State Legislatures

Today, the California Senate Judiciary Committee will consider AB 1281, which would extend the California Consumer Privacy Act’s (CCPA) business-to-business and employment exemptions until January 1, 2022, in the event that the pending ballot initiative—which also would extend the exemptions—does not pass this November.

In addition, the Committee will consider two contact tracing measures, AB 660 (Levin) and AB 1782 (Chau).  Both bills could impact private employer and business contact tracing efforts:

  • AB 660 would prohibit use or disclosure of data collected for purposes of contact tracing for any other purposes. It generally would require deletion of such data within 60 days.
  • AB 1782 would require businesses that offer “technology-assisted contact tracing” to satisfy certain requirements, including providing individuals with the opportunity to revoke consent to collection of their personal information and rights to access, correct, and delete personal information. It also requires covered businesses to provide consumers certain disclosures, except where research or other exceptions apply, to delete personal information within 60 days from the time of collection, to maintain security safeguards, and to make available public reporting of the number of individuals whose information has been collected, amongst other content.

Finally, we also are watching SB 980, which passed out of the Senate on June 25, 2020 and is now under consideration by the Assembly.  SB 980 was scheduled for hearing before the Assembly’s Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee on July 28, although that hearing was postponed.  If enacted, the bill would impose certain additional privacy obligations on direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies that go beyond the CCPA, including requiring:
Continue Reading California Legislature Advances Privacy Legislation

In a new post on the Covington Inside Tech Media Blog, our colleagues discuss how the pandemic is driving connected and automated vehicle (CAV) initiatives at the federal and state levels.  At the federal level, NHTSA and Congress have recently expressed support for utilizing CAV technology to address pandemic-related challenges.  …
Continue Reading IoT Update: COVID-19 Drives Forward Connected and Automated Vehicle Legislative and Regulatory Efforts

On May 5th, 2020, the California Assembly Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection held a hearing and considered AB 2811, a bill that would amend existing California law governing automatic renewals.  As currently drafted, AB 2811 would:

  • require businesses to provide 3-7 days’ notice explaining how to cancel an automatic renewal offer or continuous service offer if the consumer accepted (1) a free gift or trial that lasts for a predetermined period of time as part of an automatic renewal or continuous service offer, or (2) the consumer accepted an automatic renewal or continuous service offer at a discounted price, and the applicability of that price was limited to a predetermined amount of time; and
  • require businesses that permit consumers to accept automatic renewal or continuous service offers online to immediately terminate that service online.

Continue Reading AB 2811: The Future of Automatic Renewals in California

 On May 4th, 2020, Californians for Consumer Privacy confirmed that they had submitted hundreds of thousands more signatures than required to qualify for a ballot initiative. It is still yet unknown whether the Attorney General will qualify the ballot for the November 2020 election, let alone whether it would pass. If the initiative passes, it will be noteworthy for a number of reasons.
Continue Reading CCPA 2.0 And Where We Go From Here

On March 31st, Washington Governor Jay Inslee signed into law SB 6280, a bill aimed at regulating state and local government agencies’ use of facial recognition services.  An overview of the law’s provisions can be found here.

Notably, Governor Inslee vetoed Section 10 of the bill, which…
Continue Reading Washington Enacts New Facial Recognition Law

On March 12, 2020, Washington’s state legislature passed SB 6280, a bill that will regulate state and local government agencies’ use of facial recognition services (“FRS’s”).  The bill aims to create a legal framework by which agencies may use FRS’s to the benefit of society (for example, by assisting agencies in locating missing or deceased persons), but prohibits uses that “threaten our democratic freedoms and put our civil liberties at risk.”
Continue Reading Washington State Passes Bill Limiting Government Use of Facial Recognition

On March 21, 2020, the data security requirements of the New York SHIELD Act became effective.  The Act, which amends New York’s General Business Law, represents an expansion of New York’s existing cybersecurity and data breach notification laws.  Its two main impacts on businesses are:

  1. expanding data breach notification requirements

…
Continue Reading New York SHIELD Act’s Reasonable Safeguard Requirements Became Effective on March 21st —Is Your Company Ready?

Earlier this month, the Governor of Vermont signed into law S.B. 110, which will amend the state’s data breach notification law and create a new student privacy law focused on operators of educational technology services.  Notably, the amendments to the state’s data breach notification law will expand the categories of personally identifiable information (“PII”) that may trigger notification obligations to individuals and regulators in the event of a breach to include online account credentials, health and medical information, and biometric and genetic data, among others.  The student privacy law will place certain restrictions on how student data can be collected, used, and disclosed by operators of online educational technology services.  The new requirements, which will enter into force on July 1, 2020, are discussed in more detail below.
Continue Reading Vermont Enacts Data Breach Notification and Student Privacy Legislation

In the latest development in the CCPA saga, the California Attorney General has further modified the draft regulations implementing the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”). His office’s website posted clean and redlined versions of the new regulations (the “March draft regulations”). Below, please find a summary of some of the most notable changes:
Continue Reading California AG Releases Draft CCPA Regulations: Round 3

On February 14, 2020, California State Assembly Member Ed Chau introduced the Automated Decision Systems Accountability Act of 2020, which would require any business in California that provides a person with a program or device that uses an “automated decision system” (“ADS”) to establish processes to “continually test for biases during the development and usage of the ADS” and to conduct an impact assessment on that program or device.

ADS is defined broadly as “a computational process, including one derived from machine learning, statistics, or other data processing or artificial intelligence techniques, that makes a decision or facilitates human decision making, that impacts persons.”  The required ADS impact assessments would study the various aspects of the ADS and its development process, “including, but not limited to, the design and training data of the ADS, for impacts on accuracy, fairness, bias, discrimination, privacy, and security.”  At minimum, the assessments must include “[a] detailed description of the ADS, its design, training provided on its use, its data, and its purpose” and “[a]n assessment of the relative benefits and costs of the ADS in light of its purpose,” with certain factors such as data minimization and risk mitigation required in the cost-benefit analysis.

The provider of the ADS also must determine whether the ADS system “has a disproportionate adverse impact on a protected class,” examine whether it serves “reasonable objectives and furthers a legitimate interest,” and consider alternatives or reasonable modifications that could be incorporated “to limit adverse consequences on protected classes.”
Continue Reading California Introduces Bill to Regulate Automated Decision Systems