On May 29, 2019, the Governor of Nevada signed into law Senate Bill 220 (“SB 220”), an act relating to Internet privacy and amending Nevada’s existing law requiring websites and online services to post a privacy notice.  In short, Nevada’s law will require operators of Internet websites and online services to follow a consumer’s direction not to sell his or her personal data.  The Nevada law differs from the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) enacted last year in notable ways, and could signal the coming of a patchwork of fifty-plus different data privacy standards across the country, much like the state data breach notification laws.

Unlike the CCPA (which applies to both online and offline business operations), SB 220 applies only to operators of Internet websites and online services, and defines “operators” as people who (1) own or operate an Internet website or online service for commercial purposes; (2) collect and maintain covered information from consumers who reside in Nevada and use or visit the Internet website or online service; and (3) engage in any activity that constitutes a sufficient nexus with Nevada to satisfy the requirements of the United States Constitution.  Such activity includes purposefully directing activities toward Nevada, consummating a transaction with Nevada or a Nevada resident, or purposefully taking advantage of the privilege of conducting activity in Nevada.  SB 220 does not apply to the following entities: an entity that is regulated by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act or the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act; a service provider to an operator; or a manufacturer of a motor vehicle or a person who services a motor vehicle who processes covered information that is either (1) retrieved from a motor vehicle in connection with a technology or service related to the motor vehicle, or (2) provided by a consumer in connection with a subscription or registration for a technology or service related to the motor vehicle.
Continue Reading Nevada’s New Consumer Privacy Law Departs Significantly From The California CCPA

Starting next week, the California Department of Justice will hold six public forums on how the state should implement its landmark privacy law, the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”).  Although California enacted the CCPA in June 2018, the state is still in the process of implementing the new legislation, and the public forums “will provide an initial opportunity for the public to participate in the CCPA rulemaking process,” California Attorney General Xavier Becerra announced in a December 19 press release.

Continue Reading California To Hold Public Forums on CCPA Implementation

Recent years have seen significant amounts of legislative activity related to state data breach notification laws, and 2018 was no exception.  Not only did South Dakota and Alabama enact new data breach notification laws in 2018, becoming the last of 50 U.S. states to enact such laws, but other states also enacted changes to existing data breach notification laws during 2018 to expand their scope and implement additional notification requirements.  Following up on our global year-end review of major privacy and cybersecurity developments, we’ve summarized the major developments and trends observed with regards to state data breach notification laws over the past year.
Continue Reading State Data Breach Notification Laws: 2018 in Review

Less than three months ago, California enacted the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”). Industry and privacy watch groups alike have scrutinized the law. This summer saw fierce negotiations all in the name of improving the CCPA. Last Friday, on August 31, 2018, the California legislature passed SB 1121 to amend the CCPA.

The CCPA applies to for-profit entities that conduct business in California. It has an expansive definition of personal information, and grants California residents a number of new rights, including rights to request access to and deletion of certain data, and to opt-out of the sale of data. For a more detailed summary of the CCPA, please see our previous blog post.

SB 1121 largely preserves the substance of the CCPA, but it contains the following technical edits:
Continue Reading California Legislature Passes Amendments to Expansive Consumer Privacy Law

On June 28, 2018, California enacted the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”), which is aimed at strengthening consumer privacy rights and data security protections.  The CCPA takes effect on January 1, 2020 and is considered the most stringent privacy law in the country.

The CCPA applies to for-profit entities that conduct business in

Companies that offer or are considering subscription-based plans should take note that new requirements for automatic renewal offers (“auto-renewals”) take effect in California on July 1, 2018.  California Senate Bill No. 313 (“SB 313”) amends existing law to extend additional protections to consumers where an auto-renewal offer includes a free gift or trial or where promotional pricing will change once the promotional period ends.  It also requires that certain consumers have the ability to opt-out exclusively online.
Continue Reading Updates to California Auto-Renewal Law Take Effect on July 1, 2018

Following the Equifax data breach in 2017, there has been heightened awareness surrounding how credit reporting agencies handle consumers’ personal information. At the same time, recent high-profile attacks, such as the “WannaCry” ransomware attacks, have focused media and regulatory attention on vulnerabilities associated with unpatched systems. In response to these two concerns, on January 10,

On November 3, Judge Vince Chhabria of the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California held that federal law does not bar the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) from requiring telecommunications companies to hand over, under an adequate protective order, confidential subscriber data to The Utility Reform Network (TURN) as part of an investigation into state market competitiveness.

However, Judge Chhabria also rejected a motion for summary judgment filed by CPUC and TURN because it has not yet been demonstrated that the proposed protective order would, in fact, adequately protect the companies from competitive harm.  Because such protection is a necessary predicate to avoiding a conflict with FCC regulations, Judge Chhabria reasoned, the adequacy of the protective order must be determined before CPUC can force companies to turn over such sensitive data.
Continue Reading California Judge Upholds CPUC Order to Share Confidential Subscriber Data, But Subject to Adequate Protective Order

On November 2, 2016, California Attorney General Kamala Harris released a report outlining best practices for the education technology industry (“Ed Tech”).  In Ready for School: Recommendations for the Ed Tech Industry to Protect the Privacy of Student Data, Attorney General Harris noted the need to implement robust safeguards for collection, use, and sharing

Last week, the Third Circuit revived a multi-district privacy lawsuit against Google, finding that the trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiffs’ privacy claims under California state law.  The case centers around the plaintiffs’ allegations that Google violated state and federal law by circumventing the Safari browser’s default “cookie blocker” settings to track users’ online activity while publicly professing to respect users’ Safari browser settings.  While the Third Circuit affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of federal claims under the Wiretap Act, the Stored Communications Act (SCA), and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), the court vacated the district court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims under California tort law and the California constitution’s right to privacy.

The plaintiffs’ claims originated from a 2012 Wall Street Journal article describing a researcher’s findings that Google, despite the Safari browser’s default settings intended to blocking tracking cookies, had utilized methods to circumvent these settings and track Safari users’ Internet browsing habits via tracking cookies.  At the same time, the plaintiffs alleged, Google made a series of public statements, including statements within its privacy policy, indicating that it respected the Safari browser’s cookie-blocking settings.  Google subsequently entered into settlements with the Department of Justice and a consortium of state attorneys general over its practices.  Twenty-four plaintiffs also filed putative class action suits against Google and third-party advertisers, alleging violations of federal and state privacy law.  The suits were combined into the instant litigation in the District of Delaware, and in October 2013, the district court dismissed the complaint in its entirety, finding that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim.

Continue Reading Third Circuit Resurrects State Law Claims Against Google in Safari Cookie Tracking Lawsuit