Senate Scraps Bill Giving Consumers Power to Sue for Data-Privacy Violations
The bill had been targeted by the California Chamber of Commerce, the Internet Association and other tech trade lobbies that said the changes would have encouraged litigation instead of compliance.
May 16, 2019 at 05:42 PM
3 minute read
A measure to give state residents the right to sue for violations of the new California Consumer Privacy Act died in a state legislative fiscal committee Thursday amid opposition from business and tech groups.
Senate Bill 561, sponsored by Attorney General Xavier Becerra, did not receive a vote in the Senate Appropriations Committee, effectively blocking the bill from moving past a procedural deadline.
In addition to creating a private right of action, which Becerra said would be key to the new law's enforcement, the bill would have dropped language requiring the attorney general to counsel companies on how to comply with the act. It would also have eliminated a 30-day right-to-cure period for alleged violators.
“This was a major setback for California's privacy rights,” the bill's author, Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, said in a statement that expressed her disappointment. “I remain committed to ensuring California's privacy protections are preserved and strengthened.”
The bill had been targeted by the California Chamber of Commerce, the Internet Association and other tech trade lobbies that said the changes would have encouraged litigation instead of compliance.
The Consumer Privacy Act “is stronger with unified, well-funded enforcement through the California Attorney General's office,” Kevin McKinley, director of the Internet Association's California operations, said in a statement. “The internet industry will keep working with policymakers and other stakeholders to ensure the AG's office is resourced to protect consumers, enforce the CCPA effectively, and provide both large and small businesses the guidance they'll need to comply with the law.”
The new law allows consumers to sue for Consumer Privacy Act violations in limited instances surrounding data breaches. Otherwise, only the Attorney General's Office can bring enforcement actions, a responsibility that Becerra has said he cannot fully take on without significantly more staffing and funding.
“I don't think the Legislature wants only the Attorney General's Office to be able to protect people's rights,” Becerra told reporters in February when he endorsed SB 561. “We need to have some help.”
Becerra's office did not respond to a message seeking comment on Thursday.
The Consumer Privacy Act, slated to go into effect next year, will require companies to disclose what information they've collected about consumers and will give those consumers more control over what happens with that data.
Lawmakers this year have introduced a handful of bills aimed at limiting the law's reach, including measures to allow data collection for customer loyalty programs and to restrict the definition of personal information that can be shared. Floor votes on those bills are expected over the next two weeks.
Read more:
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 AllRegulatory 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
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
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