In Part II of this series, California-based Ali Baiardo, and London-based Alice O’Donovan, continue their comparison of the GDPR and California privacy law. To view Part I in the series, click here.

NEW DATA PROTECTION PRINCIPLES AND OBLIGATIONS ON BUSINESSES

a. Key data protection principles

The GDPR revolves around seven key data protection principles:

  1. Lawfulness, fairness and transparency;
  2. Purpose limitation;
  3. Data minimisation;
  4. Accuracy;
  5. Storage limitation;
  6. Integrity and confidentiality (security); and
  7. Accountability


Continue Reading California Privacy Rights Act: A Move Closer to GDPR? Part II

A major consumer privacy law is likely this legislative session in Florida that stands to jeopardize not only technology companies, but financial services, healthcare entities, and thousands of small and medium-sized businesses that rely on digital marketing and advertising to conduct business.

Florida legislators are generally pro-business, but this year could be an exception. Talks

The recently-passed California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) augments and supplements California’s existing privacy law, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA).  We are sure many practitioners are wondering how it stacks up with the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). See below for Part I of our two part series comparing the CPRA and the GDPR (and see Part II here).

HOW DOES THE CPRA CHANGE THE CCPA?

The CPRA makes several significant changes to the CCPA:

  • It introduces the concept of “sensitive personal data”;
  • It introduces new obligations on businesses, and GDPR-style “principles”;
  • It introduces new rights for consumers; and
  • It creates a new supervisory authority for data protection and privacy in California — the California Privacy Protection Agency.

These changes are very significant – but do they represent a move closer to GDPR, or a move away?


Continue Reading California Privacy Rights Act: A Move Closer to GDPR? Part I

Did you miss our Dec. 15, 2020, webinar? Is it a holiday wish come true or just the CCPA dressed up in an ugly sweater? Naughty or nice, the CPRA is here. You can watch a replay of the webinar below.

Our festive webinar discusses California’s newest data privacy law, the California Privacy Rights and Enforcement Act of 2020 (CPRA). Passed by ballot initiative during this year’s general election, the CPRA expands and modifies the California Consumer Privacy Act in several significant ways. This webinar covers some of the key changes brought by the CPRA and steps businesses can take now to prepare for this new law.


Continue Reading Webinar Replay: Is it a holiday wish come true or just the CCPA dressed up in an ugly sweater? Naughty or nice, the CPRA is here.

The November 2020 election left a lot of questions.  Among them, companies doing business in California are now asking about compliance with yet another California data privacy law, this time the California Privacy Rights and Enforcement Act of 2020 (the “CPRA”).  This article gives an overview addressing the what, when, and how of the CPRA.  (We won’t hazard a guess as to the why—we leave that to the backers of the new law.)

What is the CPRA?

The CPRA builds on the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (the “CCPA”) in a number of key ways.  It includes: new consumer rights, new requirements for businesses, and a number of other miscellaneous changes.  Some parts of the CCPA will remain in effect, and others are rephrased or clarified.  We provide below a high-level overview of topics we believe businesses should be thinking about now as they look ahead to building-out their CPRA compliance programs.


Continue Reading You’re CCPA Compliant. So Now What? Top Tips for Companies Looking Ahead to the Recently-Passed CPRA

On November 9, 2020 the FTC entered into a consent agreement with Zoom Video Communications, Inc. to address concerns over the videoconferencing platform’s security practices. With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the need for a reliable, online videoconferencing and meeting platform skyrocketed. Zoom met that need. It advertised its platform as a secure space with various safety measures to protect user data, including “end-to-end” 256-bit encryption. In short order, individuals, businesses, and organizations quickly flocked to the user-friendly communications platform; and, by the end of April 2020 Zoom’s user base was booming.

Then came a backlash of sorts. The FTC began investigating Zoom’s security practices, and private plaintiffs brought class-action lawsuits alleging violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act and failure to adhere to Zoom’s terms of service. The FTC’s complaint alleged several concerns with Zoom’s advertising and security promises, concluding that Zoom made misleading claims about the strength of its encryption and security of its platform that gave customers a false sense of security. The five-count complaint alleged that Zoom:


Continue Reading FTC “Zooms” Into Settlement Agreement with Communications Company Over Concerns with its Security Practices

On October 13. 2020, White Castle System, Inc. petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit for permission to seek an interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).  This petition arises out of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois’ opinion on White Castle’s motion for judgment on the pleadings issued on August 7, 2020.  The matter hinged on whether repeated collection of the same biometric information from an employee without prior consent constituted separate violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA).

Summary of District Court’s Cothron v. White Castle Opinion

In the district court’s opinion, Judge Tharp held that “[a] party violates Section 15(b) [of the BIPA] when it collects, captures, or otherwise obtains a person’s biometric information without prior informed consent.”  Judge Tharp continued, “[t]his is true the first time an entity scans a fingerprint or otherwise collects biometric information, but it is no less true with each subsequent scan or collection.”  Similarly, Judge Tharp held that BIPA requires that dissemination of information without consent, even if to the same third party as previously disseminated, is an additional violation of the BIPA.


Continue Reading Does Continued Collection of The Same Biometric Information Increase BIPA Violations? The Seventh Circuit (or Illinois Supreme Court) Has An Opportunity to Clear the Air

On October 12, 2020, the California Attorney General provided public notice of a new Proposed Third Set of Modifications to the Regulations under the California Consumer Privacy Act (the “CCPA”).  You will be forgiven if you assumed that “final approval” of the existing Regulations back in August meant the Regulations were final—or at least we hope so because we made the same assumption.

Since August, however, it appears the AG was working behind the scenes to resurrect previously withdrawn Sections 999.306(b)(2) (covering offline notice of opt-out if a business substantially interacts with consumers offline); 999.315(c) (minimum standards for opt-out requests); and 999.326(c) (specific requirements for authorized agents).  The AG describes the newly proposed rules as follows:


Continue Reading Spooky: Presumed-Dead CCPA Regulations Come Back to Life

Monetary penalties are the attention-grabbing headline when the FTC or any regulator brings an enforcement action against a company.  They are the looming threat to incentivize and influence compliance.  Over the summer, FTC Chairman Joseph J. Simons (“Chairman Simons”) issued a statement in connection with a settlement that Chairman Simons believes “the goal of a civil penalty should be to make compliance more attractive than violation.  Said another way, violation should not be more profitable than compliance.”

Continue Reading FTC Fines: FTC Chairman Reminds Companies That Fines Are the FTC’s Strategic Tool To Deter Noncompliance

On September 17, 2020, four Republican Senators (Roger Wicker – Mississippi, Chairman, John Thune – South Dakota, Deb Fischer – Nebraska, and Marsha Blackburn – Tennessee) introduced sweeping federal privacy legislation entitled: Setting an American Framework to Ensure Data Access, Transparency, and Accountability (“SAFE DATA”) Act. This proposed comprehensive national privacy law has three main components:

  1. Provides consumers with more choice and control over their data
  2. Directs business to be more transparent and accountable
  3. Strengthens the FTC’s enforcement power


Continue Reading Federal Data Privacy Legislation: Will it Help the US Remain Competitive in the Global Marketplace?