Almost Half of Companies Haven't Started California Consumer Privacy Act Compliance, Survey Shows
A recent survey finds that 44 percent of companies that will impacted by the California Consumer Protection Act haven't yet taken steps towards compliance.
March 26, 2019 at 08:00 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Legal Tech News
California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) compliance is likely to be a long and expensive ordeal, according to a survey of 250 executives and managers at U.S. technology, manufacturing, financial services, utilities and health care companies.
The state's forthcoming privacy regulation, which is scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1 2020, empowers Californians with more control over the way their data is collected, shared or viewed by U.S. companies on a daily basis. According to the survey, a large majority of respondents, 71 percent, expect to spend at least $100,000 on compliance efforts. But consulting attorneys may not wind up seeing as much of that money as one might think.
“The legal fees are going to play a role, but I don't think the legal fee is going to be the largest chunk of the expense. It will really be the in-house kind of grind that needs to be done in order for the compliance steps to be in place,” said Jarno Vanto, a shareholder at Polsinelli.
The “grind” he's referring to includes extensive work around understanding what data an organization holds and mapping the flow of that data. It also includes checking in with third party vendors and partners to determine what information they have access to as well.
Some seem to be feeling the anxiety more than others. According to the survey, only 14 percent of respondents are already CCPA compliant, while an additional 44 percent haven't even begun taking steps towards full compliance.
The survey was conducted by Dimensional Research on behalf of the privacy compliance company TrustArc. Chris Bable, CEO of TrustArc, attributed some of the compliance delay to companies that have never had to wrap their heads around these issues before. While the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) impacted only U.S. companies with business interests in Europe, the CCPA hits a little closer to home.
“One of the pieces that I had underestimated was truly the amount of companies that were not impacted by GDPR, so CCPA is their foray into doing this,” Babel said.
Vanto thinks the delay can be partly explained by a lack of detail surrounding exactly what will be expected under the CCPA as well.
“There's been talk about it for a good long year, companies are doing a lot. It's just that we are still missing the implementing lens …from the state attorney general of Califonia,” Vanto said.
So how are companies planning on making the leap before the CCPA's January 1 2020 deadline? According to the survey, 72 percent of respondents plan on investing in some sort of technology to help smooth the way.
Babel believes this represents an evolution from the days pre-GDPR, when technology was used mainly for some of the more basic, check-the-box type compliance activities. The CCPA forces companies to understand the “why” and “how” of their data collection operations, requiring more complex solutions that are directed towards managing that flow of information.
“It doesn't mean that you still don't need legal advice, that you don't need consulting advice. … It just means that they kind of go hand-in-glove together,” Babel 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 AllNeighboring States Have Either Passed or Proposed Climate Superfund Laws—Is Pennsylvania Next?
7 minute readAn Overview of Proposed Changes to the Federal Rules of Procedure Relating to the Expansion of Remote Trial Testimony
15 minute readTrending Stories
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