Lawyers React to California Attorney General's Submission for Final CCPA Regulations
"The attorney general is supposed to pass regulations that address exceptions under state and federal laws, including intellectual property rights," Michelle Hon Donovan, a partner at Duane Morris in San Diego, explained. "There is an exception that talks about trade secret rights, but nothing about IP rights."
June 03, 2020 at 04:44 PM
3 minute read
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra submitted the final regulations for the enforcement of the California Consumer Privacy Act this week to be approved by the California Office of Administrative Law despite compliance concerns caused by the new coronavirus and ambiguities in those regulations.
The CCPA was passed into law in 2019 and came into effect in January. Becerra indicated that enforcement of the law would begin on July 1. Becerra has published proposed regulations throughout the year and attorneys who are familiar with the law said it is not as clear as they would like it to be.
Michelle Hon Donovan, a partner at Duane Morris in San Diego, said it is still unclear how privacy rights and intellectual property rights will work together. She said if there is not an exception for intellectual property rights, companies could face a situation where an individual or organization claims intellectual property rights over IP that has already been claimed.
"The attorney general is supposed to pass regulations that address exceptions under state and federal laws, including intellectual property rights," Donovan explained. "There is an exception that talks about trade secret rights, but nothing about IP rights."
Reece Hirsch, a partner at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius in San Francisco, said during an interview on Wednesday that one of the ambiguities in the final proposed regulations includes the lack of an opt-out button that was provided in prior versions of the proposed regulations.
Over the next month, Hirsch said companies should make sure they have a CCPA-compliant website privacy notice.
"Similarly, if a business engages in the sale of personal information but does not have a 'do not sell my personal information' link on their website, that is an obvious deficiency," Hirsch said.
He also said companies should check their service provider agreements. Under the regulations, sharing personal information with a service provider constitutes a sale of personal information.
Hirsch said companies would benefit from additional guidance beyond what is in the plain language of the law. He also said he hopes enforcement does not begin July 1, even if it is approved.
"I would hope the attorney general's office would exercise its discretion and not launch into enforcement actions immediately," Hirsch said.
The final regulations were submitted just one month before enforcement is slated to begin. The regulations will need to be approved by the Office of Administrative Law first. The office would normally have 30 workdays to approve the regulation. However, because of the new coronavirus, California Gov. Gavin Newsom allowed the agency an additional 60 calendar days to approve regulations. Hirsch said Becerra has asked that the CCPA be made a priority.
Donovan further explained that any regulations filed June 1 or later will not go into effect until Oct. 1. She said she would expect Becerra to file for an exemption to have the regulations come into effect on July 1.
Companies have previously asked the attorney general to push back the enforcement date to Jan. 1, 2021, citing complications caused by COVID-19. Becerra has expressed that he will not push back the enforcement date of the CCPA.
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 AllCollectible Maker Funko Wins Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action
How Tony West Used Transparency to Reform Uber's Toxic Culture
What Paul Grewal Has Learned About Advocacy as Coinbase's Top Lawyer
7 minute readShowered With Stock, Tech GCs Incentivized to 'Knock It Out of the Park'
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Senators Grill Visa, Mastercard Execs on Alleged Anti-Competitive Practices, Fees
- 2Deal Watch: Gibson Dunn, V&E, Kirkland Lead Big Energy Deals in Another Strong Week in Transactions
- 3Advisory Opinion Offers 'Road Map' for Judges Defending Against Campaign Attacks
- 4Commencement of Child Victims Act at Heart of Federal Question Posed to NY's Top Court
- 5Bolstering Southern California Presence, Sidley Austin Settles Into Revitalized Downtown LA Office
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