Let Consumers Sue Under New Data Privacy Law, Becerra's Office Tells State
The California attorney general proposes a few changes in the new California Consumer Privacy Act. The law is set to take effect in January 2020.
February 20, 2019 at 06:50 PM
4 minute read
Attorney General Xavier Becerra's office Wednesday pressed lawmakers to add a broad private right of action to the new California Consumer Privacy Act, arguing that his office doesn't have the resources to enforce the data-protection law by itself.
Speaking to a legislative panel examining the law, Stacey Schesser, supervising deputy attorney general for Becerra's privacy unit, renewed criticisms that Becerra leveled against the California Consumer Privacy Act, or CCPA, after its passage last August.
One of his complaints is that consumers will have only a limited right to sue if they are victims of a data breach. Other violations, such as a company improperly selling a customer's data, can only be pursued by the attorney general. The law takes effect in January.
“Private rights of action provide a critical adjunct to government enforcement and they ensure that consumers can assert their rights and seek appropriate remedies,” Schesser told members of the Assembly privacy committee. “The attorney general urges you to expand the CCPA private right of action to include violations of the key rights provided by this act.”
The law, enacted as an alternative to a proposed ballot initiative brought by San Francisco real estate developer Alastair Mactaggart, gives Californians the right to see what personal information companies collect about them and to opt out of the sale of that data. California's law has been the model for at least six privacy bills introduced in other states.
Schesser also asked lawmakers to strike language requiring the California attorney general's office to offer opinions to companies with compliance questions and to give businesses a chance to cure certain violations before filing a case.
“This would essentially be a get out of jail free law,” Schesser said. “The CCPA's right to cure would allow even the worst offenders to receive a pass rather than allowing the attorney general to use his prosecutorial discretion in enforcing the law.”
Sarah Boot, a lobbyist for the California Chamber of Commerce, testified that educating businesses about compliance instead of prosecuting them would be “money well spent.” And she said Becerra's request to add a private right of action “to this incredibly confusing and detailed, complex law is frightening.”
“It would be a class action bonanza,” Boot said.
The dueling critiques foreshadow the legislative battles coming over the next seven months as the law's backers and detractors fight for amendments. The audience at Wednesday's hearing was filled with representatives of consumer groups, telecommunications companies, tech lobbies, retailers and advertisers, all eager to either protect the law's current provisions, beef them up or significantly restrict their reach.
Two lawmakers who carried the Consumer Privacy Act have introduced a so-called placeholder bill that could carryl changes to the law. Another bill unveiled last week would set data-sharing rules specifically for telephone companies. And on Wednesday, Internet Association lobbyist Kevin McKinley said legislation is coming to limit what constitutes the sale of personal information under the law.
Tanya Forsheit, who chairs Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz' privacy and data security group, testified that companies have spent millions of dollars trying to comply with the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, laws.
“Many if not most U.S. companies are still not in compliance with the GDPR because it's such a significant undertaking,” Forsheit said. “The CCPA is even more complex and challenging … Experience with the GDPR has already demonstrated that we are going to need some changes to the CCPA and to the timeline for compliance to be realistic.”
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 All$1.3 Billion Crypto IRA Startup Faces Claims of 'Frat House' Culture
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4How I Made Practice Group Chair: 'If You Love What You Do and Put the Time and Effort Into It, You Will Excel,' Says Lisa Saul of Forde & O'Meara
- 5Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
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