As reported on the Hunton Privacy & Information Security Law blog, on June 28, 2018, the Governor of California signed AB 375, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (the “Act”). The Act introduces key privacy requirements for businesses, and was passed quickly by California lawmakers in an effort to remove a ballot initiative of the same name from the November 6, 2018, statewide ballot. We previously reported on the relevant ballot initiative. The Act will take effect January 1, 2020.
Key provisions of the Act include:
- The Act will apply to any for-profit business that “does business in the state of California” that (1) collects consumers’ personal information (or on the behalf of which such information is collected) and that alone, or jointly with others, determines the purposes and means of the processing of consumers’ personal information; (2) has annual gross revenues in excess of $25 million; (3) alone or in combination annually buys, receives for the business’s commercial purposes, sells, or shares for commercial purposes, the personal information of 50,000 or more consumers, households or devices; or (4) derives 50 percent or more of its annual revenue from selling consumers’ personal information (collectively, “Covered Businesses”).
- Definition of Personal Information. Personal information is defined broadly as “information that identifies, relates to, describes, is capable of being associated with, or could reasonably be linked, directly or indirectly, with a particular consumer or household.” This definition of personal information aligns more closely with the EU General Data Protection Regulation’s definition of personal data. The Act includes a list of enumerated examples of personal information, which includes, among other data elements, name, postal or email address, Social Security number, government-issued identification number, biometric data, Internet activity information and geolocation data, as well as “inferences drawn from any of the information identified” in this definition.
- Right to Know
- Upon a verifiable request from a California consumer, a Covered Business must disclose (1) the categories and specific pieces of personal information the business has collected about the consumer; (2) the categories of sources from which the personal information is collected; (3) the business or commercial purposes for collecting or selling personal information; and (4) the categories of third parties with whom the business shares personal information.
- In addition, upon verifiable request, a business that sells personal information about a California consumer, or that discloses a consumer’s personal information for a business purpose, must disclose (1) the categories of personal information that the business sold about the consumer; (2) the categories of third parties to whom the personal information was sold (by category of personal information for each third party to whom the personal information was sold); and (3) the categories of personal information that the business disclosed about the consumer for a business purpose.
- The above disclosures must be made within 45 days of receipt of the request using one of the prescribed methods specified in the Act. The disclosure must cover the 12-month period preceding the business’s receipt of the verifiable request. The 45-day time period may be extended when reasonably necessary, provided the consumer is provided notice of the extension within the first 45-day period. Importantly, the disclosures must be made in a “readily useable format that allows the consumer to transmit this information from one entity to another entity without hindrance.”
- Exemption. Covered Businesses will not be required to make the disclosures described above to the extent the Covered Business discloses personal information to another entity pursuant to a written contract with such entity, provided the contract prohibits the recipient from selling the personal information, or retaining, using or disclosing the personal information for any purpose other than performance of services under the contract. In addition, the Act provides that a business is not liable for a service provider’s violation of the Act, provided that, at the time the business disclosed personal information to the service provider, the business had neither actual knowledge nor reason to believe that the service provider intended to commit such a violation.
- Disclosures and Opt-Out. The Act will require Covered Businesses to provide notice to consumers of their rights under the Act (e.g., their right to opt out of the sale of their personal information), a list of the categories of personal information collected about consumers in the preceding 12 months, and, where applicable, that the Covered Business sells or discloses their personal information. If the Covered Business sells consumers’ personal information or discloses it to third parties for a business purpose, the notice must also include lists of the categories of personal information sold and disclosed about consumers, respectively. Covered Businesses will be required to make this disclosure in their online privacy notice. Covered Businesses must separately provide a clear and conspicuous link on their website that says, “Do Not Sell My Personal Information,” and provide consumers a mechanism to opt out of the sale of their personal information, a decision which the Covered Business must respect. Businesses also cannot discriminate against consumers who opt out of the sale of their personal information, but can offer financial incentives for the collection of personal information.
- Specific Rules for Minors: If a business has actual knowledge that a consumer is less than 16 years of age, the Act prohibits a business from selling that consumer’s personal information unless (1) the consumer is between 13–16 years of age and has affirmatively authorized the sale (i.e., they opt in); or (2) the consumer is less than 13 years of age and the consumer’s parent or guardian has affirmatively authorized the sale.
- Right to Deletion. The Act will require a business, upon verifiable request from a California consumer, to delete specified personal information that the business has collected about the consumer and direct any service providers to delete the consumer’s personal information. However, there are several enumerated exceptions to this deletion requirement. Specifically, a business or service provider is not required to comply with the consumer’s deletion request if it is necessary to maintain the consumer’s personal information to:
- Complete the transaction for which the personal information was collected, provide a good or service requested by the consumer, or reasonably anticipated, within the context of a business’s ongoing business relationship with the consumer, or otherwise perform a contract with the consumer.
- Detect security incidents; protect against malicious, deceptive, fraudulent or illegal activity; or prosecute those responsible for that activity.
- Debug to identify and repair errors that impair existing intended functionality.
- Exercise free speech, ensure the right of another consumer to exercise his or her right of free speech, or exercise another right provided for by law.
- Comply with the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act.
- Engage in public or peer-reviewed scientific, historical or statistical research in the public interest (when deletion of the information is likely to render impossible or seriously impair the achievement of such research) if the consumer has provided informed consent.
- To enable solely internal uses that are reasonably aligned with the consumer’s expectations based on the consumer’s relationship with the business.
- Comply with a legal obligation.
- Otherwise use the consumer’s personal information, internally, in a lawful manner that is compatible with the context in which the consumer provided the information.
- Enforcement
- The Act is enforceable by the California Attorney General and authorizes a civil penalty up to $7,500 per violation.
- The Act provides a private right of action only in connection with “certain unauthorized access and exfiltration, theft, or disclosure of a consumer’s nonencrypted or nonredacted personal information,” as defined in the state’s breach notification law, if the business failed “to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices appropriate to the nature of the information to protect the personal information.”
- In this case, the consumer may bring an action to recover damages up to $750 per incident or actual damages, whichever is greater.
- The statute also directs the court to consider certain factors when assessing the amount of statutory damages, including the nature, seriousness, persistence and willfulness of the defendant’s misconduct, the number of violations, the length of time over which the misconduct occurred, and the defendant’s assets, liabilities and net worth.
Prior to initiating any action against a business for statutory damages, a consumer must provide the business with 30 days’ written notice of the consumer’s allegations and, if within the 30 days the business cures the alleged violation and provides an express written statement that the violations have been cured, the consumer may not initiate an action for individual statutory damages or class-wide statutory damages. These limitations do not apply to actions initiated solely for actual pecuniary damages suffered as a result of the alleged violation.
The Hunton Andrews Kurth Blockchain Blog features opinions and legal analysis as we follow the development and use of distributed ledger technology known as the blockchain.
Search
Recent Posts
Categories
Tags
- 2019 Leaders’ Declaration
- 2020 National Strategy for Combating Terrorist and Other Illicit Financing (the 2020 Strategy)
- Advancing Innovation to Assist Law Enforcement Act
- Airdrops
- AML compliance program
- AML/CFT
- anonymity-enhanced cryptocurrencies
- Anti-Money Laundering
- Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 (AMLA)
- Anti-Money Laundering Compliance
- Antifraud
- Aon and Marsh
- Arizona
- Arkansas
- Artificial Intelligence
- Artificial Intelligence (AI)
- Australia
- Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC)
- Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC)
- Automated Clearing House (ACH)
- Bank of England
- Bank Secrecy Act
- Bank Secrecy Act (BSA)
- Bank Term Fund Program
- Bermuda
- Biden Administration
- BIS
- Bitcoin
- Bitcoin Cash
- Bitfinex
- BitLicense
- Blockchain
- Blockchain Incubators
- Blockchain Legislation
- Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act
- Blockchain Technology Act
- Brazil
- Breach of Contract
- Broker-Dealer
- Broker-Dealers
- BSA
- BSA Enforcement
- BTFP
- Bureau of Economic Analysis
- California
- Canada
- Captive Insurance
- CCPA
- Celebrity Endorsers
- Central Bank
- Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC)
- Centre for Information Policy Leadership (CIPL)
- CFTC
- Chapter 15
- China
- Christopher Giancarlo
- Civil Enforcement
- Class Actions
- Clearweb
- Colorado
- Commissioner
- Commodity Exchange Act
- Commodity Exchange Act (CEA)
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission
- Complaint Bulletin
- Compliance
- Compliance Note
- Congress
- Connecticut
- Consent
- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)
- Consumer Protection
- Convertible Virtual Currency
- Corporate Compliance
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Transparency Act (CTA)
- Council of Institutional Investors
- Council of the European Union
- Countering the Financing of Terrorism (CFT)
- Cross-Border Data Transfer
- crypto arbitrage trading accounts
- Crypto Assets
- crypto bank
- crypto custody
- Crypto Hackers
- Crypto Mining
- Crypto-commodity
- Crypto-currency
- Cryptoassets
- Cryptocurrency
- Cryptopia Limited
- Cryptosweep
- CVCs
- cybercrime
- Cybersecurity
- Dalia Blass
- DAO Report
- Darknet
- darknet marketplaces
- Data Privacy
- Data Protection Authority
- Davos
- decentralized finance (DeFi)
- DeFi
- Del. Michael San Nicolas
- Delaware
- Department of Business and Industry
- Department of Justice
- Department of Treasury
- DFS
- Digital Asset
- Digital Asset Securities
- Digital Assets
- Digital Commodities Consumer Protection Act of 2022
- digital currency
- digital currency ATM operators
- digital currency exchangers
- digital currency flows
- Digital Financial Assets Law (the Act)
- Digital Token Act
- digital token sales
- Digital Tokens
- Distributed Ledger
- Documentary Stamp Tax (DST)
- Dodd-Frank
- DOJ
- Economic Sanctions
- EDPB
- Eleventh Circuit
- Endorsement Guides
- Enforcement Action
- ePrivacy
- Ether
- Ether Classic
- EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)
- EU Regulation
- European Central Bank
- European Commission
- Exchange Act
- Exchange Traded Fund
- FDIC
- Federal Election Commission
- Federal Reserve
- Federal Reserve Board
- Federal Trade Commission
- FedNow
- fiat currency MSBs
- Fiat-Backed
- Fight Illicit Networks and Detect Trafficking Act
- Figure Lending LLC
- Final Guidance
- Financial Action Task Force (FATF)
- Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)
- Financial Privacy
- Financial Stability Board
- Financial Stability Oversight Council
- Financial Stability Report
- Financial Technology Protection Act
- FinCEN
- FINRA
- FinTech
- Florida
- Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)
- Foreign Extortion Prevention Act (FEPA)
- Form BE-12
- fractional interests
- FTC
- Gemini Dollar
- Gemini Trust Company
- Global Consortium for Digital Currency Governance
- Group of Seven
- Group of Twenty (G20) Finance Ministers
- H.R. 5635
- Hard Fork
- Heath Tarbert
- Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (HMRC)
- HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC)
- home equity lines of credit (HELOCs)
- Homeland Security Assessment of Terrorists’ Use of Virtual Currencies Act
- House of Representatives
- House of Representatives’ Financial Services Committee
- Howey
- Howey test
- IEO
- iFinex Inc.
- Illinois
- India
- Information Sheet 225
- Initial Chain Offering
- initial exchange offerings (IEOs)
- Insurance
- Intellectual Property
- International
- International Monetary Fund (IMF)
- Investor Protection
- IRS
- Jefferies Funding LLC
- Kenneth Blanco
- KYC/AML requirements
- Lael Brainard
- Large Platform Utility
- Legislation
- Legislature
- Liechtenstein Parliament
- liquidity
- Litecoin
- Litigation
- Louisiana
- Ltd.
- Malicious Cyber Activity
- Malicious Cyber Actor
- managed stablecoin
- Martin Act
- Maryland
- Metaverse
- model rule
- Monetary Policy
- Money Laundering
- Money Service Business
- money services businesses (MSBs)
- Mortgages
- Multi-Level Marketing Program (MLM)
- Mutual Fund
- Nakamoto
- narcotics
- NASAA
- Nebraska
- network maturity
- Nevada
- New Jersey
- New York
- New York Attorney General
- New York Department of Financial Services (DFS)
- New Zealand
- NFT (Non-Fungible Token)
- NFTs
- Non-fungible tokens
- North Dakota
- North Korea
- NY Department of Financial Services
- OFAC
- Office of Investor Education and Advocacy
- Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC)
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Patent
- Paxos Standard
- Paxos Trust Company
- peer-to-peer exchangers
- Penalty
- Pennsylvania
- Personal Data
- Personal Information
- President’s Working Group (PWG)
- Privacy
- privacy coins
- Provenance.io
- Proxy Voting
- Public Blockchain
- rapid settlement
- real estate
- Regulation and Enforcement
- Rep. Sylvia Garcia
- Rescission
- Retail
- Ripple
- Ripple Labs
- Rule 233-1
- Russia
- Sanctions
- Sanctions Compliance Program (SHP)
- SAR lookback review
- SD8 coins
- SDN List
- SEC
- SEC crypto-securities
- SEC registration
- Securities
- Securities Act
- Securities Act of 1933
- Securities and Exchange Commission
- Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
- Securities Exchange Commission
- security tokens
- Self-disclosure
- Senate Committee on Banking Housing and Urban Affairs
- Shareholder
- Shareholders
- SIFI
- Signature Bank
- Silicon Valley Bank
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- Spencer Dinwiddie
- stablecoins
- Stablecoins are Securities Act of 2019
- State-Sponsored Malicious Cyber Groups
- Suspicious Activity Report
- suspicious activity reporting (SARs)
- SVB
- SWIFT messaging system
- Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA)
- Switzerland
- synthetic hegemonic currency
- Taxation
- Templum
- Tennessee
- Terrorist Financing
- Tether Limited
- Texas
- Texas Business Organizations Code (TBOC)
- Texas Senate Bill 1859
- Texas Senate Bill 1971
- The World Bank
- three-year safe harbor
- Token and TT Service Provider Act
- token developers
- token transfer limits
- tokenization
- tokenized assets
- Trademark
- Travel Rule
- Trump Administration
- TT Identifier
- TT System
- TVTG
- U.S. Virtual Currency Market and Regulatory Competitiveness Act of 2019
- UCC Article 12
- UK Tax Rules
- unhosted wallets
- Uniform Commercial Code
- United Kingdom (UK)
- United Specialty Insurance Company
- United States Bankruptcy Code
- United States Patent and Trademark Office
- US central bank digital currency (US CBDC)
- US Department of the Treasury
- US Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)
- US dollar
- US Treasury
- USTR
- Utah
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Virtual Asset Service Providers
- Virtual currencies
- Virtual Currency
- Virtual Currency Consumer Protection Act of 2019
- Virtual Currency Exchange
- virtual currency license
- Virtual Currency Tax Fairness Act of 2020
- Virtual Markets Integrity Initiative
- Washington
- Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferators Sanctions Regulations
- World Economic Forum
- Wyoming
- XRP
Authors
- Jimmy Bui
- Mayme Donohue
- Nicholas Drews
- Andrew Feiner
- Jason Feingertz
- Hannah Flint
- Kevin E. Gaunt
- Armin Ghiam
- Carleton Goss
- Gregory G. Hesse
- Scott H. Kimpel
- Marysia Laskowski
- Michael S. Levine
- Phyllis H. Marcus
- Lorelie S. Masters
- Patrick M. McDermott
- Uriel A. Mendieta
- Alex D. Pappas
- Daryl B. Robertson
- Natalia San Juan
- Caitlin A. Scipioni