availability of a service, it may be difficult for the California attorney general to prove that a company discriminated against consumers who exercised privacy rights.
Still, he did raise the possibility of class action lawsuits centered around data valuations. "Inevitably, whatever dollar figure you come up with is going to be litigated at some point," Vanto 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
- 1Exploring the Opportunities and Risks for Generative AI and Corporate Databases: An Introduction
- 2Farella Elevates First Female Firmwide Managing Partners
- 3Family Court 2024 Roundup: Part I
- 4In-House Lawyers Are Focused on Employment and Cybersecurity Disputes, But Looking Out for Conflict Over AI
- 5A Simple 'Trial Lawyer' Goes to the Supreme Court
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