Still Manual Burden: Most Companies Slow to Automate CCPA Compliance
Automating California Consumer Privacy Act compliance is likely to run into significant to operational barriers. And for some companies, the costs associating with deploying automation may not be worth it.
July 21, 2020 at 10:00 AM
4 minute read
Despite enforcement of the California Consumer Privacy Act coming online earlier this month, many companies are still struggling to comply with the far-reaching state regulation. But it's not just a lack of understanding about the CCPA's requirements that is holding them back. It's also a lack of automation and factors outside their control, according to a new survey of 121 U.S.-based companies by cybersecurity and cloud services company Akamai.
Complying with CCPA requirements are still a somewhat manual process for many companies. Only around a third of survey respondents, for example, said they fully automated showing or allowing customers access to their personal data. Even fewer, 23%, did the same for customer requests to have their data deleted. However, 43% were able to fully automate customers opting not to have their personal data sold by the company.
According to the survey, at least half of all respondents received these four CCPA requests at some point. Less common, however, were customer requests about if and to whom the company sold their private data, at 38% of companies, and those ensuring the company wasn't discriminating against customers because they exercised their CCPA privacy rights, at 22%. These two last requests were automated by only 21% and 28% of companies, respectively.
Steve Winterfeld, the advisory CISO at Akamai, noted one of the biggest hurdles to companies automating their CCPA compliance is the fact many don't store customer data in one central location. He explained that companies often use third-party providers that have access to their customer data regulated by the CCPA.
"Now you have data in a lot of places, and so to automate something like 'what information do you have about me,' you have to pull from multiple places. And to build a system that can integrate all that can be very difficult," Winterfeld said.
For some companies, he added, building such a system isn't economical. "Part of that is how many people are going to require this. … If five people want their data to be deleted, automating it doesn't make financial sense, you won't get a return on investment," he said.
Most companies said the CCPA compliance challenges they faced were both internal and beyond their control. Slightly less than half of all respondents cited a lack of consistency between the CCPA and other privacy regulations (47%) , and a lack of visibility into what data they hold (46%) as a barrier to compliance. Around 40% also said inadequate technology infrastructure and inadequate implementation time were challenges, while 36% cited a lack of data education.
Winterfeld noted the challenge of "data education" includes making sure all departments and employees within a company understand how to comply with CCPA. For example, "you don't have marketing go hire a company that is not compliant with the requirements," Winterfeld said. He said companies have to make sure "data is treated in accordance to those corporate policies that allow the company to be compliant."
While attorneys have a pivotal role making sure employees adhere to regulatory requirements, they are often not the ones overseeing their organization's CCPA compliance. According to the survey, most companies either relied on their chief information officer, 32%, or their chief technology officer, 29%, to manage their compliance effort, while only 18% gave the responsibility to their chief legal officer. Nine percent also had their chief customer officer spearhead the effort, while 8% turned to their chief privacy officer and 3% their chief marketing officer.
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
- 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