On March 17, 2021, California officials announced the appointment of five board members of the California Privacy Protection Agency ( the “CPPA”), the first data protection agency in the United States. The CPPA, created by the California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”) which California voters approved in November 2020, is charged with promulgating the CPRA regulations; enforcing the CCPA and CPRA; and educating consumers about their privacy rights.
For over two and a half years, California has enjoyed the spotlight of having the most comprehensive data privacy law in the United States. On March 2, 2021, Virginia forced California to share the honors, when Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam signed into law the Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act (VCDPA).
The VCDPA, which will not enter into effect until January 1, 2023, borrows heavily from the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and the European Union (EU) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Perhaps because Virginia was able to benefit from the experience of businesses that have spent the better part of the last five years implementing the GDPR or the CCPA, the Virginia law is less prescriptive and more straightforward than its predecessors, with (one would hope) a correspondingly lighter implementation burden on companies. Nonetheless, there is just enough different in the VCDPA that businesses with a connection to Virginia will need to evaluate whether the law applies to them and how they will comply.
While an exegesis of the VCDPA is beyond the scope of today’s Data Matters post, this alert is designed to assist such efforts in three ways. First, we lay out the VCDPA’s scope, providing preliminary insight into which businesses the law will cover. Second, we highlight the key ways the VCDPA differs from — and, more important, extends beyond — the CCPA and GDPR so that businesses will have an initial sense of what, if any, unique obligations the VCDPA will place on them. Finally, for completeness’s sake, the post briefly summarizes the law’s key elements.
Amidst significant economic and legal concerns, on February 12, 2021, the Maryland Senate joined the House in voting to override Republican Gov. Larry Hogan’s veto of House Bill 732 (HB 732) to adopt a Digital Advertising Gross Revenues Tax (Tax), the nation’s first tax targeting digital advertising. The override was successful despite significant pushback from a coalition of more than 200 businesses and Republican legislators who sought to sustain the veto. HB 732 is intended to provide significant revenues to support education reforms in the state.
The Tax is likely to affect large technology-based and online companies that derive revenue from advertisements on their websites and platforms (rather than companies deriving their revenues entirely from subscription services). Thus such companies, as well as their owners and sponsors, should carefully consider the information below and the impact of the Tax on their business models.
On December 10, 2020, the California Attorney General (“AG”) proposed additional edits to the CCPA Regulations. These changes both build upon the updates that were proposed on October 12, 2020, and add some new content. All of the newly proposed changes relate to the right to opt-out of the sale of personal information. For a summary of all changes proposed on October 12, 2020, please see our post here.
*This article originally appeared the Daily Journal on November 20, 2020
The passage of Proposition 24, the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), amends 2018’s California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) by creating the nation’s first data privacy enforcement agency and expanding consumers’ rights with respect to their personal information. In this article, Sheri Porath Rockwell and Alexis Miller Buese highlight some of the significant features of the CPRA that are likely to impact consumers and businesses alike.
New privacy developments continue to come from California, with a new proposed modifications to CCPA regulations, continuing CCPA litigation, and voting beginning on Proposition 24, an initiative to overhaul the CCPA. We provide insight into each below.
Proposed Third Modified CCPA Regulations
In mid-October 2020, just a few months after the “finalization” of the regulations, the California Office of Attorney General proposed a handful of proposed modifications to regulations implementing the California Consumer Privacy Act. The abbreviated comment period for the proposed modifications closed on October 28th, which means the Attorney General must now review the comments, draft a response, and either further modify the proposed regulations or submit them in their current form for approval by the California Office of Administrative Law (OAL).
California’s Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed into law two bills to amend the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”). He also vetoed two other consumer privacy bills based on concerns about potential conflicts with existing state and federal law. Collectively, these four bills represented the most significant privacy legislation that came out of the California Legislature’s 2019-20 term, which came to a close on September 30th.
Only one of the two new CCPA amendments, AB713, includes substantive changes to the law. It streamlines the CCPA’s health information exception and imposes new obligations on CCPA businesses and others that handle deidentified patient information.
The other CCPA amendment, AB1281, simply extends the CCPA’s employee and B2B exemptions to January 1, 2022 if voters fail to pass Proposition 24 (CPRA or CCPA 2.0) in November. Those exemptions are currently set to expire on December 31st of this year.
Newsom also vetoed two consumer privacy bills despite expressing support for the goals of each. SB980 would have expanded consumer rights with respect to genetic information collected by direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies. Newsom’s veto was motivated by concerns that the law could have “unintended consequences” for the operation of the state’s communicable disease reporting requirements, including those applicable to COVID-19. The other bill, AB1138, would have imposed additional parental consent requirements on social media network operators. Newsom vetoed it to avoid potentially overlapping state and federal compliance obligations, citing parallels between the bill and federal regulations under the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA”).
Here we outline the significant features of each of the new CCPA amendments.
*This article was adapted from “Global Overview,” appearing in The Privacy, Data Protection and Cybersecurity Law Review (7th Ed. 2020)(Editor Alan Charles Raul), published by Law Business Research Ltd., and first published by the International Association of Privacy Professionals Privacy Perspectives series on September 28, 2020.
Privacy, like everything else in 2020, was dominated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Employers and governments have been required to consider privacy in adjusting workplace practices to account for who has a fever and other symptoms, who has traveled where, who has come into contact with whom, and what community members have tested positive or been exposed.
As a result of all this need for tracking and tracing, governments and citizens alike have recognized the inevitable trade-offs between exclusive focus on privacy versus exclusive focus on public health and safety.
On July 21, 2020, the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS or the Department) issued a statement of charges and notice of hearing (the Statement) against First American Title Insurance Company (First American) for violations of the Department’s Cybersecurity Requirements for Financial Services Companies, 23 N.Y.C.R.R. Part 500 (Cybersecurity Regulation or Regulation). The First American Statement of charges alleges six violations of the Cybersecurity Regulation and marks the Department’s first action pursuant to the Regulation, which is enforced by the recently created NYDFS Cybersecurity Division.1
NYDFS’s Statement seeks relief against First American, including civil monetary penalties and an order requiring First American to remediate any defined violations. Although the Statement does not include a calculation of the total penalty, the NYDFS explains that the civil monetary fines against First American are to be assessed pursuant to the Financial Services Law, which provides for a maximum civil monetary penalty of $1,000 per violation of the Regulation.2 Because First American’s violations included the exposure of millions of documents containing nonpublic information (NPI), the total penalty potentially could be substantial. The First American hearing is scheduled to occur on October 26, 2020, at the NYDFS.
The California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), a proposed initiative to codify far-reaching amendments to the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and sometimes referred to as “CCPA 2.0”, is back in play and heading to the November 2020 ballot. A series of dramatic procedural twists and turns culminated with initiative backers successfully obtaining a writ of mandate directing the Secretary of State to direct counties to verify signatures for the ballot proposal by the June 25th Constitutional deadline. This verification involved each county conducting a random sample of the more than 800,000 signatures that proponents had submitted to place the initiative on the ballot.
Before the California court’s ruling, observers were skeptical that signatures could be verified before the deadline. Initiative proponents were almost two weeks behind the recommended schedule when they delivered signatures to be verified by California’s 58 counties. This meant counties had until June 26th to verify signatures — a day after the June 25th Constitutional deadline. Experience with other initiatives this year had shown that several large counties were waiting until the deadline to complete verifications, so proponents petitioned the court to push the deadline up by a day in order to meet the Constitutional deadline. The court agreed to do so, finding good cause existed to force counties to complete verifications a day early. And, as it happened, the extra time was not needed, as counties finished the count two days ahead of their initial deadline.