personal information

In March we published an extensive analysis of proposed bills that would amend or supplement the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). With a number of those bills having either passed the Assembly or been withdrawn , it is a good time to update our analysis.

In the below post, we identify and analyze these bills. In doing so, we first provide a summary of where the legislative process stands. We then analyze the most significant proposed changes and takeaways. Finally, we provide a table linking to each bill, identifying the issue to which it is directed, and providing an analysis of the bill’s proposed changes.

Over the next few months, Husch Blackwell’s privacy and data security blog will continue to track these bills. Register here to stay up-to-date.

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…

One of the myriad of issues arising from the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) is the extent to which financial institutions subject to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) must comply with the CCPA’s requirements in light of Section 1798.145(e), which provides that the CCPA “shall not apply to personal information collected, processed, sold, or disclosed pursuant to [the GLBA], and implementing regulations.” Because the CCPA’s definition of “personal information” is broader than the GLBA’s definition of “nonpublic personal information,” financial institutions have been faced with the daunting task of not only data mapping but also classifying that data based on whether it is subject to the GLBA. 

The advice we always give to clients regarding privacy policies is: “say what you do and do what you say.” It seems simple, but simplicity can be deceiving. Companies want to reassure consumers that their personal data is safe and secure; however, in today’s world, no one can make fail-safe representations of security. Uber’s recent settlement with the FTC illustrates this problem.

Technology has changed the way businesses market themselves to consumers. Businesses now have the ability to identify shifting consumer preferences, launch highly targeted advertising campaigns, and communicate instantly with potential customers. One thing this new marketing has in common? Consumer data. As marketing technologies evolve, companies should be aware that the myriad of data security regulations don’t just apply to how companies conduct their business, but how they market it as well.