Lawyers React to California Attorney General's Submission for Final CCPA Regulations
"The attorney general is supposed to pass regulations that address exceptions under state and federal laws, including intellectual property rights," Michelle Hon Donovan, a partner at Duane Morris in San Diego, explained. "There is an exception that talks about trade secret rights, but nothing about IP rights."
June 03, 2020 at 04:44 PM
3 minute read
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra submitted the final regulations for the enforcement of the California Consumer Privacy Act this week to be approved by the California Office of Administrative Law despite compliance concerns caused by the new coronavirus and ambiguities in those regulations.
The CCPA was passed into law in 2019 and came into effect in January. Becerra indicated that enforcement of the law would begin on July 1. Becerra has published proposed regulations throughout the year and attorneys who are familiar with the law said it is not as clear as they would like it to be.
Michelle Hon Donovan, a partner at Duane Morris in San Diego, said it is still unclear how privacy rights and intellectual property rights will work together. She said if there is not an exception for intellectual property rights, companies could face a situation where an individual or organization claims intellectual property rights over IP that has already been claimed.
"The attorney general is supposed to pass regulations that address exceptions under state and federal laws, including intellectual property rights," Donovan explained. "There is an exception that talks about trade secret rights, but nothing about IP rights."
Reece Hirsch, a partner at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius in San Francisco, said during an interview on Wednesday that one of the ambiguities in the final proposed regulations includes the lack of an opt-out button that was provided in prior versions of the proposed regulations.
Over the next month, Hirsch said companies should make sure they have a CCPA-compliant website privacy notice.
"Similarly, if a business engages in the sale of personal information but does not have a 'do not sell my personal information' link on their website, that is an obvious deficiency," Hirsch said.
He also said companies should check their service provider agreements. Under the regulations, sharing personal information with a service provider constitutes a sale of personal information.
Hirsch said companies would benefit from additional guidance beyond what is in the plain language of the law. He also said he hopes enforcement does not begin July 1, even if it is approved.
"I would hope the attorney general's office would exercise its discretion and not launch into enforcement actions immediately," Hirsch said.
The final regulations were submitted just one month before enforcement is slated to begin. The regulations will need to be approved by the Office of Administrative Law first. The office would normally have 30 workdays to approve the regulation. However, because of the new coronavirus, California Gov. Gavin Newsom allowed the agency an additional 60 calendar days to approve regulations. Hirsch said Becerra has asked that the CCPA be made a priority.
Donovan further explained that any regulations filed June 1 or later will not go into effect until Oct. 1. She said she would expect Becerra to file for an exemption to have the regulations come into effect on July 1.
Companies have previously asked the attorney general to push back the enforcement date to Jan. 1, 2021, citing complications caused by COVID-19. Becerra has expressed that he will not push back the enforcement date of the CCPA.
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
© 2024 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 AllCollectible Maker Funko Wins Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action
How Tony West Used Transparency to Reform Uber's Toxic Culture
What Paul Grewal Has Learned About Advocacy as Coinbase's Top Lawyer
7 minute readShowered With Stock, Tech GCs Incentivized to 'Knock It Out of the Park'
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
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