California Privacy Experts Break Down the CPRA
Jonathan Tam of Baker McKenzie, Irene Jan of Evertio Inc., and Irene Mo of Aleada Consulting report on a virtual panel where three privacy experts forecasted the future of California privacy law in 2021.
December 28, 2020 at 03:01 PM
12 minute read
The San Francisco Bay Area and Silicon Valley KnowledgeNet chapters of the International Association of Privacy Professionals ("IAPP") hosted a virtual panel to discuss the newly-passed California Privacy Rights Act ("CPRA"). Panelists included:
|- Alastair Mactaggart, Chair of Californians for Consumer Privacy;
- Chris Hoofnagle, Professor and Faculty Director at University of California Berkeley Center for Law and Technology ("BCLT");
- Lothar Determann, Partner at Baker & McKenzie and author of California Privacy Law.
Determann moderated the discussion and recalled how he, Mactaggart, and Hoofnagle debated the pros and cons of Proposition 24 at the annual BCLT Privacy Law Forum on October 9, 2020. The goal of the IAPP KnowledgeNet was not to rehash the debate; the people have spoken—Proposition 24 has passed. Rather, Determann described the goal of the panel as:
|- Helping privacy professionals to familiarize themselves with the new law;
- Discussing how to prepare for compliance; and
- Benefiting from the perspective of Mactaggart and Hoofnagle, who hold the key to authoritative, first-hand knowledge of the legislative history of the CPRA.
What Is the CPRA?
The new California consumer privacy ballot initiative, Proposition 24 has garnered 56.1% of the vote and was officially certified on December 16, 2020. For the most part, it will not become effective until Jan. 1, 2023. However, a couple of provisions, specifically those applicable to employers, will have an immediate effect.
This content has been archived.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 AllCommentary: President Biden Should Commute Death Sentences of All Federal Inmates
6 minute readRuling Provides Lessons for Investors: Mind Your Business (Affairs)!
6 minute readSupreme Court to Hear Lanham Act Case With Broad Implications on Corporate Structure, Liability
6 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
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