The wait is over: Only five CCPA amendments made it through the California legislature. The amendments are limited in scope, which means the CCPA will go into effect, largely intact, on January 1, 2020.
The California legislative session for 2019 ended on September 13 and the following five amendments to the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) were passed: AB 25, 874, 1146, 1355, and 1564. They now move to the Governor’s desk, where he has 30 days to sign or veto them.
On August 12, the California legislature returns after its summer recess. Starting with the Senate Appropriations Committee Hearing today, the legislature will now have approximately a month to continue the markups and send California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) amendments to the Governor’s desk for signature before the September 13 deadline. As previously reported, any amendment that passes from the Senate will likely need to go back to the Assembly since many of them have been marked up significantly by the Senate. Below is a summary of the seven amendments that are moving forward and what they mean for businesses who are working on implementing a CCPA program. Click here for our previous coverage of AB 25 (employee exception), AB 846 (customer loyalty program), and AB 1564 (consumer request methods).
On 29 July 2019, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) issued its judgement on Case C-40/17 (the “Fashion-ID” case). In its ruling, the ECJ held that operators of websites embedding Facebook’s “Like” button act as data controllers jointly with Facebook in respect of the collection and transmission to Facebook of the personal data of visitors to the relevant websites. In relation to these processing activities, the website operators must inform their website visitors about the data processing activities for which they act as a joint controller with Facebook, must establish a lawful basis for these processing activities and, where applicable, must collect relevant consent from the website visitor.
The U.S. Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act (“CLOUD Act”) is apparently the Goldilocks of the privacy world, according to recent statements issued by two international jurisdictions. The CLOUD Act’s requirements are “too hard” for Australian law, according to the Law Council of Australia, but the privacy protections are “too soft” for the European Data Protection Board and European Data Protection Supervisor. The current lack of any executive agreements between the U.S. and another jurisdiction under the CLOUD Act seems to indicate that the U.S. has not yet found a jurisdiction that is “just right” for the CLOUD Act.
Following the now famous €50m fine imposed on Google LLC in January 2019,[1] the French Data Protection Authority (the CNIL) published a decision taken on 28 May 2019[2] imposing a fine of €400,000 on SERGIC, a company specialised in real estate development, purchase, sale, rental and property management.
Big data companies like Google and Facebook are now facing increased scrutiny about the use of massive amounts of personal data in the digital ad marketplace.
On 12 April, the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) fined Bounty, a pregnancy and parent support club, £400,000 for illegally sharing personal data belonging to more than 14 million people. As the contravention took place just before the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) came into force, the fine was issued under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA).
Five years after the commencement of legal proceedings against Google by leading French consumer association UFC Que Choisir, the Paris “Tribunal de Grande Instance” (TGI), in a decision dated 12 February 2019, issued its ruling on the legality of the Google+ Terms of Use and Privacy Rules, both with respect to consumer law and personal data protection regulations.
A mid-level German employment court recently had to consider the scope of subject access requests under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the context of compliance and whistle-blowing regimes. The Regional Labour Court (Landesarbeitsgericht) of Stuttgart decided that an employer was required not only to provide an employee with the records containing performance and behavioural data, but also to disclose information regarding internal investigations. This is the first reported successful enforcement of a data subject access right under Article 15 GDPR before a regional labour court in Germany. (The judgment was handed down on 20 December 2018 but has just been published in full text.)
This is the Data Protection Report’s eighth blog post in series of CCPA blog posts that will break down the major elements of the CCPA. Stay tuned for additional posts on the CCPA.
With significant enforcement activity and new laws being enacted or proposed since the start of the year, regulators in the EU and the US, several US states, and the US Congress are showing they mean business in terms of data privacy.
To help companies best protect consumer data and remediate enforcement risks, we provide below an overview of the following: