Update: On the evening of June 24, 2020—the same date we published the post below and the day before the original deadline for verification of signatures—the Secretary of State announced that the CPRA reached the signature verification threshold and qualified for the fall 2020 ballot.  While the Mactaggart lawsuit will now be a mere footnote in the history of the CPRA, any way you look at it, this was a successful week for Californians for Consumer Privacy.

On June 19, 2020, the Superior Court for Sacramento County, California issued a ruling providing relief to the promoters of the California Privacy Rights Act ballot initiative (the “CPRA”).  We wrote here about the potential problem with the timing of the signature verification process required for the CPRA to qualify for the Fall 2020 ballot, but that issue now appears to be resolved.

The specifics are to be ironed out in a further order to be jointly proposed by the parties, but suffice it to say that the procedural issue with the timing of signature verification will not prevent the CPRA from appearing on the Fall 2020 ballot.  For now, the Court ordered as follows:


Continue Reading CPRA Back on Track Following Court Order

On May 14, California Secretary of State Alex Padilla announced that the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (the “CPRA”) had obtained sufficient raw signatures to qualify for the November 3, 2020 ballot.  Those signatures are currently being verified by the counties in which they were obtained.  However, based on a complaint filed June 8 by Alastair Mactaggart and other members of Californians for Consumer Privacy—the proponents of the CPRA—it appears that the verification process may not be completed in time for the CPRA to appear on the ballot this Fall.

The lawsuit, Alastair Mactaggart, et al. v. Padilla, filed in Sacramento County Superior Court, alleges that Secretary of State Padilla failed to adhere to a provision of the California Elections Code requiring his office to “immediately” notify county officials to begin the verification process upon receipt of a sufficient number of raw signatures.  Here is a brief timeline of the events alleged in the Complaint:


Continue Reading A Day Late, but Will it Fall Short? CPRA Ballot Initiative May Not Appear on Fall Ballot

On June 1, 2020, the California Attorney General submitted the final text of the CCPA Regulations to the California Office of Administrative Law (the “OAL”).  This was the last step the AG needed to take before the Regulations become enforceable.  But whether enforcement will still start on July 1, 2020 as set forth in the CCPA remains uncertain.

What does this mean for the timing of CCPA enforcement?

Some have questioned whether the AG’s delay in submitting the Regulations following the end of the last comment period in March signaled an intent by the AG to delay enforcement of the CCPA.  So far, however, there is no indication of any intended delay in either the AG’s press announcement regarding submission of the Final Regulations or his prior comments reiterating his intention to keep enforcement on track despite COVID-19.  Indeed, the AG requested expedited review of the Regulations by OAL in order to meet the July 1 deadline.


Continue Reading AG Submits Final CCPA Regulations—Is Enforcement Still on Track for July 1, 2020?

There are many laws at the state and federal level that regulate the processing of genetic information.  There may soon be one more.

Earlier this month, the California Senate took up consideration of SB 980, the Genetic Information Privacy Act (“GIPA”), which “would prohibit a direct-to-consumer genetic testing services company from disclosing a person’s genetic information to a third party without obtaining the person’s prior written consent.”  As the bill itself acknowledges, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (the “CCPA”) already regulates the processing of biometric information, including DNA.  Other laws such as the federal Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (“GINA”) and its California counterpart (“CalGINA”) prohibit genetic discrimination.  However, there are four key differences in how the GIPA would treat genetic information as compared to the CCPA: (1) the GIPA would create a requirement to obtain written opt-in consent for any disclosure of genetic information to a third party; (2) limit the use of genetic information to the purpose specifically authorized by the individual to whom it pertains; (3) require destruction of the information as soon as this purpose is achieved; and (4) depending on the circumstances, impose criminal as well as civil liability for violations.


Continue Reading The California Genetic Information Privacy Act: How This Proposed Legislation Fits in the California Privacy Regulation Framework