As we have written in blog posts over the past year, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) is the most comprehensive state privacy law to date. While there are a number of conditions and exemptions in play, the law goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2020, and will be enforced starting in July 2020.
Scot is Senior Counsel in Taft’s Dayton office, and co-chair of the firm’s Privacy and Data Security Practice. As a former chief privacy officer and leveraging more than ten years of management and compliance experience in Fortune 500 companies, Scot brings a diverse business background to his privacy and data security practice. Scot has represented clients in a variety of sectors, including consumer reporting, construction, healthcare, and manufacturing.
As we have discussed before, the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) is forcing entities doing business in California to critically examine their information collection and sharing practices. Although California signed it into law last year, the CCPA does not go into effect until January 1, 2020. Last month, the California Legislature passed six amendments to the CCPA that will affect how businesses operate, while also affording California residents their newfound rights.
I. Limiting Personal information & Publicly Available Information (AB-874).
The CCPA, before this amendment, defined “personal information” as any information that “is capable of being associated with… a particular consumer or household.” This amendment changes that language to any information that “is reasonably capable of being associated with… a particular consumer or household.” This is an attempt to clarify and limit the scope of personal information and what information is “capable of being associated with” a consumer. Much like other areas of the law, we expect contentious debate over what is “reasonable” when anticipating association with a particular consumer or household. Additionally, the definition of “personal information” will now exclude de-identified or aggregated consumer information. This amendment also removes restricting language on what information is treated as “publicly available” and simply states that it is information made available by federal, state, or local governments.
The one topic, as of late, that tops the list of incoming phone calls to our Privacy and Data Security practice seems to be from a client reporting that either:
- The client paid a bogus invoice to a fraudulent account as a result of a communication from someone who looked just like a trusted payee; OR
- The client’s long-standing, regularly-paying customer has been strangely behind a couple of months on making payments to the client. Upon follow up, the client finds out the customer received a change in payment instruction reportedly from the client via email and has been sending the client’s payments to another banking account via ACH.
Inevitably, in either case, the payment account is bogus. The recipient failed to check the validity of the email requesting the change in payment practices, such as a new bank account, or possibly moving to ACH or EFT for payments instead of mailing checks. The recipient might have recognized the sender’s name, email address and even observed the expected company branding and logos in the body of the email and signature line. But, rather than pause, place a call or verify the request and account validity, the recipient quickly makes the change and the payment is sent. Frequently, clients aren’t aware of the theft until it’s too late. The consequences are harsh, as getting the money back is not always easy to do, if at all possible. While there are sometimes remedies through bank action or even law enforcement, the speed with which such payments are made and money is removed make it difficult to make a company whole again.
The struggles continue for Facebook. As you hopefully know by now, on Sept. 28, the social media giant announced a security breach affecting 50 million accounts. The breach involved the theft of password tokens that allow a user to stay signed in or to sign into numerous third party applications, such as Spotify, Instagram and Yelp, among thousands of others. We thought to take the opportunity with this most recent breach to remind you about best practices that can help…
I don’t mean to ruin your holiday weekend, but we thought to send out a friendly reminder on the next set of rolling deadlines and requirements from New York’s financial services cybersecurity law (23 NYCRR 500). A regulated organization that must comply with the law, or “covered entity,” is “any person operating under or required to operate under a license, registration, charter, certificate, permit, accreditation or similar authorization under the Banking Law, the Insurance Law or the Financial…
Last November, Taft’s Scot Ganow and Bill Wagner wrote on Ohio first-of-its kind state legislation which would provide companies a safe harbor from some litigation resulting from a data breach. This month, Governor John Kasich signed the Ohio Senate Bill 220, also known as the Ohio Data Protection Act, into law. The law goes into effect in November, and is aimed at providing entities conducting business in Ohio with special protection from litigation in the event of a security incident or breach under certain circumstances. Specifically, the law creates a safe harbor affirmative defense when an entity adopts cybersecurity measures designed to: (1) protect the security and confidentiality of personal information; (2) protect against any anticipated threats or hazards to the security or integrity of the personal information; and (3) protect against unauthorized access to and acquisition of information that is likely to result in a material risk of identity theft or other fraud.
Taft summer associate Jordan Jennings-Moore contributed to this article.
In today’s world, very few people remain completely unscathed by a data breach somewhere. From Target, to Anthem, Wendy’s or Equifax, individuals across the country have grown accustomed to getting breach notification letters. Most recently, Alabama and South Dakota became the last two jurisdictions in the United States to adopt data breach notification laws. This means that any person or entity conducting business in the U.S. must be prepared to protect personal identifying information (PII) belonging to customers, clients, and employees.
Encryption is an easy way to protect PII. It wasn’t always that way, but technologies have made it easier and cheaper to do. And this has legal benefits. A common trend seen amongst all U.S. jurisdictions is an encryption exception to providing notice of a data breach. Why? Well, because encrypted data is not “personal data.” Therefore, loss of encrypted data is often not a “breach” under the law. Encryption saves you time, your reputation and thousands, if not millions, of dollars. That’s huge.
During her time at Taft, our Dayton summer associate Jordan Jennings followed the trends of data breach notification laws and worked with me on updating our materials to reflect the ever changing world of state privacy and security law (i.e. California). I asked her to pitch in on this update and report on some of her findings below. (Spoiler alert: encryption is a pretty big deal.)
Rebekah Mackey, Taft summer associate, contributed to this article.
Just months after the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation, or “GDPR” changed the landscape of data privacy around the globe, California reaffirmed its position as the United States pioneer of consumer-friendly data privacy protections with the state legislature’s passage of Assembly Bill No. 375.
The California Consumer Privacy Act (“Act”) was originally a ballot initiative to be voted on by California residents in November, but the fate of the policy changed course rapidly when AB 375 passed within one week of being introduced in the state’s legislature. Here are some of the key provisions of which businesses and consumers should be aware when the law goes into effect Jan. 1, 2020.
As we assist clients with preparing for GDPR compliance before and after this Friday’s effective date, I thought to share some quick thoughts on the law and what we are seeing here at Taft.
- “GDPR Compliant.” Be wary of companies making such claims and don’t make such claims, yourselves. As with HIPAA, there is no such thing as a stamp of “compliance” approval. And, like bragging about your information security, warranting that you are “compliant” is just asking for that
In a local news interview, I was recently asked to comment on the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica story involving the unauthorized use of Facebook user profile information by Cambridge Analytica for profiling and targeting purposes. The focus of the interview was what consumers can do to better protect themselves. However, there are learning opportunities for businesses too. Here are some quick points to consider for both parties.
- Your choices matter most. I beat this drum pretty heavily, but it is