I recently had the privilege of guest posting on Professor Eric Goldman‘s Technology & Marketing Law Blog regarding last week’s California Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on proposed amendments to the California Consumer Privacy Act. You can check out my post here.
Trend Micro, a cybersecurity solutions provider, recently reported that it blocked ~5 million hacking attempts of IP-connected cameras in just the last 5 months. This means that a hell of a lot of people are trying to hack into Internet-connected cameras. But why?
An Internet advertising agency that specializes in lead generation for law firms failed to properly secure databases that included the records of about 150,000 individuals. The ad agency, X Social Media, utilizes campaigns on Facebook that target potential plaintiffs for personal injury cases, medical malpractice lawsuits, and mass tort claims. Since the Facebook ads that X Social Media uses to generate these leads are designed to collect and store medical information along with contact details, the database records themselves likely trigger many state breach notification statutes that list “medical information” as “personally identifiable information” — including California’s.
The California Assembly had a busy May hearing amendments that might clarify (or further muddy) the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”). With four new bills approved by the Assembly in the final week of the month, May saw a total of 10 CCPA-related bills pass through the Assembly and on to the Senate. We covered a number of these in our last update. Here’s a rundown of the 10 bills: Continue Reading CCPA ABs – the Latest Alphabet Soup
California’s Senate voted on Thursday to hold SB-561, effectively killing the bill for 2019. The CCPA gives consumers the right to sue a business for data breaches, and SB-561 would have expanded the right to sue for any violation of the CCPA, even technical privacy violations. The death of the bill means that the private right of action will remain limited to data breaches, and the California legislature will not revisit expansion until 2020 at earliest. Continue Reading CCPA Amendment Update: Bill to Expand Private Right of Action is Dead (for Now)
Many organizations are committing considerable resources to preparing for compliance with the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), a process that is complicated by the large number of pending proposed legislative amendments. We won’t rehash the history here. As you know, the Act has an effective date of January 1, 2020, and the Attorney General can enforce the Act on July 1, 2020 (or six months after issuing regulations). This post is meant to bring you up to speed on some of the key proposed amendments to the CCPA (there are many more not addressed here) and where they are in the California legislative process. This process is constantly in flux, so keep a close eye on the text and history of these bills (some of which are linked below).
The Office of the California Attorney General (AG) made its fourth stop on its statewide California Consumer Privacy Act listening tour, holding in Los Angeles a public forum on the CCPA. The forums invite public comment as the AG prepares regulations for implementing and enforcing the law. Although the AG specifically requested comment on the seven areas identified in the law for the AG’s regulation, it was clear that some categories caught the attention of the public more than others. And even though the forum was structured to allow participants to provide ideas and suggestions (the AG did not respond to comments or questions presented), most commentators asked for clarity and specific direction from the AG regulations, to help decipher the reach of CCPA and its compliance obligations.
Vermont’s new Data Broker Regulation (“Regulation”) takes effect on January 1, 2019. The Regulation requires, among other things, that data brokers register with the Vermont Secretary State and protect personally identifiable information of Vermont residents. This week, the Vermont Attorney General issued guidance on the Regulation, which helps address questions on process and scope. Below are some of the key takeaways from the Regulation and guidance.
This week, the New York State Attorney General announced a $4.95 million settlement with Oath Inc., the result of an investigation into violations of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA”).
The NYAG found that Oath’s ad exchanges transferred persistent identifiers and geolocation from website users to DSP bidders in its automated auction process. While that may be fine for websites directed to grown-up audiences, COPPA includes persistent identifiers and geolocation in its definition of “personal information.” And under the law, companies must obtain verifiable parental consent before collecting or using children’s personal information.
But instead of seeking verifiable parental consent, Oath treated all websites (and therefore all user information) the same, despite knowledge that some website inventory on its exchange was directed to children under 13 and subject to COPPA. And instead of using available technology to avoid the use of children’s information altogether, Oath’s ad exchanges allowed advertisers to collect information on children and display ads on sites targeting children. The “flagrant” violations of the law led to the largest-ever penalty under COPPA and a settlement agreement provided some remarkable takeaways: