Business Groups Lobby for Changes to California Data Privacy Law
The public hearing in Sacramento is the fifth of seven scheduled around California.
February 05, 2019 at 07:01 PM
4 minute read
Business representatives told California regulators on Tuesday that they want more from the state's new consumer privacy law—more specific definitions and more flexibility in compliance.
Speaking at a Sacramento hearing convened by the office of Attorney General Xavier Becerra, officials representing software developers, retailers, advertisers and other industries said that, without refining, the California Consumer Privacy Act, or CCPA, threatens the basic online operations their clients expect.
“A 16-year-old California student may have the right to delete all of their grades without the knowledge of their parents or public school,” said Sara Kloek, director of education policy for the Software and Information Industry Association. “CCPA makes compliance with [existing] student privacy laws more confusing.” She added: “The deletion rights under CCPA could cause major compliance confusion and should be clarified.”
The comments were recorded under a mandated rulemaking process that Becerra's office is conducting to craft regulations that spell out how the new consumer privacy law will be enforced next year. The public hearing in Sacramento, held in a state auditorium filled with suit-clad individuals tapping away on laptops, is the fifth of seven scheduled for locations around California.
The attorney general's office expects to have proposed rules available for review in the fall.
The Consumer Privacy Act gives Californians the right to find out what information businesses collect about them and to have companies delete that information if they choose. The law also bans companies from discriminating against customers who exercise those rights.
A broader version of the privacy law was initially proposed as a ballot initiative by San Francisco real estate developer Alastair Mactaggart. Legislators last year approved a compromise bill containing much of the proposed initiative to avoid a costly ballot fight pitting telecommunications and tech companies against consumer advocates.
Critics of the law said they want stricter definitions of what constitutes consumer and personal information. Restrictions on identifying consumers could make it tougher to track down online harassers or to confirm clients really want their information deleted, they said Tuesday. They also want more leeway on what it means for a customer to opt out of a company's data-collection practices—for example, can a consumer approve just some data-sharing in exchange for rewards or rebates?—and to offer ad-free platforms at a price.
James Harrison, a partner at Remcho Johansen & Purcell, the San Leandro firm that helped draft Mactaggart's initiative, said Tuesday that any rules developed by the attorney general must give consumers a “clear and easy” way to opt out company data sales on a broad basis.
“Financial incentives and discounts offered by businesses should be tied to the average value to the business of consumers' data,” Harrison said. “We think that's a way to ensure that loyalty programs can continue while also preventing businesses from charging consumers unjust or unreasonable rates and fees for exercising their privacy rights.”
The next public forum on potential Privacy Act rules is set to take place Feb. 13 in Fresno. Comments can also be submitted online.
Read more:
Alastair Mactaggart Predicts: Privacy Law Will Survive Big Tech's Challenge
Look Out for the 'Look Back'—Begin CCPA Prep Now
Anticipating the Flood of Cyber Litigation Under the CCPA
Becerra Rips Lawmakers for 'Unworkable' Provisions in New Privacy Law
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 AllCalifornia Lawmakers Reach $50M Deal to Fund Legal Fights Against Trump
3 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