Privacy Professionals on California Consumer Privacy Act Readiness: 5 Takeaways
The California Consumer Privacy Act hits in less than a year, but its broad definitions and lack of precedent have left many impacted in-house counsel stumped on compliance efforts.
April 16, 2019 at 01:52 PM
3 minute read
The California Consumer Privacy Act hits in less than a year, but its broad definitions and lack of precedent have left many impacted in-house counsel stumped on compliance efforts.
Data privacy professionals teamed up to provide their CCPA compliance advice at a recent webinar on adapting compliance strategies from the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation to fit California's law.
Jerrod Bailey, the chief strategy officer of blockchain company Truyo, and Dominique Shelton Leipzig, the co-chair of Perkins Coie's ad tech privacy and data management practice, discussed some of the CCPA's confusing points and how in-house counsel can get their company ready. Here are five takeaways:
- Keep track of requests in one place. CCPA-impacted companies can expect a flood of data subject requests in 2020, Leipzig said. Companies hit by GDPR have already seen “thousands” of data subject requests, she said, so legal departments should “keep a centralized area for responding to consumer requests.” If requests aren't stored and handled in a centralized location, it's more likely they'll be lost or forgotten, possibly leaving companies open to legal liability. She said U.S. companies are operating in a more established culture of class actions than European counterparts and could see suits once CCPA is effective.
- Have a 'do not sell' button. This is required by CCPA and it's an obligation even GDPR-impacted companies haven't faced before. All companies impacted by CCPA must place a “clear and conspicuous” link button titled “Do Not Sell My Personal Information” on its online homepage. Bailey said companies with apps should also consider whether they'll include the button in their app; at the moment, he said the law isn't clear whether this is required. He added companies may respond to these requests using a mix of automation and manual work.
- Data's 'sale' is complicated. Companies may not swap data for cash, but under CCPA the definition of sale is “very broad,” Leipzig said, and includes “any transfer of personal information of California residents for which there is valuable consideration” even if no money is exchanged. She offered this example: retailers exchanging email lists for a joint promotion campaign because it will enable more sales and higher profit in the future.
- Keep California separate? The 'do not sell' button is only required for California residents, but Bailey said many companies plan to offer it to all U.S. users. ”Will I selectively display this link? Am I going to show it to everyone who comes to my website?” Bailey said. “Or am I going to somehow try to fence off California citizens and only show them the link? … For this particular use case, it's a hard thing to do.”
- Verify users' identity. If companies do choose to keep California residents separate, they'll need to identify which consumers are from the state, the privacy professionals said, and that can get complicated. Leipzig advised against collecting data such as uploaded driver's license photos; it just adds to the data a company needs to protect. At a minimum, Bailey said websites should include CAPTCHA tests and emailed verification to prevent bots from spamming 'do not sell' links.
Read More:
Legal and IT Departments Team Up for CCPA, GDPR Privacy Procedures
Groupon's Privacy Lawyer Dishes on CCPA, GDPR Compliance Challenges and Tips
GDPR vs. CCPA: Privacy Counsel Weigh In on Compliance Challenges
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHow Marsh McLennan's Small But Mighty Legal Innovation Team Builds Solutions That Bring Joy
Aggressive FTC May Force Merging Companies to Bolster Legal Defenses
4 minute readBest Legal Departments: How Blackstone's Legal and Compliance Team Got the All-Clear to Grow Business
CEOs Want Data-Based Risk Management; GCs Lack the Tech to Do So.
Trending Stories
- 1FTC Chair Lina Khan Sues John Deere Over 'Right to Repair,' Infuriates Successor
- 2‘Facebook’s Descent Into Toxic Masculinity’ Prompts Stanford Professor to Drop Meta as Client
- 3Pa. Superior Court: Sorority's Interview Notes Not Shielded From Discovery in Lawsuit Over Student's Death
- 4Kraken’s Chief Legal Officer Exits, Eyes Role in Trump Administration
- 5DOT Nominee Duffy Pledges Safety, Faster Infrastructure Spending in Confirmation Hearing
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250