Insights
Publications

Signatures Submitted for Inclusion of New California Privacy Law on November Ballot

May 8, 2020 Blog

Californians for Consumer Privacy has announced that it has secured and submitted enough signatures to qualify its California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”) for inclusion on California’s November 2020 ballot.

Alistair Mactaggart, the architect behind the ballot initiative that led to the California legislature’s adoption of the CCPA, pushed forward with the CPRA to amend perceived issues and shortcomings in the CCPA. Among other things, the CPRA would

  • Generally increase transparency and consumer control of personal data held by an entity subject to the law;
  • Clarify definitions in the CCPA, such as “sale” and “sharing”;
  • Provide clarification regarding loyalty, rewards, and discount programs;
  • Increase the number of consumers/households whose data is collected, thereby exempting more businesses who do not meet the revenue threshold qualifier (i.e., exempt more small businesses);
  • Add a new category of protected “sensitive personal information,” which would include an individual’s health, financial, and geolocation data, and provide additional protections for such information;
  • Provide Californians with the right to correct inaccurate personal information held by a company subject to the act;
  • Add and clarify private action liability for certain data breaches;
  • Extend rights and requirements concerning children’s information and triple fines for violations of such rights/protections;
  • Extend the employee and b2b enforcement delay to January 1, 2023; and
  • Create a new “California Privacy Protection Agency” with rulemaking and enforcement authority (replacing the attorney general’s office for such functions).

According to Californians for Consumer Privacy, over 900,000 signatures have been collected and submitted. If California elections officials can confirm and certify at least 623,212 of those signatures as valid prior to June 25, 2020, the initiative will qualify for the November 2020 ballot. To do so, a random sampling will have to indicate that the number of valid signatures is likely widely in excess of the required number. If the sampling does not so indicate, deeper analysis would be required, making it less likely the June 25 deadline would be met, thus endangering the initiatives qualification for November’s ballot.

We will continue to monitor the status of the ballot initiative.

Firm Highlights

Publication

Court Reinstates CPPA Enforcement Authority and Confirms No Delay Necessary for Enforcement of Future CCPA Regulations

A recent appellate decision has made clear that the regulations promulgated under California’s groundbreaking consumer privacy law, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA, as amended by the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA)), are ripe...

Read More
Publication

California AI Proposal Rethinks Consumer Scope and Recordkeeping

The California Privacy Protection Agency will revisit its  draft  regulations for automated decision-making technology on March 8, including use of artificial intelligence to process personal information. Comment periods should be coming soon in 2024...

Read More
Publication

Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence: AI Copyright Law and Fair Use on Trial

On Sept. 25, 2023, Judge Stephanos Bibas (sitting by designation in the District of Delaware), determined that fact questions surrounding issues of fair use and tortious interference required a jury to decide media conglomerate...

Read More
Publication

Nonprofits’ Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems: Intellectual Property and Data Privacy Concerns

In today's rapidly changing technological landscape, artificial intelligence (AI) is making headlines and being discussed constantly. To be sure, AI provides a powerful tool to nonprofits in creating content and exploiting for countless cost-effective...

Read More
News

Scraping Battles: Meta Loses Legal Effort to Halt Harvesting of Personal Profiles

Alex Reese spoke to Matt Fleischer-Black of  Cybersecurity Law Report about the Meta v. Bright Data decision and its impact on U.S. scraping case law. Read the article here (paywall or trial).

Read More
Publication

California Proposes New AI & Automated Decision-Making Technology Regulations

The California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) released its draft  regulatory framework for automated decision-making technology (ADMT) on November 27. These regulations are a preview of what new requirements may look like for companies currently...

Read More
Publication

Major Decision Affects Law of Scraping and Online Data Collection, Meta Platforms v. Bright Data

On January 23, 2024, the court in Meta Platforms Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd. , Case No. 3:23-cv-00077-EMC (N.D. Cal.), issued a summary judgment ruling with potentially wide-ranging ramifications for the law of scraping and...

Read More
Publication

BIPA Liability: Existing CGL Coverage May Provide a Lifeline for Policyholders

Developments in the law have increased the potential liability that companies could face under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), but fortunately for policyholders, Illinois case law has also solidified coverage for BIPA...

Read More
Publication

It Wasn’t Me, It Was the AI: Intellectual Property and Data Privacy Concerns With Nonprofits’ Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems

In today's rapidly changing technological landscape, artificial intelligence (AI) is making headlines and being discussed constantly. To be sure, AI provides a powerful tool to nonprofits in creating content and exploiting for countless cost-effective...

Read More
Publication

California Appeals Court Empowers Privacy Agency to Immediately Enforce CCPA Regulations

In  California Privacy Protection Agency et al. v. The Superior Court of Sacramento County  (case number C099130), the Third Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal returned authority to the California Privacy Protection...

Read More