Three New Changes to the Revised CCPA Regulations and New CCPA Lawsuits
As March regulations bring further clarity (and, some in instances, confusion) to the California Consumer Privacy Act landscape, litigation is also beginning to shape the CCPA.
March 24, 2020 at 10:00 AM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Legal Tech News
While the rest of the world has been grappling with the COVID-19 pandemic, the California attorney general published on March 11 a second set of revisions to its proposed regulations for the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). As the March regulations bring further clarity (and, some in instances, confusion) to the CCPA landscape, litigation is also beginning to shape the CCPA. Consumer rights lawsuits have been filed in California federal courts that could clarify and test the limitations of the CCPA's private right of action.
3 Key Changes to Proposed CCPA Regulations
The new changes to the proposed regulations, while not as sweeping and comprehensive as the last round issued in February, are still significant, particularly with the July 1 deadline for finalizing those regulations quickly approaching. Among the substantive and stylistic changes, three key modifications are highlighted below.
1. Removal of the Opt-Out Button
The AG's office has taken a rollercoaster ride with the opt-out button provision. The originally proposed regulations released in October 2019 first offered businesses the option to use an "opt-out button or logo . . . in addition to posting the notice of right to opt-out." The February regulations then provided specific direction on the use, look, and feel of the opt-out button. The proposed button——had little chance for survival, though.
Professor Eric Goldman, a leading expert on internet law, explained the problems with the opt-out button design:
At least three problems with this design: (1) the mixed metaphor (dot to enable and X to cancel) makes it unclear to consumers if they need to take any action; (2) the red color signals a warning to stay away; and (3) clicking on the button doesn't actually take any action–it just links to a page with more information, and consumers might not realize that they must take more steps to complete an opt-out.
The appearance of the ill-fated button not surprisingly lasted all of a month, with the AG's office striking it, along with the recommendation that companies even consider adopting such a concept, in the March regulations.
2. Removal of IP Address "Link" Requirement
The CCPA defines "personal information" broadly to include information that could be reasonably identified with a consumer or a consumer's "household." The CCPA reinforced this broad construction by including "internet protocol address" in the definition of personal information, which allows CCPA protections to extend beyond a particular consumer to any individuals who "reside at the same address" and use an electronic device with the consumer's same IP address.
The February regulations placed a reasonable limitation on the use of an IP address for this purpose, declaring that an IP address would not be considered personal information if the regulated business "does not link the IP address to any particular consumer or household." Nevertheless, the March regulations completely eliminated this limitation without any explanation, thus reinforcing the notion that the definition of personal information is unbounded.
3. Additional Required Disclosures to Consumers in the Privacy Policy
The CCPA requires that regulated businesses publish a privacy policy delineating for consumers what businesses do with personal information and what rights consumers have vis-à-vis businesses regarding their personal information.
The March regulations add new disclosure requirements for the privacy policy including a mandate that regulated businesses specify the "categories of sources from which the personal information is collected" and describe the categories so consumers can reasonably understand what information is being collected. Businesses must also detail the "business or commercial purpose for collecting or selling personal information" and discuss the reason for doing so in reasonably understandable terms to the consumer.
CCPA Litigation
With the CCPA now effective for nearly three months, it is not surprising that consumer rights lawsuits have been filed to address CCPA violations. Litigation arising from the CCPA will likely fall into two separate categories. The first category will seek damages under the CCPA's limited private right of action for personal data breaches while the second will test the bar the CCPA has imposed on private rights of action to address other CCPA violations.
Barnes v. Hanna Andersson is an example of the first category. In this putative class action, plaintiffs seek, among other things, damages arising from defendants' alleged failures to implement reasonable security procedures and practices, which led to the claimed breach of unencrypted and unredacted personal information belonging to California consumers. If such a matter were litigated through dispositive motion practice and trial, it could provide clarity on a myriad of vague issues (e.g., what are "reasonable security procedures and practices") from the CCPA on which the AG's office has refused to provide guidance.
An example of the second category is found in Burke v. Clearview AI, which seeks various forms of relief under California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL) for violations of the CCPA. Burke does not seek damages under the CCPA's data breach private right of action, but instead relies on defendant's alleged violations of other CCPA provisions as predicate acts to establish liability under the UCL. Other consumer rights lawsuits (such as Zhang v. Super. Ct.) have adopted this tactic and successfully bypassed statutory bars to private rights of action by relying on the UCL. Burke could provide clarity on whether courts will uphold the legislative proscription on private rights of action for other CCPA violations or instead open an entirely new area of consumer rights litigation.
Philip Favro is a consultant for Driven, Inc. where he advises organizations and their counsel on issues relating to the discovery process and information governance. To address these developments relating to the CCPA, Driven has scheduled a webinar for April 1, 2020. In that webinar, data privacy expert Martin Tully of Actuate Law will join Favro as they discuss consumer rights under the CCPA, the corresponding obligations of regulated businesses, and practice tips for CCPA compliance. Registration details are available here.
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 AllLaw Firms Look to Gen Z for AI Skills, as 'Data Becomes the Oil of Legal'
'A Warning Shot to Board Rooms': DOJ Decision to Fight $14B Tech Merger May Be Bad Omen for Industry
Apple Files Appeal to DC Circuit Aiming to Intervene in Google Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Understanding the HEMS Standard in Trusts
- 2Mergers Are About People, Not Paperwork: Here’s Why
- 3Wachtell Partner Leaves to Chair Latham's Liability Management Practice
- 4Morris Nichols Partners to Be Involved With PLI Program
- 5How I Made Practice Group Chair: 'Cultivating a Culture of Mutual Trust Is Essential,' Says Gina Piazza of Tarter Krinsky & Drogin
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