This is the Data Protection Report’s ninth blog post in a series of CCPA blog posts that will break down the major elements of the CCPA. Stay tuned for additional posts on the CCPA.
On May 16, 2019, the California Senate Appropriations Committee held a hearing that included S.B. 561, the “Attorney General amendment” to the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”). The bill is being held in committee and under submission, which means the bill has been blocked and is likely dead.
In a recent decision, a California federal court held that an arbitration provision contained in Viacom, Inc.’s browsewrap agreement was unenforceable and denied Viacom’s request to stay the case pending arbitration.[1] The court’s decision in Rushing v. Viacom, Inc. is consistent with “courts’ traditional reluctance to enforce browsewrap agreements against individual consumers.”[2]
This is a Data Protection Report post in a series of blog posts that will break down the major elements of the CCPA. Stay tuned for additional CCPA posts.
On June 28, 2018, California lawmakers enacted the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (the “CCPA”) a sweeping, GDPR-like privacy law which is intended to give California consumers more control over how businesses collect and use their data.
The new law is set to take effect on January 1, 2020 which means the California legislature may still consider changes to the new law in the coming months and years. Lawmakers moved swiftly to pass the bill to preempt a November ballot initiative that would have codified more stringent rules.
A little more than one month from implementation of GDPR, companies may be tempted to relax and exhale (and if GDPR is still causing you headaches, consult our checklist). After all, the U.S. couldn’t be crazy enough to implement something as onerous and difficult, right? RIGHT?!?
Enter California, which appears likely to place an initiative on the November 2018 ballot that could bring some familiar aspects of GDPR to the sixth largest economy in the world. The proposed initiative, the Consumer Right to Privacy Act of 2018 (the “CRPA”), still needs to obtain the necessary signatures to appear on the ballot and then be passed by a majority of California voters. However, given the high profile data misuse and breach stories in the news over the past several months, the possible passage of the initiative must be taken seriously.
On March 8, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued its highly anticipated decision in In re Zappos.com, Inc., finding that allegations of future risk of identity theft from a data breach are sufficient to confer standing. This decision fuels an ongoing circuit split, pitting the D.C., Sixth, Seventh and now Ninth Circuits against the Second, Fourth, and Eighth Circuits over whether the mere exposure of personal information – without actual identity theft or credit/debit card fraud – establishes Article III standing.
In Beck v. McDonald, the 4th US Court of Appeals joined at least 5 other circuits in analyzing whether mere allegations of future identity theft can establish injury-in-fact as required to confer Article III standing.