With the Passage of CPRA, California Privacy Law is Leaps and Bounds Closer to GDPR
Any company currently obligated under CCPA will be affected by the passage of CPRA. And while many of the law's nuances are yet to be determined, there are a number of substantial changes that organizations need to understand, in order to prepare.
November 05, 2020 at 07:00 AM
6 minute read
We made it. One of the most charged and anticipated elections in history, in one of the most challenging years our country has seen, is finally behind us. Regardless of what side of the aisle your votes were cast upon, we can all agree a lot was at stake in this year's elections, all the way down to the local level. One of the most notable initiatives among state ballots this year was the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (CPRA), which, as expected, passed with a majority vote.
In the simplest of terms, CPRA adds a lot of muscle to the existing stipulations in the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). When CCPA was first enacted, it was widely compared to Europe's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), but in reality, the data privacy requirements in CCPA were only a small fraction of those in GDPR. That will ultimately change when CPRA takes effect in January 2023, and moves California privacy regulation closer to GDPR standards.
Over the next year or so, California lawmakers will begin creating the specific regulations and entities that will facilitate CPRA. The law will at that point become effective, and enforcement will begin in June 2023, with a lookback to January 2022. Any company currently obligated under CCPA will be affected by the passage of CPRA. And while many of the law's nuances are yet to be determined, there are a number of substantial changes that organizations need to understand, in order to prepare.
This content has been archived.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
- 1Unpaid Real Estate Taxes; License To Enter Adjoining Property: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
- 2Baker McKenzie Builds on AI Foundation, Crafting Tools to Help Lawyers Work 'Better, Smarter'
- 3Paul Weiss, Trailblazer for U.S. Firms in China, to Close Beijing Office
- 4Formal Charges Filed Against Judge Accused of Helping Defendant Escape ICE Detention
- 5Top 10 Predicted Business and Human Rights Issues for 2025
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