To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
On November 3, 2020, Californians voted to pass Proposition 24, expanding and modifying the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”), which came into force on January 1, 2020. The new California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”), supersedes the CCPA and will be fully operative on January 1, 2023 (with a look-back period starting January 1, 2022). Until that time, the CCPA as currently written generally remains in effect. As we learned during the lead up to the CCPA, the time period to prepare for this type of comprehensive and complex legislation passes quickly, and companies need to begin their CPRA preparations sooner rather than later. In this installment of the CPRA Digest, we discuss the addition of purpose limitation and data minimization requirements and the implications for organizations trying to anticipate the impact of the CPRA.
Former California Gov. Gray Davis signs a financial privacy bill at the Pacific Stock Exchange in 2003 in San Francisco, California. The California Consumer Privacy Act is among the regulations that will force new data security standards for companies. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
In a new report on governance, risk and compliance (GRC), Forrester advises top security officials that they have to prepare for more regulations around privacy and personal control over data, especially when it comes to handling medical data during the pandemic.
According to the report, General Data Protection Regulation authorities are rapidly increasing their enforcement activities, with in excess of 190 fines and penalties made since the European Union regulation went into effect in 2018. Many national and local governments around the globe have implemented their own laws based on the GDPR, such as The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA).
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed a number of bills that will affect California employers in 2021. Most significantly, the new laws greatly expand the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), create stringent workplace reporting requirements related to COVID-19, and clarify California’s year-old independent contractor law, Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5).
Supplemental COVID-19 Paid Sick Leave
Assembly Bill (AB) 1867 expanded supplemental paid sick leave for COVID-19-related reasons for certain employers not already covered by the federal Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA). Specifically, it required private employers that employ 500 or more U.S. employees to provide California employees with paid sick time for COVID-19-related absences.
Wednesday, January 6, 2021
The world of digital marketing has grown exponentially in the last two decades. In fact, it was estimated that in 2020, despite the global pandemic, approximately $332.84 billion will be spent on digital advertising worldwide.
[1] Not surprisingly, sophisticated algorithms (such as real-time bidding and programmatic ad buying) have been built in recent years to master the science of digital marketing and customer segmentation-aka target marketing. While none of the current U.S. privacy laws explicitly prohibit target marketing based on electronically obtained consumer data, this space is getting over populated, and over regulated, and the landscape is changing. And so we ask the obvious question, can target marketing withstand the emerging privacy regulations? Our answer is
1) Regulation is coming
“It’s clear now that we didn’t do enough to prevent these tools from being used for harm, as well. And that goes for fake news, for foreign interference in elections, and hate speech, as well as developers and data privacy,” said Mark Zuckerberg in front of the Senate in April 2018. His exchange with Senator Lindsey Graham is one for the history books where Zuckerberg responded, “Well, senator, my position is not that there should be no regulation. I think the Internet is increasingly…” GRAHAM: “You embrace regulation?” ZUCKERBERG: “I think the real question, as the Internet becomes more important in people’s lives, is what is the right regulation, not whether there should be or not.”