In this 25 minute on-demand webinar, Husch Blackwell attorneys David Stauss and Malia Rogers provide an overview of the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA or CCPA 2.0), which is currently on track to appear on the November 2020 California ballot. If passed, the CPRA will significantly amend and expand the California Consumer Privacy Act. David and Malia provide a background on the CPRA and its current status, analyze its notable provisions, and discuss its implementation timeline.

Click here to view the webinar.

Resulting in Zoom Promising to Implement an Information Security Program, Resembling the SHIELD Act

Key point: The Letter of Agreement between the New York Attorney General and Zoom Video Communications, Inc. provides insight into what the Attorney General may consider satisfying the Reasonable Safeguards requirement under the SHIELD Act.

On May 7, 2020 Zoom Video Communications, Inc. (Zoom) became the first company to experience one of the new enforcement tools available to the New York Attorney General’s Office (NYAG) under the Stop Hacks and Improve Electronic Data Security Act (SHIELD Act).

The SHIELD Act took effect on March 21, 2020, and requires any person or business owning or licensing computerized data containing the private information of a New York resident “to develop, implement and maintain reasonable safeguards to protect the security, confidentiality and integrity of that private information.” GBL § 899-BB(2).

Continue Reading Zoom’s Popularity Leads to New York Investigating Its Security Flaws

Keypoint: If the California Privacy Rights Act is approved by voters in November, it would trigger a series of deadlines ultimately culminating in a January 1, 2023 effective date and July 1, 2023 enforcement date.

On May 4, 2020, privacy advocates reported that they were submitting over 900,000 signatures to qualify the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA or CCPA.20) for the November election. Assuming the initiative passes the signature verification process, it would be on the November 3, 2020 ballot and become law if approved by a simple majority of California voters.

If the CPRA does pass in November, it will trigger a complicated timeline of staggered effective and enforcement dates and regulatory rulemaking deadlines.

Continue Reading CCPA 2.0: Analysis of the California Privacy Rights Act’s Implementation Timeline

Keypoint: Advocates seem certain that they have done enough to qualify CCPA 2.0 for the November ballot.

On May 4, 2020, the Californians for Consumer Privacy advocacy group announced that they were submitting over 900,000 signatures to qualify the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA, commonly referred to as “CCPA 2.0”) for the November 2020 ballot. As discussed in our prior post, privacy advocates were required to collect and submit 623,212 signatures to qualify the CPRA for the November ballot. However, given that signatures need to be verified, it is typical for advocates to submit many more signatures than is necessary.

The initiative will now enter the signature verification process. The Californians for Consumer Privacy appeared certain that they had done enough to qualify the CPRA for the November election, posting on Twitter: “Today we submitted signatures to qualify CPRA2020 for the November ballot. See you at the ballot box!”

For a discussion of CCPA 2.0 and how it would change the CCPA’s requirements, click here.

Keypoint: Although it is unclear whether the forthcoming bill has any chance of becoming law, it is further evidence that companies need to consider the significant privacy issues and risks associated with implementing COVID-19-related technology.

On April 30, 2020, a group of four Republican Senators announced their plan to introduce federal privacy legislation that would regulate the collection and use of personal information relating to the fight against the Coronavirus pandemic. The four Senators are U.S. Sens. John Thune (R-S.D), chairman of the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, Innovation, and the Internet; Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation; Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), chairman of the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, Insurance and Data Security; and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.).

Continue Reading Senators to Introduce COVID-19 Consumer Data Protection Act

Keypoint: The use of no-contact temperature taking devices can be an important part of a company’s return-to-work program, but companies should fully vet these devices to ensure that they are not unintentionally violating privacy laws or exposing themselves to potential liabilities.

As U.S. companies start planning and implementing return-to-work plans, many are considering whether to use no-contact temperature taking devices.

The federal government has recognized that taking temperatures is a step that companies can take to mitigate the risk of spreading coronavirus. For example, the CDC interim guidance for critical infrastructure workers recommends that employers “measure the employee’s temperature and assess symptoms prior to them starting work.” EEOC return-to-work guidance also recognizes that employee screening “may include continuing to take temperatures . . . of all those entering the workplace.”

States and cities also have recommended taking temperatures. For example, in Colorado, the Governor’s office has encouraged large workplaces to implement symptom and temperature checks as part of the state’s gradual return-to-work strategy. New York Mayor Bill de Blasio has stated that temperature checks will be part of the City’s return-to-work program. New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy suggested that restaurants could check temperatures before allowing customers to enter.

However, the taking of temperatures creates logistical issues such as who should take the temperatures, what precautions should be in place, and when and where the temperatures should be taken. As with many other facets of this pandemic, companies have looked to technology to answer some of these questions, and there are many solutions – some old, some new – in the marketplace.

Depending on the type of device, the use of no-contact temperature taking devices can raise numerous privacy issues. As companies begin to vet and implement these devices, they will need to ensure that they do not unintentionally violate privacy laws or assume potential liabilities.

Continue Reading U.S. Privacy Law Implications with the Use of No-Contact Temperature Taking Devices

Keypoint: If properly deployed, the use of COVID-19 contact-tracing apps by employers, in combination with other measures, could be an effective way to return employees to the workforce. However, before deploying these apps, employers should take caution to fully vet the technologies being used to ensure that employee privacy is respected.

As the United States and Europe have started the process of returning to work, the development, deployment, and use of COVID-19 contact-tracing apps has become a focal point for how governments intend to mitigate risk. China, Singapore, and South Korea have already implemented national contact-tracing apps. European countries and Australia have been rapidly working towards their deployment.

In connection with the rapid development of governmental contact-tracing apps, tech companies have started to develop similar apps for employers. A handful of employer-focused contact-tracing apps are already on the market and many more are in development. Some employers are already planning to deploy these apps. For example, Ferrari recently announced that it will utilize a contact-tracing app as part of its “Back on Track” plan.

The use of these apps raises numerous privacy concerns for U.S. employers. As employers begin to vet these apps, they will need to ensure that they do not unintentionally violate privacy laws or assume liabilities by deploying them with their workforce.

Continue Reading U.S. Privacy Law Implications for Employers Considering Employee Contact-Tracing Apps

Keypoint: The AG’s office again signals that the CCPA’s July 1 enforcement deadline will not be extended.

In another sign that the California Attorney General has no plans to delay the CCPA’s July 1, 2020, enforcement deadline, on Friday April 10, 2020, the AG’s office issued a press release reminding California residents of their data privacy rights during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Continue Reading CCPA Update: AG Says CCPA Privacy Rights Now “More Important Than Ever”

The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Office of Civil Rights (OCR) announced that it will refrain from imposing penalties for violations of HIPAA for covered entities or business associates participating, in good faith, in the operation of COVID-19 Community-Based Testing Sites during the nationwide public health emergency. The notice related to the relaxation of HIPAA rules comes on the heels of pharmacies, such as CVS and Walgreens, taking on a more active and critical role in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. Our healthcare team synthesizes what the waiver does and does not include in this post on our Healthcare Law Insights blog.

Section 3221 of the CARES Act ratified fundamental changes to the Public Health Service Act requiring HHS to revise 42 C.F.R. Part 2,  regulations within 12 months. The changes are significant and follow the increasing movement to align the rules that govern the confidentiality requirements of substance use disorder records with HIPAA. Our health law team summarizes the changes on Healthcare Law Insights.