For good reason, there has been much discussion about the new privacy rights created by the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA), which becomes effective January 1, 2020. Perhaps one of the most significant provisions of the CCPA, though, will be one that has been somewhat overlooked: Section 1798.150, which provides for statutory damages of between $100 and $750 per consumer per incident for certain data breaches. Indeed, had California enacted Section 1798.150 alone, it would have garnered scores of articles on how its statutory damages remedy will likely lead to an explosion in “bet-the-company” private class action litigation over data breaches. The fact that it was enacted as just one provision in a first-in-the-nation privacy law has resulted in commentators spending less time analyzing its impact on businesses.

We will try to remedy this by taking a look at this provision and analyzing how it will apply to businesses covered by the CCPA. We begin by discussing existing California laws that are referenced in the CCPA’s private right of action. We then track the private right of action through its various forms, starting with the ballot measure and ending with its current version as reflected in Senate Bill 1121. Finally, we discuss how the private right of action likely will be used by private litigants and what steps businesses should take to avoid costly litigation. Continue Reading Analyzing the California Consumer Privacy Act’s Private Right of Action

The U.S. Supreme Court’s grant this week of the petition for certiorari in a case involving the Telephone Communication Protection Act (TCPA) prohibition on unsolicited fax advertisements could have significant implications for the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) anticipated ruling on what constitutes an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) under the TCPA.

The petitioner in PDR Network v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic sent a fax in 2013 to a West Virginia chiropractor offering a free copy of the Physicians’ Desk Reference. The chiropractor declined the offer and sued PDR in West Virginia federal court, alleging that PDR had violated the TCPA by sending it an unsolicited fax advertisement. PDR moved to dismiss, arguing that the fax was not an “unsolicited advertisement” because it offered the desk reference for free rather than for purchase. The chiropractor disagreed, arguing that the fax was an “unsolicited advertisement” because a 2006 FCC rule interpreted the term to include “facsimile messages that promote goods or services even at no cost.” Continue Reading SCOTUS Decision in Unsolicited Fax Case Could Have Broader TCPA Implications

Less than three months after California passed the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA), Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 1121 this week, making a number of technical and substantive changes to the law.

Of particular note: SB 1121 modifies the financial institution carve-out language in CCPA section 1798.145(e). While the change is a welcome development for entities subject to regulation under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), it does not grant full exemption from the CCPA. Therefore, GLBA-regulated entities that collect information online will need to analyze the CCPA’s requirements and how they apply to a specific business. Continue Reading GLBA and the California Privacy Act: Analyzing SB 1121’s Change to the Financial Institution Carve-Out Provision

The online world is increasingly shaped by forces beyond our control.  Algorithmic processing agents are used by a wide range of web publishers, online retailers and social media companies to determine the kinds of stories that are feature to online readers, the advertisements that are targeted to online shoppers, and the search results they see, to name just a few of the ways in which these hidden programs predict the shape and content of our online experience.

US and EU privacy regulators have developed different models for managing the potential negative impacts of online profiling. In a recent article for the ABA Journal of Media, Information and Communications Law, Ballard Partner Phil Yannella examines these differing approaches.

Just as many US businesses were scrambling to meet GDPR compliance, California quickly passed a broad new privacy act, giving businesses another privacy compliance headache. We’ve previously blogged on the dramatic history behind the eleventh-hour passage of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), so we won’t rehash that story here.  Instead, the focus of this post will be on the overlap between the CCPA and the GDPR.  Continue Reading Using the GDPR to Comply with the California Consumer Privacy Act

The New York Department of Financial Services (“NYDFS”) has adopted a regulation that requires “consumer credit reporting agencies” (“CCRAs”) to register with the NYDFS, prohibits CCRAs from engaging in certain practices, and requires CCRAs to comply with certain provisions of the NYDFS cybersecurity regulation. Continue Reading NYDFS Requires Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies to Comply with Cybersecurity Regulation

Last week, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) published the Spring 2018 Semiannual Risk Perspective (the “Report”), which uses up-to-date data to identify risks to U.S. banks and measure their compliance with applicable laws and regulations.  The Report concluded that some of the OCC’s primary concerns are with the elevation in operational risk “as banks adapt business models, transform technology and operating processes, and respond to evolving cyber threats.”  The Report also focused on elevated compliance risk associated with bank efforts to “manage money-laundering risks in a complex environment.”

Many of the OCC’s observations and recommendations remained the same from its Fall 2017 report, leaving readers to wonder what will spur less conversation and potentially more action among OCC-supervised banks or concrete guidance by the OCC.  Regardless, a common thread running throughout both reports is the potential risk presented to financial institutions by emerging technologies, which carry the simultaneous blessing and curse of greater business opportunities, but also greater operational and compliance risks. Continue Reading OCC Semiannual Risk Perspective Highlights Cybersecurity, Fraud, Money Laundering Concerns

Colorado has enacted groundbreaking privacy and cybersecurity legislation that will require covered entities to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures, dispose of documents containing confidential information properly, ensure that confidential information is protected when transferred to third parties, and notify affected individuals of data breaches in the shortest time frame in the country. The new law was spearheaded by the Colorado Attorney General’s office, which is charged with enforcing its requirements. As a result of the legislation, covered entities should consider implementing written information security programs, third party vendor management controls, and incident response plans to best position themselves against potential enforcement actions and civil litigation in the future.

Ballard Spahr attorneys David Stauss and Gregory Szewczyk will host a webinar on Monday, June 4, 2018, at noon PT/1 p.m. MT/3 p.m. ET to provide an in-depth analysis of the new law and to discuss what covered entities must do to ensure compliance. Messrs. Stauss and Szewczyk are uniquely situated to discuss the new law, having assisted in developing the legislation, including Mr. Stauss testifying on the bill in front of the House Committee on State, Veterans, & Military Affairs. Click here for more information and to register.

The most notable provisions of the new law are discussed below.

Continue Reading Colorado Enacts Groundbreaking Privacy and Cybersecurity Legislation

In March, we reported that the Oregon legislature was considering amending its data breach notification and information security laws. That legislation has now passed the Oregon legislature and been signed into law by Oregon’s governor.  A copy of the new law is available here. The most notable changes are as follows:

Continue Reading Oregon Amends Data Breach Notification and Information Security Laws

The decision last week by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on petitions seeking review of the Federal Communications Commission’s 2015 Declaratory Ruling and Order implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) represents a partial victory for the industry.

In the decision, the D.C. Circuit reversed the FCC’s guidance on the definition of an automatic telephone dialing system going back to 2003, leaving only the TCPA’s statutory definition. That definition does not, on its face, include predictive dialers.

The decision creates some uncertainty about TCPA liability for calls to reassigned numbers. In addition, callers continue to face the challenge of capturing revocations sent by consumers using methods other than those prescribed by the caller.

On April 3, 2018, from 12 p.m. to 1 p.m. ET, Ballard Spahr attorneys will hold a webinar—The D.C. Circuit’s TCPA Decision: What It Means to Your Business. The webinar registration form is available here.

Click here for the full alert on Ballard Spahr’s Consumer Finance Monitor blog.