On March 11, The California Attorney General released a second set of modifications to the proposed regulations implementing the California Consumer Privacy Act. These modifications update the initial draft regulations published on October 11, 2019 as well as the first set of modified draft regulations published on February 10, 2020. The second set of modifications contain a small number of impactful changes, which we summarize in this post.
Please join Hogan Lovells on October 17 for a webinar discussion of the much-anticipated proposed CCPA regulations released by the California Attorney General. The Hogan Lovells team will discuss the proposed requirements and how they would impact privacy notices, individual rights, financial incentive programs, and contracting strategies. We will also discuss steps you can take to develop reasonable and defensible CCPA compliance strategies by January 1, 2020.
On October 10, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra released proposed regulations to implement certain provisions of the California Consumer Privacy Act. The proposed regulations would create many new requirements. They provide clarifications to businesses and consumers in five key CCPA areas as summarized within this post.
According to the Constitution of Mexico, the protection of personal data is a fundamental right of all Mexican citizens. Under federal law, individuals also have a right to access, change, oppose, or suppress their personal data. Although all private companies process data, some are not sufficiently familiar with Mexico’s data privacy principles and regulations, and many may not have an up-to-date assessment of their own risk of a data breach. In addition, they may not be aware that the Mexican Supreme Court’s recent shift in perspective regarding personal injury cases may herald a change in the way data privacy breaches are handled in the future. This interview explores the impact of Mexico’s data privacy regulations on private companies, discusses the unique approach of Mexican regulators to data privacy enforcement, and offers advice as to how companies can stay compliant.
A federal court in Hawaii is allowing a tort claim to proceed against a videogame maker for not warning a user that he could become addicted to the videogame and be a “joystick junkie”, notwithstanding the limitation of liability contained in the End User Licensing Agreement. This entry explores the implications of such a tort claim in the context of privacy notices and suggests a way to thwart such claims and at the same time better inform consumers.