Those interested in keeping up with the latest news impacting the California Consumer Privacy Act have been heavily focused on AB 25, and its potential to exclude employees from the scope of the CCPA. In a marathon late-night session, the California Senate Judiciary Committee weighed in July 11 on various bills – including AB 25. An while AB 25 was part of the Committee debate, that amendment may actually make the bill less useful than first intended. Additionally, another bill made it out of committee which has the potential of a far greater impact than anyone seems to be noticing.
Continue Reading

In prior posts, we’ve commented on the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”), likening it, and its Texas ‘flavored’ variant(s), to ‘elephants in the room’. Here, we’ve opted to expand our coverage and talk about what we’re seeing other states do (or, let’s expand the elephant metaphor to: elephants, elephants everywhere.)

It seems that all of a sudden, consumer privacy is THE hot topic and everyone’s jumping on the CCPA bandwagon! Consumers have woken up to what is happening with their personal information and are demanding government protective action! These are sensationalist statements, to be true, but are they accurate statements? Well, as is usually the case it is a bit more nuanced and it is important to set some things straight.
Continue Reading

Last year, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) issued an update to its rules implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (“TCPA”). These changes became effective October 16th of this year. At its core, the TCPA requires consent (either express or implied) to make telemarketing calls. Now, the TCPA now requires prior express consent for the majority of telemarketing efforts.  In addition, the “established business relationship” exception for calls to a residential landline has been eliminated.  Finally, there are additional “opt-out” requirements for any pre-recorded messages.  Considering the fact that the TCPA is functionally a “strict liability” statute with statutory damages of $500 to $1500 per violation, this isn’t something that one should ignore. It is too easy of a case for a bored plaintiff’s lawyer to make.
Continue Reading