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

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

The California Attorney General has released both clean and redlined versions of proposed modifications to the draft implementing regulations for the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”). Below is a high-level overview of some key changes:

  1. Service Providers. The modified draft restricts a service provider from processing the personal information it receives from a business except

With less than two months until it goes into effect, many practitioners are focused on bringing their programs into compliance with the California Consumer Protection Act (“CCPA”) by January 1, 2020.  But the rapid pace of privacy legal developments could continue next year.  This past year, five states established studies or task forces to study privacy laws and report back to the legislature before their next session begins. Bills in Washington and Illinois passed one legislative chamber before failing, and their proponents have promised a renewed effort in 2020.

This is the first of a series of blog posts on what states other than California were considering to help you anticipate and prepare for 2020.  In total, at least eighteen states considered comprehensive privacy bills this year.  This initial blog post — on the heels of Halloween last week — focuses on some of those that are the scariest: bills in New York, Massachusetts, and Maryland.
Continue Reading State Privacy Laws Have the Potential to Haunt Industry

As the effective date of the California Consumer Privacy Act looms closer, companies are grappling with the significance of the law and its definitions. One defined term in particular, “sale,” has sparked heated debate between industry and consumer advocates, and even within the legal profession. While much has been said about this term, more needs

Last week, after months of negotiation and speculation, the California legislature passed bills amending the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”).  This marked the last round of CCPA amendments before the legislature adjourned for the year—and before the CCPA takes effect on January 1, 2020.  California Governor Gavin Newsom has until October 13 to sign the bills into law.  Separately, the Attorney General’s office is expected to release a draft of proposed CCPA regulations for public input later this Fall.

  • Exemption for employees and job applicants: AB 25 (Chau) generally exempts from the CCPA—for one year—personal information collected from job applicants, employees, owners, directors, officers, medical staff members, or contractors, as well as their emergency contacts and their beneficiaries.  However, employers must provide these individuals with general notice of the types of personal information collected about them and the purposes for which the information is used.  Employers may be liable if certain types of unredacted or unencrypted personal information are breached due to unreasonable data security.
  • Exemption for business customers and other technical corrections: AB 1355 (Chau) exempts from the CCPA—also for one year—personal information reflecting a communication or transaction with a natural person who is acting as an employee, owner, director, officer or contractor of another company or legal entity in most circumstances.  This language generally creates an exemption for personal information about business customers.  The bill clarifies that the CCPA’s private right of action does not apply if personal information is either encrypted or redacted.  The bill also makes certain technical corrections, including revising the exemption for activities involving consumer reports that are regulated under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and clarifying that de-identified or aggregate consumer information is excluded from the definition of “personal information.”
  • Definitions of “personal information” and “publicly available information:” AB 874 (Irwin) includes several helpful clarifications with respect to the scope of “personal information” regulated under the statute.  Previously, “personal information” was defined to include all information that “identifies, relates to, describes, is capable of being associated with, or could reasonably be linked, directly or indirectly, with a particular consumer or household.”  The amended definition of “personal information” clarifies that information must be “reasonably capable of being associated with” a particular consumer or household.  Separately, the bill clarifies that “publicly available information” means information that is lawfully made available from federal, state, or local records, regardless of whether the data is used for a purpose that is compatible with the purpose for which the data was made publicly available.  Further, the bill revises the definition of “personal information” to clarify that it does not include de-identified or aggregate information.
  • Required methods for receiving consumer requests: The CCPA provides that a covered business is required to make available to consumers two or more reasonably accessible methods for submitting requests under the CCPA, including, at a minimum, a toll-free telephone number, and, if the business maintains an internet website, a website address.  AB 1564 (Berman) would amend this requirement to provide that a business which (1) operates exclusively online and (2) has a direct relationship with the customer from whom it collects personal information needs to provide only an email address.  If the business also maintains a website, the bill requires the business to make the website available to consumers to submit requests.  Finally, the bill expressly permits a business to require a consumer who maintains an account with the business to submit a request through the account.
  • Exemption for vehicle warranty/recall purposes: AB 1146 (Berman) exempts, from the CCPA’s right to opt out and right to delete, vehicle or owner information retained or shared between a new motor vehicle dealer and the vehicle’s manufacturer for the purposes of vehicle repair covered by a warranty or recall.


Continue Reading California Legislature Passes CCPA Amendments and Privacy Bills