Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In May, the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA or Agency) released the first draft of its much-anticipated proposed California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (CPRA) Regulations (Regs), as well as the Agency's Initial Statement of Reasons. Although useful for the purpose of indicating what the Agency's priorities may be, the draft Regs are far from complete. Of note, the Regs purposely omit provisions on key topics, including automated decision-making and profiling, cybersecurity audits, and risk assessments; consequently, companies should expect the Regs to expand far beyond their current 66-page length.
On July 8, 2022, the Agency commenced its formal rulemaking process to adopt the proposed Regs with the filing of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The Notice triggered the beginning of a 45-day public comment period, which will end on Aug. 23, 2022. The CPPA will also host public hearings on Aug. 24 and 25, 2022. After the close of the 45-day comment period, the CPPA will then determine whether to adopt the Regs substantially or, alternatively, make additional modifications based on comments submitted to the Agency. In the event the CPPA decides to move forward with making "major" modifications to the original draft Regs, a corresponding 45-day comment period will be provided; if the CCPA modifications are deemed to be only "substantial and sufficiently related," the comment period will last for only 15 days.
This article discusses the most important aspects of, and other key takeaways from, the CPPA's initial iteration of the Regs.
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 a profession where confidentiality is paramount, failing to address AI security concerns could have disastrous consequences. It is vital that law firms and those in related industries ask the right questions about AI security to protect their clients and their reputation.
Most of the federal circuit courts that have addressed what qualifies either as a "compilation" or as a single creative work apply an "independent economic value" analysis that looks at the market worth of the single creation as of the time when an infringement occurs. But in a recent ruling of first impression, the Fifth Circuit rejected the "independent economic value" test in determining which individual sound recordings are eligible for their own statutory awards and which are part of compilation.
Practical strategies to explore doing business with friends and social contacts in a way that respects relationships and maximizes opportunities.
Regardless of how a company proceeds with identifying AI governance challenges, and folds appropriate mitigation solution into a risk management framework, it is critical to begin with an AI governance program.
As the relationship between in-house and outside counsel continues to evolve, lawyers must continue to foster a client-first mindset, offer business-focused solutions, and embrace technology that helps deliver work faster and more efficiently.