Private Right to Sue Under NY Data Privacy Bill Could Clog Courts, Business Leaders Say
Two business leaders told panel members that the bill, as written, has the potential to flood the state's courts with litigation.
November 22, 2019 at 05:39 PM
6 minute read
New data privacy legislation in New York that would allow consumers to sue businesses when their data is put at risk or sold without their consent was not well-received at a public hearing on the measure Friday by the state's business and technology leaders.
Two business leaders told panel members that the bill, as written, has the potential to flood the state's courts with litigation.
That's because the legislation, called the NY Privacy Act, would allow a so-called private right of action, meaning that individual consumers could bring litigation over violations of the proposed law. The New York Attorney General's Office could also bring litigation under the law.
Kathryn Wylde, president of the Partnership for New York City, an organization representing businesses in the five boroughs, said that part of the law would be unworkable.
"The private right of action could inundate companies and the courts with individual claims, even for minor technical errors that are likely to be common as new systems for data management are developed," Wylde said.
She, and others who testified, said enforcement of the law should rest solely with the Attorney General's Office, rather than with individual litigants. The Attorney General's Office could bring class action litigation when necessary, or file individual claims, she said.
"The Attorney General's Office has, and can develop the expertise required to deal with the complexities associated with this emerging area of case law, and bring class actions where necessary and appropriate," Wylde said.
The Business Council of New York State, the leading representative group for businesses in the state, testified with the same view, but also said lawmakers should consider what's happening at the federal level before they move on the legislation.
John Evers, director of government affairs for The Business Council, said the New York Legislature shouldn't enact any laws around data privacy that can't be replicated at the federal level. The federal government has yet to approve a comprehensive data protection law.
"The best way to regulate data privacy is universal federal rules and guidelines. This would be best," Evers said. "Such an avenue would ensure a consistent set of standards for consumers … and an end to conflicting state rules that foster confusion."
Evers, and other business representatives, also testified that enacting different laws in several other states would drive up costs for companies, which would then have to comply with a patchwork of different regulations across the country.
If approved next year, New York would become the second state in the country to enact a comprehensive law geared toward empowering consumers to retain ownership over their personal data, and decide how companies can use it, and when.
Under the bill, consumers in New York would have to affirmatively opt in to having their data used for commercial purposes, rather than opt out. Consumers would also be able to find out what data companies have on them, and see who they're sharing it with.
The measure would also allow consumers to request that companies either correct the data they have on them, or delete it altogether. Companies could also be barred from sharing, or selling, their data to third parties.
The legislation, unlike another bill recently approved in California, would apply to all companies operating in New York. California's law, which hasn't been enacted yet, will only apply to businesses that have gross annual revenues of at least $25 million, or handle the personal information of 50,000 or more consumers.
The measure would build on a law approved earlier this year in New York, called the SHIELD Act, which will broaden the definition of what's considered a data breach and set new requirements for when consumers should be notified.
That law did not include a private right of action, much to the favor of individuals who've advocated for changes in statute to streamline litigation and reduce strain on the state's courts.
Tom Stebbins, one of those individuals, said Friday that allowing a private right of action in the NY Privacy Act would create a new business incentive for attorneys to bring frivolous lawsuits in New York in search of an easy payout.
Stebbins is the executive director of the Lawsuit Reform Alliance of New York, an advocacy and educational group that seeks to encourage changes in state law that would curb the amount of litigation in New York.
"This for-profit model of law enforcement is not ideal," Stebbins said. "Private rights of action create a perverse incentive for private lawyers, who have no accountability to the public, to file cases with little or no merit."
Others who testified at the hearing Friday argued that, without a private right of action, it would be more difficult for consumers to seek recourse under the law when their data is allegedly misused by a company.
Allie Bohm, policy counsel at the New York Civil Liberties Union, testified that lawmakers would remove much of the legislation's power if they nixed that component.
"To be effective, comprehensive privacy legislation must include a private right of action," Bohm said.
Any new data privacy legislation that includes a private right of action would have to clearly define when a consumer has been harmed under the law, she said. That way, consumers can avoid obstacles in court.
"A necessary requisite to ensuring individuals have that private right of action is ensuring individuals have standing to bring suit," Bohm said.
Sen. Diane Savino, a Democrat from Staten Island who chairs the Senate Committee on Internet and Technology, said later in the hearing that she saw the value in including both a private right of action and the power of the Attorney General's Office to enforce the law.
"You need both," Savino said. "You need the private right of action and you need the regulatory structure to enforce it."
Lawmakers are expected to consider the bill when they reconvene in Albany for next year's legislative session. They'll return to the state Capitol in January.
READ MORE:
New York Enacts New Data Security Requirements to Protect Consumer Information
Equifax to Pay New York $19.1 Million as Part of Settlement Over Data Breach
Equifax Reaches $1.4 Billion Data Breach Settlement in Consumer Class Action
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 AllRelaxing Penalties on Discovery Noncompliance Allows Criminal Cases to Get Decided on Merit
5 minute readBipartisan Lawmakers to Hochul Urge Greater Student Loan Forgiveness for Public-Interest Lawyers
'Playing the Clock'?: Hochul Says NY's Discovery Loophole Is to Blame for Wide Dismissal of Criminal Cases
So Who Won? Congestion Pricing Ruling Leaves Both Sides Claiming Victory, Attorneys Seeking Clarification
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1NJ Supreme Court Clarifies Affidavit of Merit Requirement for Doctor With Dual Specialties
- 2Whether to Choose State or Federal Court in a Case Involving a Franchise?
- 3Am Law 200 Firms Announce Wave of D.C. Hires in White-Collar, Antitrust, Litigation Practices
- 4K&L Gates Files String of Suits Against Electronics Manufacturer's Competitors, Brightness Misrepresentations
- 5'Better of the Split': District Judge Weighs Circuit Divide in Considering Who Pays Decades-Old Medical Bill
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