Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
California enacted the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) in 2018, which was the first of its kind in the U.S. and drew inspiration from Europe's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Following California's lead, other states, including Colorado, implemented their own laws and regulations. California further strengthened its legislation in 2020 through a ballot initiative known as the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA).
Unlike the GDPR, the first generation CCPA was light on affirmative due diligence requirements and many companies designed data privacy and protection programs that were little more than window dressing (e.g., privacy policies and a consumer rights request process). In the second generation of state consumer privacy laws and regulations, as well as in recent laws pertaining to the privacy of minors (such as in California and Connecticut), numerous states require affirmative due diligence and a structured approach for conducting and documenting risk assessments and associated remediation. The assessment documentation must be available for review by regulators, and the CPRA requires risk assessments to be filed with the state, a requirement that is currently under consideration in a condensed form with certification by the executive officer. This means that companies subject to the applicable state privacy laws need to develop or refine their data inventory and assessment practices as a top priority in 2024 to be prepared for the coming enforcement of these requirements.
Companies subject to the consumer privacy regimes in California (CCPA), Colorado (CPA), Connecticut (CTPA), and Virginia (VCDPA) are now required to conduct and document data protection assessments prior to engaging in certain types of data processing. At least eight additional state laws that go into effect in 2024 and 2025 have similar requirements. Most notably, assessments are required if the processing is deemed "high risk," which specifically includes, without limitation, processing for targeted advertising, profiling/automated decision making (ADM), processing of sensitive personal data and sale of personal data. Since these requirements are inspired by the GDPR, companies should consider guidance from the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) on what might be considered high-risk processing, and how to analyze risk. So far, only Colorado has promulgated regulations or issued guidance regarding what needs to be in assessments and how they should be conducted and documented, but California is currently developing its own rulemaking that it has stated seeks to be compatible with Colorado and reflect EDPB guidance.
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
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
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.
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.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.