Thank you to everyone who attended our webinar on the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018. For those who were unable to attend, you can listen to the recording here and obtain a copy of the slide deck here. To access the recording, please fill in the requested information under “Register Now,” select “Yes, I will attend,” and click “Register.”
As we discussed in our prior alert, California voters had been poised to consider a citizen-initiated ballot measure that would have significantly expanded the privacy rights of California citizens and provided substantial penalties for noncompliant companies. In response to that ballot measure, the California legislature hastily pushed through privacy legislation despite the “grave, grave concerns” expressed by lawmakers.
Lawmakers were willing to enact the flawed legislation based on an assurance from the leader of the ballot measure that he would not submit the measure if the legislation was passed. However, because the deadline to submit ballot measures was June 28, 2018, lawmakers had to rush the legislation through both houses. And, since state law requires that legislation be in print for at least 72 hours before a vote, lawmakers had no opportunity to offer amendments.
Lawmakers were willing to engage in such a rushed course of action because, if the ballot measure had become law, both houses would have been required to approve any changes by a 70 percent vote instead of a simple majority. Also, because the legislation does not go into effect until January 1, 2020, lawmakers theoretically can fix any problems in the intervening time frame.
Despite its tumultuous legislative history, the legislation—titled the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018—grants significant privacy rights to California residents. Any entity that does business in California and qualifies as a “business” under the Act will need to comply with the law or risk substantial financial penalty.
With more than double the number of required signatures well ahead of the verification deadline late this month, the citizen-initiated measure “The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018” appears headed for the statewide ballot on November 6. If approved by a majority of Golden State voters, the ballot measure would greatly expand right-to-know and opt-out requirements, subjecting covered businesses to increased costs for compliance and strict liability for any violations.
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.
In April, we blogged about the potential impact of the GDPR—which goes into effect this week (May 25)—on the public availability of WHOIS data. Ballard Spahr Intellectual Property attorney Tyler Marandola continues the discussion about WHIOS data in a recent interview with the CyberLaw and Business Report. Listen to it here.
One practical takeaway: if you have WHOIS searching to do, you should do it this week and save the results. WHOIS is likely to look very different (essentially just Organization Name and State/Province) as early as mid-next week.
The virtual world offers opportunities and obligations not found in nature.
For a couple of years, my wife has followed the adventures of a bonded eagle couple, Liberty and Freedom, residing in the hills near Hanover, Pennsylvania. A strategically positioned webcam offers a round-the-clock view of nesting activities. Last year the pair hatched two eggs and cared for the eaglets until they fledged.
This year, it appears as if calamity struck. Liberty has disappeared, and a new female, Lucy, has taken her place in the nest, destroying one of the eggs. Although the other egg remains in the nest, it is widely believed that the disturbance has rendered it unviable and that it will not hatch. It is possible that Lucy fought with the older Liberty and killed her. The body has not been found. It is also possible that Freedom and Lucy will now bond, but most viewers do not expect them to produce eggs this year.
In the virtual world, health care providers, health plans, health care clearinghouses, and their business associates have a responsibility to protect the treasured asset of individually identifiable information from predators and other dangers. But unlike eggs, which cannot be recovered if stolen or damaged, data is retrievable. Continue Reading Springtime for HIPAA
In the absence of federal action, state legislators continue to propose bills that would increase data privacy and security protections for consumers. Any entity that does business in these states or maintains confidential information of their residents should monitor the legislation to determine whether and how the proposed changes may affect operations.
The bills are a reaction to Equifax’s data breach disclosure last summer. In prior alerts and articles, we discussed proposed legislation in Arizona, Colorado, North Carolina, and South Dakota. In this post, we examine legislation being considered in Oregon, New York, Alabama, and Rhode Island.
To put the discussion into context, 48 states already have laws requiring entities to notify affected individuals if the entity suffers a loss or compromise of the individuals’ confidential information. Those laws differ in many respects, resulting in a complex web of legal responsibilities that creates headaches for entities required to comply with them.
The challenge will become even more complex if the proposed bills become law, because, generally speaking, they would:
- expand the types of confidential information covered under state breach notification requirements;
- implement specific deadlines for when affected individuals must be notified;
- require businesses to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures to prevent data breaches; and
- authorize state attorneys general to enforce these provisions through substantial fines and penalties for non-compliance.
Filefax, Inc., a health care records moving and storage company that served as a business associate, went into receivership in 2016. But its receivership did not put an end to an OCR investigation into a HIPAA violation from 2015. Now, the receiver for Filefax has agreed to pay a fine of $100,000 and to properly store, inventory, and dispose of the medical records remaining in its possession under HHS supervision.
The investigation began with a complaint that OCR received about the exposure of a large volume of documents containing protected health information. The investigation confirmed that an individual had left medical records of approximately 2,150 patients at a shredding and recycling facility and that Fllefax had either left the PHI in an unlocked truck in the Filefax parking lot or granted permission to a person to remove the PHI from Filefax and left the PHI, unsecured, outside the Filefax facility for that person to collect. Continue Reading Closure of Business Does Not Foreclose HIPAA Liabilities
Lyft recently confirmed that it is investigating whether its employees were accessing its customer database without appropriate authorization to obtain personal information, including rides taken by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. The investigation was announced less than six months after Uber entered into a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) consent order to resolve allegations of similar behavior by its own employees.
The investigation demonstrates the importance of revisiting internal compliance measures in the wake of legal developments that may be relevant to a particular company or industry. Companies need to maintain comprehensive privacy programs to ensure the confidentiality of the personal information that they collect. Such programs should include, at a minimum: Continue Reading Lyft Employees Demonstrate Need for Privacy Compliance Management