Key Point:  Although not as far-reaching as the CCPA, the Nevada legislation will require entities subject to the statute to revise their online privacy notices and create an internal process to ensure compliance with the new opt-out right.

As we previously reported, the Nevada legislature has been considering legislation to amend Nevada’s existing online privacy notice statutes, NRS 603A.300 to .360. On May 23, 2019, the Nevada Assembly unanimously passed that legislation. The Senate previously passed it in April. The legislation is now headed to the Governor’s office for signature.

The legislation amends Nevada’s law in two notable ways. First, entities subject to the statute will need to establish a designated request address through which consumers can submit verified requests directing the entity not to make any “sale” of covered information collected about consumers. That provision will be enforceable only by the Nevada Attorney General’s office which can seek an injunction or $5,000 penalty for “each violation.” Second, the legislation excludes financial institutions subject to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, HIPAA covered entities, and certain motor vehicle manufacturers from having to comply with the online privacy notice statute.

Key Point: SB 561, which would have expanded the CCPA’s private right of action, has failed.

According to multiple reports, SB 561 failed to pass the California Senate on Thursday. The failure of SB 561 is a significant victory for businesses as the bill would have expanded the California Consumer Privacy Act’s (“CCPA”) private right of action to allow individual consumers to sue businesses for violations of the CCPA’s privacy-related rights. The current version of the CCPA only allows individual consumers to sue for certain types of data breaches and leaves enforcement of the CCPA’s privacy-related rights to the California Attorney General’s office. SB 561 was backed by the California Attorney General’s office and privacy-rights organizations. It was strongly opposed by business interests. You can read more about SB 561’s failure here and here. 

On June 5, Husch Blackwell’s privacy and data security practice group will host another webinar on the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). In this webinar, we will:

  • Provide a brief overview of the CCPA and its requirements
  • Analyze the current proposed amendments and how they would modify the CCPA
  • Discuss the proposed amendments that have failed
  • Examine the

…

As we previously reported, the Texas legislature has been considering two bills directed at addressing consumer privacy. Those bills were proposed in the wake of last year’s enactment of the California Consumer Privacy Act.

On May 7, 2019, the Texas House voted overwhelmingly to pass one of those bills – HB 4390 – however, the version it passed was significantly amended and will no longer provide any privacy rights to Texas residents.

[Update:  After publication of the below post, AB 1035 was amended to remove the below-referenced language. The fact that the California legislature considered defining what constitutes “reasonable security procedures and practices” for purposes of the CCPA’s private right of action but, at least as of now, did not proceed with such legislation leaves businesses subject to the CCPA with little to no legislative direction as to how they can demonstrate that they are undertaking reasonable security procedures and practices. It also exposes the CCPA to the argument that the subject language is void for vagueness. Given the substantial penalties businesses are exposed to under the CCPA’s private right of action, the failure of the legislature to address this issue is notable especially considering that Ohio implemented legislation last year that California could have used as a guide.]

Given the near ubiquitous coverage of proposed CCPA amendments, it may be hard to believe that any bill could fly under the radar, but that appears to be the case with AB 1035, which would amend the CCPA’s private right of action to link “reasonable security procedures and practices” to NIST standards.

As we first reported in February, the Nevada legislature has been considering legislation that would amend its online privacy notice statutes, NRS 603A.300 to 360. Among other things, Nevada’s existing law requires “operators” to provide a notice to consumers that (1) identifies the types of information the operator collects online, (2) describes the process (if any) for consumers to review or request changes to their information, (3) describes the process by which the operator notifies consumers of changes to the notice, and (4) discloses whether a third party may collect covered information about an individual’s online activities over time and across different Internet websites or online services.

Consistent with the cliché that “everything’s bigger in Texas,” the Texas legislature has introduced not one, but two separate bills relating to the privacy of personal information. Although still in their nascent stages, both bills are following California’s lead in creating enhanced and stringent privacy protections for individual consumers.

A surprise legislative storm ripped through Olympia, Washington last week, and the proposed Washington Privacy Act (SB-5376) took the brunt of the damage. The bill sailed through the Democrat-controlled Washington State Senate on a vote of 46-1, but encountered surprise headwinds in the Democrat-controlled State House.  The House failed to vote on the bill before the April 17th deadline for taking action on non-budget legislation.

Although there certainly will be more bills proposed to amend the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), there already are a significant number of bills that have been working their way through the legislative process. One of these bills – SB561, which would expand the CCPA’s private right of action – received widespread attention when it was introduced…

Recently, I had the pleasure of being interviewed by Julia Kerrigan, an articulate and insightful young journalist writing for her high school paper, The Dart. In my mind (that’s foreshadowing the challenges caused by my ego-centricity dear reader), the point of the conversation was for me to provide Julia with a primer on information privacy and security issues so that she could weave into her article a few observations from a so-called expert.