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.
Financial institutions and insurance companies operating in New York have until September 3, 2018 to comply with the next phase of New York’s Cybersecurity Regulations. Here’s what you need to know to avoid regulatory scrutiny.
This afternoon, Governor Brown signed into law California Assembly Bill 375, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018. The law is unprecedented in the United States that it applies European-level compliance obligations akin to the now infamous General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which took effect only a month ago. How did this happen? California legislators rushed a bill through to avoid a ballot initiative proposed by Alastair Mactaggart. Mactaggart agreed to withdraw the initiative if a law was signed by the Governor by today. The law takes effect on January 1, 2020. (And if you think that’s a long time, then you did not just live through the last 18 months working on GDPR preparedness.) What does AB 375 mean for organizations doing business in California? It includes new disclosure requirements, consumer rights, training obligations, and potential penalties for noncompliance, among other things.
Below are some of the key provisions:
In the past five months, we’ve seen a significant shift in the direction of privacy regulation at the federal level. As discussed in our previous post, Congress voted (and President Trump signed) a resolution repealing last year’s FCC Order that imposed greater obligations on broadband Internet service providers and other carriers regarding the protection of customer data. The FCC and FTC also announced that they intend to reverse the FCC’s 2015 decision to treat broadband Internet service providers as Title II common carriers, which would effectively return jurisdiction over broadband Internet service providers to the FTC. Then, at the beginning of this month, the Ninth Circuit granted a petition by the FTC to rehear its ruling from last year that the FTC lacked authority under the FTC Act to regulate AT&T as a common carrier. Continue Reading Times They Are A-Changin’: Oregon and Illinois Bills Latest in Push by States to Regulate Internet Privacy