Keypoint: Virginia becomes the second legislature – after Colorado – to pass an algorithmic discrimination bill – although the bill still needs to get through the state’s Republican governor to become law.
On February 20, Virginia’s Democrat-controlled legislature passed the Virginia High-Risk Artificial Intelligence Developer and Deployer Act (HB 2094). The bill next
Keypoint: The VCDPA is now finalized in advance of its January 1, 2023 effective date.
On April 11, 2022, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin signed three Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act (VCDPA) amendment bills into law. The three bills will go into effect July 1, 2022. With the signing of the bills, the VCDPA’s text is now finalized in advance of its January 1, 2023 effective date.
As discussed more fully below, the bills (1) add a new exemption to the VCDPA’s right to delete, (2) repeal the Consumer Privacy Fund provision and, instead, direct penalties, expenses and attorney fees recovered enforcing the VCDPA to a different fund; and (3) modify the VCDPA’s definition of nonprofit.
Keypoint: The CPRA is relatively prescriptive in how organizations must receive and respond to consumer requests, while the CPA and VCDPA introduce an appeal process and other nuances that will require adjusting existing CCPA consumer response processes.
This is the tenth and final post in our ten-part weekly series comparing key provisions of the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), Colorado Privacy Act (CPA), and Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act (VCDPA). With the operative dates of these laws drawing near, this series has explored important distinctions between them. Following this series, we will continue to provide updates and insights into these and other state privacy laws, including following the CPRA and CPA rulemaking processes. If you are not already subscribed to our blog, consider subscribing now to stay updated.
In this article we examine how each of the three state laws approaches consumer requests, including the types of requests consumers may submit, the methods organizations must employ to receive requests, and the timeframes in which to verify and respond to requests. The analysis below provides a high-level summary of the response frameworks under each law. It does not dive into statutory exceptions or how to substantively respond to requests.
The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and its regulations, as amended by the CPRA, is relatively prescriptive as it concerns processing consumer requests. The CPA and VCDPA, meanwhile, provide parameters but leave the processing of consumer requests largely to the discretion of the organization. Unique to the CPA and VCDPA, however, is the introduction of an appeals process that must also inform or assist the consumer in contacting the state Attorney General if dissatisfied with the result of the appeal.
Keypoint: Organizations that collect personal data from children under 16 will need to ensure compliance with additional requirements once the laws go into effect.
This is the ninth post in our ten-part weekly series comparing key provisions of the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), Colorado Privacy Act (CPA), and Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act (VCDPA). With the operative dates of these laws drawing near, we are exploring important distinctions between them. If you are not already subscribed to our blog, consider subscribing now to stay updated.
In this article, we examine how the three laws treat children’s personal data. The CPRA divides children into two groups, children under 13 and children the ages of 13-15. While both groups require consent to sell or share information, the latter may do so without a parent or guardian. In comparison, the VCDPA and CPA handle children’s data similar to each other by both defining a child as under 13 years old and including personal data of a child under the definition of sensitive data (for which consent is required to process). The VCDPA and CPA do not address the treatment of data for children ages 13-15.
In addition to these three state laws, California recently introduced a bill that would further regulate children’s personal data by creating additional obligations for companies collecting data of consumers under the age of 18. Momentum is also gathering for federal legislation that further regulates children’s online personal data, with several bills aiming to update the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). In March, President Joe Biden addressed the importance of protecting children’s data in his State of the Union address. We provide an overview of these new bills in this article as well.
Keypoint: Starting in 2023, organizations that are subject to one or more of the laws will need to enter into contracts with recipients of personal information/data that address numerous statutory requirements.
This is the eighth article in our ten-part weekly series comparing key provisions of the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), Colorado Privacy Act (CPA), and Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act (VCDPA). With the operative dates of these laws drawing near, we are exploring important distinctions between them. If you are not already subscribed to our blog, consider subscribing now to stay updated.
In this article, we examine how the three laws treat data processing agreements (DPAs). The CPRA, VCDPA and CPA require, in certain situations, businesses/controllers to enter into contracts with entities to whom they transfer personal information. The CPRA establishes three categories of recipients – service providers, contractors, and third parties – and sets forth a baseline set of requirements that must be contractually addressed when businesses sell or share personal information to a third party or disclose it to a service provider or contractor for a business purpose. The CPRA requires additional contractual provisions when the transfers are made to service providers or contractors.
In comparison, the VCDPA and CPA require contracts when a controller transfers personal data to processors. The VCDPA and CPA generally align their requirements although there are differences as discussed below. There also are many differences as compared to the CPRA’s requirements.
Keypoint: The CPRA and CPA introduce the concept of dark patterns into state consumer data privacy laws although this area has come under increased attention recently with FTC enforcement actions and guidance, state attorneys general lawsuits, and class action litigation.
This is the seventh post in our ten-part weekly series comparing key provisions of the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), Colorado Privacy Act (CPA), and Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act (VCDPA). With the operative dates of these laws drawing near, we are exploring important distinctions between them. If you are not already subscribed to our blog, consider subscribing now to stay updated.
In this article, we analyze how each of these laws treats dark patterns. The CPRA and CPA both prohibit use of dark patterns to obtain consumer consent. The basic distinction between the CPRA and CPA is when they require consumer consent. The CPRA generally allows businesses to obtain consumer consent to circumvent certain consumer rights that have already been exercised. In comparison, the CPA requires consumer consent for the processing of sensitive data. The legal landscape will also likely continue to change and develop, as both laws may see additional rulemaking on this issue.
In contrast, the VCDPA does not directly address dark patterns although, in theory, the state Attorney General could still regulate dark patterns through the law’s definition of consent.
Finally, while the concept of dark patterns is new for the CPRA and CPA, it must be understood in the context of Federal Trade Commission (FTC) enforcement and guidance, state attorneys general lawsuits, and class action litigation.
In the below article, we first consider what constitutes a dark pattern and ongoing multi-layered enforcement regarding them. We then analyze the role of dark patterns in each of the three state privacy laws.
Keypoint: The requirements for recognizing opt-out preference signals for certain types of processing vary widely depending on which state laws apply.
This is the sixth post in our ten-part weekly series comparing key provisions of the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), Colorado Privacy Act (CPA), and Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act (VCDPA). With the operative dates of these laws drawing near, we are exploring important distinctions between them. If you are not already subscribed to our blog, consider subscribing now to stay updated.
In this article, we analyze how each of these laws treat opt-out preference signals. The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), through its regulations, requires businesses to recognize such signals. However, the CPRA makes this an optional requirement. In contrast, Colorado will require controllers to recognize these signals as of July 1, 2024, whereas Virginia sits on the other end of the spectrum and does not require controllers to recognize them.
In the below article, we first discuss how California currently addresses this issue under the CCPA and how the CPRA will change those requirements. We then discuss Colorado’s approach.
Keypoint: Organizations subject to these laws will need to determine whether they are engaging in “sales,” which can be a complex and multifaceted analysis given the statutes’ varying definitions and exemptions.
This is the fifth post in our ten-part weekly series comparing key provisions of the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), Colorado Privacy Act (CPA), and Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act (VCDPA). With the operative dates of these laws drawing near, we are exploring important distinctions between them. If you are not already subscribed to our blog, consider subscribing now to stay updated.
In this article, we analyze how each of these laws treat “sales” of personal information/data. The CPRA, CPA, and VCDPA all give consumers the right to opt-out of the sale of their personal information/data by businesses/controllers. Whether organizations need to provide this right is obviously dependent on whether they are selling personal data. That analysis, however, is complicated by the fact that the laws define “sale” differently and contain different exemptions. Reconciling the definitions and exemptions will be an important step for any organization complying with these laws.
In the below article, we analyze these issues by first comparing the definitions of sale under the three laws and then analyzing the various exemptions.
Keypoint: The CPRA requires that businesses use certain types of sensitive personal information only for limited purposes, otherwise they must notify consumers of the additional purposes and provide consumers the opportunity to opt-out of such processing, while the VCDPA and CPA require controllers to obtain consumer consent and conduct data processing assessments prior to processing sensitive data.
This is the fourth article in our ten-part weekly series comparing key provision of the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), Colorado Privacy Act (CPA), and Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act (VCDPA). With the operative dates of these laws drawing near, we are exploring important distinctions between them. If you are not already subscribed to our blog, consider subscribing now to stay updated.
In this article, we examine how the three laws treat sensitive personal information. The CPRA has a broad definition of sensitive personal information although, to be subject to the law’s limitations, a business must collect or process that information for the “purpose of inferring characteristics about a consumer.” If so, the CPRA grants consumers the right to limit a business’s processing of such data to certain purposes specified in the law. Conversely, the VCDPA and CPA define sensitive data differently than the CPRA and require controllers to obtain consumer consent and conduct a data processing assessment prior to processing such information.
Below is an analysis of this topic.
Keypoint: The CPRA, CPA and VCDPA require data protection assessments for certain processing activities; however, when and how entities must conduct and prepare assessments varies.
This is the third article in our ten-part weekly series comparing key provisions of the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), Colorado Privacy Act (CPA), and Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act (VCDPA). With the operative dates of these laws drawing near, we are exploring important distinctions between them. If you are not already subscribed to our blog, consider subscribing now to stay updated.
In this article, we examine how the three laws approach data protection assessments. At first glance, Virginia and Colorado’s provisions appear similar; however, definitional differences of key terms result in potentially significant variances. Further, the Colorado Attorney General’s office has identified this as a potential topic for rulemaking, which could lead to more differences given that the VCDPA does not authorize such rulemaking. California does not have this concept under the current California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and takes a different approach than Virginia and Colorado in the CPRA. The CPRA charges the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) with issuing regulations on when and how businesses must prepare cybersecurity audits and risk assessments. The CPPA is still drafting those regulations.
Below is a further analysis of this topic.