This post is the first in a three part series taking a deep dive into the five key articles of the Attorney General’s CCPA draft regulations: Article 2 on Notice to Consumers; Article 3 on Business Practices for Handling Consumer Requests; Article 4 on Verification of Requests; Article 5 on Special Rules Regarding Minors; and Article 6 on Non-Discrimination. Today we look at consumer notice. Check back daily for the next installment, or visit the CCPA Monitor for a collection of all our CCPA insights.
Intro and Background. In the summer of 2018, the California Legislature drafted and passed the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) in record time. Facing a procedural deadline for a ballot initiative, the Legislature acted with dispatch, as it did not want to add to the State Constitution, with its super-majority amendment requirements, many of the provisions that ultimately found their way into the CCPA. This abbreviated legislative process produced a bill with numerous gaps and anomalies, however. Businesses, consumer advocates, and privacy watchers thus have been eagerly waiting for over a year for the Attorney General to propose the regulations the CCPA requires him to promulgate.
On October 10, 2019, this wait finally ended. As laid out below, the nature and breadth of the Attorney General’s proposed regulations explain why they took so long to produce. Put simply, the proposed regulations are significant and will have substantial implications on businesses’ ongoing efforts to comply with the CCPA with less than three months left to go before the effective date. Indeed, even if they do not resolve all of the Law’s many ambiguities, they do provide helpful implementation guidance – along with surprising new requirements, some of which may questionably extend beyond the CCPA itself.
Earlier today, the California Attorney General ended months of anticipation by releasing the text of his proposed California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) regulations. Comments on the proposed regulations are due by December 6, 2019, and the Attorney General’s office will hold public hearings on the regulations on December 2 (Sacramento), December 3 (Los Angeles), December 4 (San Francisco), and December 5 (Fresno).
*Jan Yves Remy is a former Sidley Austin Associate and now serves as the Deputy Director at Shridath Ramphal Centre for International Trade Law, Policy and Services at the University of the West Indies in Barbados. As with all posts, this article is for your informational purposes only; Sidley Austin does not have offices in or practice law in Barbados.
Today, more than 120 countries have privacy and data protection laws or regulations in place. Many of the new or modernized laws tend to be based on comprehensive legislation, rather than sectoral rules, as data needs to move across industry groups and borders. With its new data protection bill, Barbados is planning to join the ranks; this is a significant move, and it is one fueled at least in part by the entry into force of the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) on May 25, 2018. The GDPR was designed to harmonize data protection laws across Europe and to protect EU residents’ data privacy rights; and, its coming triggered significant privacy and data protection compliance activities amongst organizations doing business in the EU and working with the personal data of EU residents.
After months of wrangling, the California legislature has finally passed a set of significant amendments to the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), a sweeping data privacy and security law commonly referred to as “California’s GDPR” (Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation). Employee personal information and personal information obtained in business-to-business (B2B) interactions are now mostly out of scope. Personal information in credit reports and other data covered by the Fair Credit Reporting Act is also largely exempt. Only personal information that is “reasonably” capable of being associated with a consumer or household is subject to the act. And aggregate or deidentified information definitively does not qualify as CCPA personal information.
This article first appeared on Thomson Reuters Regulatory Intelligence.
The summer of 2018 may be regarded as a pivotal time in the history of data privacy laws. The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) came into effect in May 2018, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) was signed into law in June 2018 (and comes into effect on January 1, 2020), and a draft of India’s Personal Data Protection Bill (India DP Bill) was released in July 2018 (and is now under review by India’s government).
These developments, and more generally, the recent proliferation of data privacy laws around the world (notably, in Australia, China, Brazil, Hong Kong, and Singapore) represent a compliance challenge for many multinational organizations.
The National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) held its Summer 2019 National Meeting (Summer Meeting) in New York City from August 3 to 6, 2019. The Summer Meeting was highlighted by the following activities.
The flurry of state legislative activity in the wake of the enactment of the California Consumer Protection Act (CCPA) continues with the New York legislature recently passing two bills to increase accountability for the processing of personal information. On July 25, 2019, Governor Cuomo signed the two bills into law, one which amended the state’s data breach notification law, and another that created additional obligations for data breaches at credit reporting agencies. Together, the new laws require the implementation of reasonable data security safeguards, expand breach reporting obligations for certain types of information, and require that a “consumer credit reporting agency” that suffers a data breach provide five years of identity theft prevention services for impacted residents. Meanwhile, the more comprehensive New York Privacy Act, which many viewed as even more expansive than the CCPA, failed to gather the necessary support in the most recent legislative session.
With less than three months to go before amendments to California’s far reaching data privacy law need to be signed into law, the CCPA landscape may be changing yet again, as several amendments debated in the state Senate Judiciary Committee on July 9th underwent significant modifications. Eight proposed CCPA amendments were on the committee’s agenda, and several were hotly debated in an hours-long session that extended late into the night. In the end, two of the bills had substantive modifications, another was stalled, one was defeated, and the rest made it out of the committee, with limited changes. Here we summarize the highlights.
The Chinese government is proposing heightened requirements on cross-border transfers of personal information from China, recently publishing draft Measures on Security Assessment of Cross-border Transfer of Personal Information (the “Draft Measures”). This comes less than a month after the Chinese government issued another draft Measures for Data Security Management which require network operators to conduct a security assessment for any transfer of important data (i.e. any data that may directly affect China’s national security, economic security, social stability, or public health and security if leaked) to overseas. The Draft Measures now focus on the cross-border transfer of personal information by network operators and are viewed as a continuous effect of the Chinese government to strengthen the data protection in China.
Since the passage of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code §1798.100 et seq.) (“CCPA”), several states are following in California’s footsteps and adopting privacy bills that would allow consumers to object to the sale of their personal information.