California Lawmakers Embrace Limits on New Data Privacy Law
"It's a sad statement that the only bills to be heard by the 'Privacy' Committee are the ones industry interests are pushing," an ACLU privacy lawyer says.
April 23, 2019 at 08:02 PM
3 minute read
State lawmakers on Tuesday advanced eight industry-backed bills aimed at limiting the reach of the California Consumer Privacy Act, signaling that in the Assembly at least the 2018 law giving customers more control over their data will likely be a ceiling for privacy changes, not a floor.
The Assembly Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection approved measures allowing retailers to continue collecting customers' information through loyalty card programs and authorizing businesses to maintain records about their workers. Other bills granted carve-outs to the insurance industry and dropped restrictions on gathering “de-identified” or aggregate customer data.
The legislative amendments to the Consumer Privacy Act include many of the changes sought by business groups, the tech lobby and the law firms representing them. Each of the bills easily cleared the committee. Chairman Ed Chau, D-Monterey Park, who helped shepherd the privacy act through the Legislature last year, called the changes narrowly tailored and necessary to address flaws in what was a hastily drafted bill.
“My objective is to hold the line,” Chau said Tuesday. “I don't want to see [the law] get weakened.”
The bills' success follows the decision by an East Bay assemblywoman Monday night to shelve AB 1760. The legislation, backed by consumer groups and privacy advocates would have required customers to “opt in” to sharing their data rather than allowing companies to ask site users if they want to “opt out” of data collection. Advocates said Assemblywoman Buffy Wicks, D-Berkeley, pulled her bill from the hearing rather than having it defeated in a committee vote.
“It's a sad statement that the only bills to be heard by the 'Privacy' Committee are the ones industry interests are pushing to undermine the privacy protections Californians want,” Jacob Snow, a technology and civil liberties attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, said in an email to The Recorder.
The bills must still pass a full Assembly vote before moving to the Senate. Waiting there is legislation, sponsored by Attorney General Xavier Becerra, that would maintain the privacy act's provisions while expanding a consumer's authority to sue for damages over violations.The bill would also remove a 30-day “cure” period for businesses seeking to avoid sanctions.
Becerra is scheduled to roll out proposed regulations later this year that will guide the Consumer Privacy Act's enforcement in 2020.
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 AllSanta Clara County Superior Court Authorizes Electronic Recording of Proceedings
4 minute readRegulatory Upheaval Is Coming. How Businesses Prepare and Respond Will Separate Winners and Losers
California-Based Portal Crypto Exchange Faces Delaware Investor Class Action
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Weil Practice Leaders Expected to Leave for Paul Weiss, Latham
- 2Senators Grill Visa, Mastercard Execs on Alleged Anti-Competitive Practices, Fees
- 3Deal Watch: Gibson Dunn, V&E, Kirkland Lead Big Energy Deals in Another Strong Week in Transactions
- 4Advisory Opinion Offers 'Road Map' for Judges Defending Against Campaign Attacks
- 5Commencement of Child Victims Act at Heart of Federal Question Posed to NY's Top Court
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