M&A Transactions and AB 1824: Navigating New Privacy Compliance Challenges
This article explores the implications of AB 1824 for companies involved in M&A transactions, focusing on the new legal obligations on the buyer and the necessity of target businesses to maintain opt-out records.
January 28, 2025 at 09:53 PM
7 minute read
The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) has been amended a number of times since its enactment in 2018. One of the latest amendments to the CCPA, California’s Assembly Bill No. 1824, recently took effect Jan. 1, 2025, and changed the CCPA in the context of mergers and acquisitions (M&A), and other types of corporate transactions. Under this amendment, any business acquiring personal information of a consumer from another business as an asset through a merger, acquisition, bankruptcy, or other types of transactions in which the transferee assumes control of all, or part, of the transferor must comply with opt-out of “sale” and “sharing” requests California residents made to the seller before their personal information is transferred to the buyer.
The CCPA is the first comprehensive data privacy law in the United States and applies to for-profit entities if they conduct business in California (even if they are not physically located in the state), collect California residents’ personal information, determine how and why the information should be processed, and meet one of the following thresholds: (1) have annual gross revenue in excess of $25 million (adjusted to $26,625,000 starting Jan. 1, 2025); (2) buy, sell, or share the personal information of 100,000 or more California residents or households; or (3) derive 50% or more of their annual revenue from selling or sharing California residents’ personal information. The CCPA may also apply to entities that share common branding and control with a company that meets the above requirements, certain joint ventures or partnerships made up of these businesses, and businesses that voluntarily certify to be subject to the CCPA.
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 All'A Death Sentence for TikTok'?: Litigators and Experts Weigh Impact of Potential Ban on Creators and Data Privacy
Patreon Hit With Lawsuit for Allegedly Diverting Subscriber Data to Meta
TikTok Hit With California Class Action for Allegedly Mining Children's Data Without Parental Consent
Trending Stories
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