Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Florida lawmakers have introduced companion bills in the Florida House (HB 963) and Senate (SB 1670) that would create limited online privacy rights and obligations in the state. The legislation — which is yet to be named but for our purposes will be referred to as the 2020 Florida Consumer Privacy Act — appears to be very similar to the Nevada Online Privacy Protection Act, which was amended last year to add a right to opt-out of sales of covered information. The Act is therefore distinguishable from the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and more akin to the California Online Privacy Protection Act (CalOPPA).
Florida joins a number of other states considering consumer privacy legislation, including Illinois, Washington, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Virginia and Hawaii.
Below is our analysis of the Florida legislation (as introduced).
|Consumers, which is defined as "a person who seeks or acquires, by purchase or lease, any good, service, money or credit for personal, family or household purposes from the website or online service of an operator."
|The act would apply to "operators," which is defined as a person who owns or operates a website or online service for commercial purposes, collects and maintains covered information from consumers who reside in Florida and use or visit the website or online service, and purposefully directs activities toward Florida or purposefully executes a transaction or engages in any activity with Florida or a Florida resident.
Excluded from the definition of operators are third-parties that host a website on behalf of an operator, GLBA and HIPAA-regulated entities, and motor vehicle manufacturers/repairers under certain circumstances.
|Covered information, which is defined as the following types of information if collected through a website or online service: first and last name; home or other physical address that includes the name of a street and the name of a city or town; email address; telephone number; Social Security number; identifier that allows a consumer to be contacted either physically or online; and any other information concerning a consumer that is collected from the consumer through the website or online service of the operator and maintained by the operator in combination with an identifier in a form that makes the information personally identifiable.
|Consumers would have the right to submit a verified request to an operator directing the operator not to sell any covered information the operator has or will collect about the consumer.
The act defines "sale" narrowly to mean "the exchange of covered information for monetary consideration by the operator to a person for the person to license or sell the covered information to additional persons." There are also five exceptions to the definition of sale, including the disclosure of information to processors, the disclosure of information to other persons for purposes of providing a product or service requested by the consumer and the disclosure of information to affiliates.
|In addition to the above noted exemptions, the proposed law would not apply to an operator: who is located in Florida, whose revenue is derived primarily from a source other than the sale or lease of goods, services or credit on websites or online services, and whose website or online service has fewer than 20,000 unique visitors per year.
|Maybe. Similar to CalOPPA and comparable laws in Nevada and Delaware, the law would require operators to provide a notice that:
Operators that already comply with the laws in California, Nevada and Delaware presumably would not need to update their disclosures (unless there was some unique aspect of the data being collected about Florida residents).
Notably, as is the case with Nevada's law, the act does not appear to require operators to disclose the right to opt-out in their online privacy notice. However, operators that have chosen to provide such a notice to Nevada residents could, in theory, just add a comparable Florida notice.
|The law would be enforced by the Florida Attorney General's office. Prior to bringing an enforcement action, operators would need to be notified of the violation and provide 30 days to cure. It is not clear that the notice would need to come from the AG's office (as opposed to a consumer complaint). The AG's office could seek a civil penalty of up to $5,000 per violation.
|No.
|It goes into effect July 1.
|The act would prohibit the use of personal data contained in public records for certain marketing, soliciting and contact without the person's consent.
*****
David M. Stauss is a partner at Husch Blackwell and co-leader of the firm's privacy and data security practice group. He regularly assists clients in preparing for and responding to data security incidents, including managing multi-state breach notifications. Malia Rogers is an attorney in the firm's Denver office and assists clients on emerging data privacy issues.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.