Privacy & Information Security Law Blog

On February 28, 2023, the Colorado Office of the Attorney General announced that revised draft Colorado Privacy Act (“CPA”) rules were adopted for review by the Colorado Attorney General prior to finalization and publication in the Colorado Register.

On February 17, 2023, the Illinois Supreme Court issued an opinion in Cothron v. White Castle Systems, Inc., in response to a certified question from the Seventh Circuit, ruling that the plain language of Section 15(b) and 15(d) of the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act (“BIPA”) shows that a claim accrues under BIPA with every scan or transmission of biometric identifiers or biometric information without prior informed consent. 

On February 21, 2023, the California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA”) Board announced that it will hold a public meeting on March 3, 2023 regarding the status of the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (“CPRA”) rulemaking process and the activities of CPPA subcommittees.

On February 14, 2023, the California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA”) announced that it had filed its first substantive rulemaking package for the proposed final draft California Privacy Act of 2020 (“CPRA”) regulations with California’s Office of Administrative Law (“OAL”), beginning a 30-day review period.

On February 10, 2023, an Illinois federal district court ordered the dismissal of a putative class action lawsuit alleging that an online tool that allowed users to virtually try on sunglasses violated the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act (“BIPA”).

As previously posted in our Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives blog, on January 10, 2023, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) published a draft of its Strategic Enforcement Plan (“SEP”) in the Federal Register, which outlines the EEOC’s enforcement goals for the next four years. While the EEOC aims to target a number of new areas – such as underserved workers and pregnancy fairness in the workplace – it is notable that it listed as priority number one the elimination of barriers in recruitment and hiring caused or exacerbated by employers’ use of artificial intelligence (“AI”). 

On February 10, 2023, the California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA”) issued an Invitation for Preliminary Comments on Proposed Rulemaking on cybersecurity audits, risk assessments and automated decisionmaking, topics that have not yet been addressed by the existing final draft CPRA Regulations.

On February 6, 2023, Texas State Representative Giovanni Capriglione submitted H.B. 1844, a comprehensive privacy bill modeled after the Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act (“VCDPA”). The bill could make Texas the sixth U.S. state to enact major privacy legislation, following California, Virginia, Colorado, Utah, and Connecticut. Although the bill closely follows the VCDPA, it departs from the Virginia law in several key areas, most notably in the definition of “personal data” and its applicability.

On February 3, 2023, the California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA”) Board unanimously approved for submission to California’s Office of Administrative Law (“OAL”) proposed final California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”) regulations released on January 31, 2023 which update the draft CPRA regulations released on November 3, 2022.

On February 2, 2023, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed in part and remanded a judgment of the lower appellate court in a class action lawsuit alleging violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”).

On January 27, 2023, California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced a new enforcement sweep aimed at businesses with mobile apps and other businesses that fail to comply with the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”).

On January 23, 2023, the California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA”) Board announced that it will hold a public meeting on February 3, 2023 regarding the status of the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (“CPRA”) rulemaking process, particularly with respect to the issuance of new draft rules on risk assessments, cybersecurity audits and automated decisionmaking.

On January 3, 2023, an Illinois state court entered a preliminary approval order for a settlement of nearly $300,000 in a class action lawsuit against Whole Foods for claims that the company violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”). The plaintiffs alleged that Whole Foods unlawfully collected voiceprints from employees who worked at the company’s distribution centers. 

On December 31, 2022, Baltimore’s ordinance banning the private sector’s use of facial recognition technology expired. The ordinance, which was enacted in 2021, banned private entities and individuals within the city limits from using facial recognition technology, including obtaining, retaining, accessing or using a “face surveillance system” or any information obtained from such system. The Baltimore ordinance followed a similar ban on the use of facial recognition technology by private sector companies in Portland, Oregon, enacted in 2020. New York City also passed an ordinance in 2021 regulating commercial establishments’ use of biometric technology.

On December 21, 2022, the Colorado Attorney General published an updated version of the draft rules to the Colorado Privacy Act (“CPA”). The draft, which follows the first iteration of the proposed rules published on October 10, 2022, solicits comments on five topics: (1) new and revised definitions; (2) the use of IP addresses to verify consumer requests; (3) a proposed universal opt-out mechanism; (4) streamlining the privacy policy requirements; and (5) bona fide loyalty programs.

On December 20, 2022, a former employee in Illinois brought a class action suit against Five Guys Enterprises, LLC (“Five Guys”), a burger chain, alleging that Five Guys violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”). 

On December 16, 2022, the California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA”) Board held a public meeting regarding the status of the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (“CPRA”) rulemaking process and other topics, such as the CPPA’s advocacy regarding proposed federal and state privacy legislation.

On November 30, 2022, the Second District Appellate Court of Illinois reversed and remanded a grant of summary judgement in favor of defendant, J&M Plating, Inc., for alleged violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”). In Mora v. J&M Plating, Inc., the plaintiff claimed that J&M Plating had violated BIPA by collecting workers’ fingerprints without a proper data retention and destruction policy for biometric information.

On December 6, 2022, the California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA”) announced that it will hold a virtual public meeting to discuss the status of the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (“CPRA”) rulemaking process and other topics. Anticipated topics for discussion include:

On November 9, 2022, the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) released its second, proposed amendments to the Part 500 Cybersecurity Rule. The proposed amendments revise several aspects of the draft Cybersecurity Rule amendments released on July 29, 2022. These changes reflect several comments made in response to the draft Cybersecurity Rule to further clarify, strengthen and clarify various requirements, as highlighted below.

As reported in the the Retail Industry Law Resource blog:

Plaintiff’s firms continue to file variations of state law wiretapping lawsuits over “session replay” software and “live chat” or “chatbot” applications in various jurisdictions. These filings typically allege that companies use such software tools to record users’ interactions with a website without first obtaining users’ consent, thereby violating the wiretapping, eavesdropping, or interception provisions of various state laws. Session replay software allows companies to record and play back user’s interactions on its websites. The “live chat” or “chatbot” feature allows a website user to engage in text conversations with an assistant, to which chat the company has access. These wiretapping claims threaten substantial penalties. Companies that use these web-tracking tools, however, can take steps to protect themselves from these lawsuits by a careful examination of the software being used and by evaluating what disclosures or consent may be warranted.

On November 14, 2022, Google LLC (“Google”) agreed to a $391.5 million settlement with the attorneys general of 40 U.S. states over the company’s location tracking controls available in its user account settings.   

The investigation by the state attorneys general found that, between 2014 and 2020, Google misled users by failing to disclose that toggling the “Location History” setting to off did not disable all tracking activities. The settlement noted that Google retained the ability to track users’ location via the “Web & App Activity” setting, and used the information for targeted advertising purposes.

On November 3, 2022, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf signed Senate Bill 696 into law (the “Act”), amending Pennsylvania’s breach notification law. 

On November 3, 2022, the California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA”) released new modified proposed California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”) regulations, which make updates to the draft CPRA regulations released on October 17, 2022. The CPPA also released an updated list of documents and other information relied upon for this most recent rulemaking.

On October 28-29, 2022, the California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA”) held a Board Meeting to discuss the modified proposed regulations promulgated for compliance with the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, as amended by the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (“CCPA/CPRA”), as well as the remainder of the rulemaking process. The CPPA previously released the modified proposed regulations on October 17, 2022.  

On October 1, 2022, the Colorado Attorney General’s Office submitted an initial draft of the Colorado Privacy Act Rules (“CPA Rules”), which will implement and enforce the Colorado Privacy Act (“CPA”). The CPA Rules, which are currently about 38 pages, address many recent issues in state data privacy regulation, including data profiling, data protection, automated data processing, biometric data, universal opt-out mechanisms and individual data rights.

On October 24, 2022, the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (“DCWP”) proposed rules to implement its new law regarding automated employment decision tools (“AEDTs”).

On September 23, 2022, New York State Senator Andrew Gounardes introduced S9563, also known as the “New York Child Data Privacy and Protection Act.” The bill, which resembles the recently passed California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act, bans certain data collection and targeted advertising and requires data controllers to, among other obligations, assess the impact of their products on children.

On October 20, 2022, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton brought suit against Google alleging various violations of Texas’s biometric privacy law, including that the company unlawfully collected and used the biometric data of millions of Texans without obtaining proper consent. The lawsuit alleges that, since 2015, Google has collected millions of biometric identifiers of Texas consumers, such as voiceprints and records of face geometry, through Google’s various products, including Google Photos, Google Assistant and Nest Hub Max, in violation of Texas’s biometric privacy law. Texas’s biometric privacy law prohibits the collection of biometric identifiers for a commercial purpose unless the individual whose biometric identifiers are collected is informed of the collection and provides consent. The law also requires companies to destroy biometric identifiers within a reasonable time, but not later than the first anniversary of the date the purpose for collecting the biometric identifier expires (except in limited circumstances).

On October 12, 2022, a federal jury found BNSF Railway, operator of one of the largest freight railroad networks in North America, violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) in the first ever BIPA case to go to trial. In Richard Rogers v. BNSF Railway Company (Case No. 19-C-3083, N.D. Ill.), truck drivers’ fingerprints were scanned for identity verification purposes when visiting BNSF rail yards to pick up and drop off loads. The jury found that BNSF recklessly or intentionally violated the law 45,600 times when it collected such fingerprint scans without written, informed permission or notice.

On October 17, 2022, the California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA”) released modified proposed regulations for compliance with the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, as amended by the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (“CCPA/CPRA”), along with an explanation of the modifications as materials for an upcoming CPPA Board Meeting. The Board Meeting scheduled for October 28-29, 2022, will discuss and take possible action, including adoption or modification, regarding the proposed regulations.

On October 13, 2022, the Interactive Advertising Bureau (“IAB”) released for public comment an updated version of its contractual framework and new U.S. State Signals (“Signals”) specifications to help the digital advertising industry comply with the comprehensive state privacy laws of California, Virginia, Colorado, Utah and Connecticut.

On October 21 and October 22, 2022, the California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA”) Board will hold public meetings to discuss and take possible action, including adoption or modification of proposed regulations, to “implement, interpret, and make specific” the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, as amended by the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 .

On September 15, 2022, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (the “Act”). The Act, which takes effect July 1, 2024, places new legal obligations on companies with respect to online products and services that are “likely to be accessed by children” under the age of 18.

On September 6, 2022, the California legislature presented Assembly Bill 2392 to Governor Gavin Newsom. AB-2392, which has not yet been signed by Governor Newsom, would allow Internet-connected device manufacturers to satisfy existing device labeling requirements by complying with National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) standards for consumer Internet of Things (“IoT”) products.

On July 26, 2022, the attorneys general of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Florida and Washington D.C. announced an $8 million multistate settlement with Wawa Inc. that resolves the states’ investigation into a 2019 data breach that compromised approximately 34 million payment cards used by consumers at Wawa stores and fueling locations. 

On August 24, 2022, the California Office of the Attorney General (“OAG”) announced a new wave of enforcement efforts targeted at business’ recognition of the Global Privacy Control (“GPC”), and issued an updated summary of recent CCPA enforcement efforts.

Editor’s Note: The California legislature failed to enact the proposed CCPA exemption amendments to Assembly Bill 1102.

On August 16, 2022, California Assembly Member Cooley introduced amendments to Assembly Bill 1102 that would extend the California Consumer Privacy Act’s (“CCPA’s”) temporary exemptions for HR and B2B data for an additional two years – until January 1, 2025. Under the CCPA, these exemptions are set to expire on January 1, 2023, when the amendments to the CCPA made by the California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”) become operative.

On August 24, 2022, California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced the Office of the Attorney General’s (“OAG’s”) first settlement of a California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) enforcement action, against Sephora, Inc.

On July 28, 2022, a federal judge approved TikTok’s $92 million class action settlement of various privacy claims made under state and federal law. The agreement will resolve litigation that began in 2019 and involved claims that TikTok, owned by the Chinese company ByteDance, violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) and the federal Video Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA”) by improperly harvesting users’ personal data. U.S. District Court Judge John Lee of the Northern District of Illinois also awarded approximately $29 million in fees to class counsel.

On July 28, 2022, the California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA”) Board held a special public meeting to discuss agency staff’s recommendations that the Board formally oppose the draft federal American Data Privacy and Protection Act (“ADPPA”). The latest version of the ADPPA recently was voted out of the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee, and is set to advance to the House Floor.

On July 22, 2022, companies are required to notify the Arizona Department of Homeland Security when they experience a data breach impacting more than 1,000 Arizona residents. This notification requirement is in addition to obligations to notify affected individuals, the Arizona state attorney general and the three largest national consumer reporting agencies. The notification to the Arizona Department of Homeland Security must be made within “45 days after a determination that there has been unauthorized acquisition and access that materially compromises the security or ...

On July 28, 2022, the California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA”) Board will hold a remote, special public meeting at 9AM PDT to discuss possible action on proposed federal privacy legislation, including the American Data Privacy and Protection Act (“ADPPA”), according to the Board’s publicly released agenda.

On July 1, 2022, amendments to Florida’s State Cybersecurity Act (the “Act”) took effect, imposing certain ransomware reporting obligations on state agencies, counties and municipalities and prohibiting those entities from paying cyber ransoms.

On July 20, 2022, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce (the “Committee”) passed H.R. 8152, the American Data Privacy and Protection Act (“ADPPA”) (as amended), by a vote of 53-2. The ADPPA next will be put before the full House for a vote.

Following the ruling in Dobbs, the National Institutes of Health’s (“NIH’s”) certificates of confidentiality offer an important layer of privacy protection to reproductive health research data. The Public Health Service Act created the certificates of confidentiality program, which prohibits the disclosure of identifiable, sensitive research data “in any Federal, State, or local civil, criminal, administrative, legislative, or other proceeding” without the research subject’s consent. These certificates add a layer of protection to abortion and fertility data collected as part of NIH research.

On July 1, 2022, the California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA”) sent U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi a memo outlining how H.R. 8152, the bipartisan American Data Privacy and Protection Act (“ADPPA” or the “Act”), would lessen privacy protections for Californians, and California Democrats have joined the cause.

The CPPA’s memo asserts that the ADPPA, by preempting the California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”) and other state privacy laws, proposes to eliminate:

On June 30, 2022, the New York Office of the Attorney General (“NYOAG”) announced a $400,000 agreement with Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. (“Wegmans”) in connection with a cloud storage security issue. The NYOAG alleges that Wegmans exposed the personal information of three million consumers by storing the data in misconfigured cloud storage containers.

On July 11, 2022, the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection issued a business alert on businesses’ handling of sensitive data, with a particular focus on location and health data. The alert describes the “opaque” marketplace in which consumers’ location and health  data is collected and exchanged amongst businesses and the concerns and risks associated with the processing of such information. The alert specifically focuses on the “potent combination” of location data and user-generated health and biometric data (e.g., through the use of wellness and fitness apps and the sharing of face and other biometric data for app/device authentication purposes). According to the alert, the combination of location and health data “creates a new frontier of potential harms to consumers.”

On July 8, 2022, the California Privacy Protection Agency Board (“CPPA Board”) began the formal rulemaking process to establish regulations promulgating the amendments made to the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) by the California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”) (collectively, the “CCPA/CPRA”). The CPPA Board issued a formal Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Initial Statement of Reasons, and released the proposed regulations. The 45-day public comment period has now begun.

On June 21, 2022, President Biden signed into law, the State and Local Government Cybersecurity Act of 2021 (S. 2520) (the “Cybersecurity Act”) and the Federal Rotational Cyber Workforce Program Act (S. 1097) (the “Cyber Workforce Program Act”), two bipartisan bills aimed at enhancing the cybersecurity postures of the federal, state and local governments.

On June 21, 2022, the Colorado Attorney General’s Office announced it is seeking informal input from the public on its rulemaking related to the Colorado Privacy Act (“CPA”). Before starting its formal rulemaking process, the Office has indicated it wants to better “understand the community’s thoughts and concerns about data privacy.”

On June 23, 2022, the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce passed by voice vote H.R. 8152, the American Data Privacy and Protection Act (“ADPPA”). This bipartisan legislation, sponsored by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone (D-NJ), committee Ranking Republican Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), subcommittee Chairman Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) and subcommittee Ranking Republican Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), is based on the bipartisan, bicameral “Three Corners” draft bill released on June 2, 2022 with the support of Pallone, Rodgers and Senate Commerce Committee Ranking Republican Roger Wicker (R-MS). 

On May 27, 2022, Vermont Governor Phil Scott signed H.515, making Vermont the twenty-first state to enact legislation based on the National Association of Insurance Commissioners Insurance Data Security Model Law (“MDL-668”). The Vermont Insurance Data Security Law applies to “licensees”—those licensed, authorized to operate or registered, and those required to be licensed, authorized or registered, under Vermont insurance law, with few exceptions. The new law generally follows MDL-668’s provisions, adopting the model law’s broad definition of nonpublic information and requiring licensees to, in part, maintain a written information security program (“WISP”) and investigate cybersecurity incidents. Unlike other state laws based on MDL-668, however, the Vermont Insurance Data Security Law declines to establish separate cybersecurity event notification requirements for licensees.

On May 26, 2022, California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued a press release reminding health app providers that California’s Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (“CMIA”) applies to mobile apps that are designed to store medical information, which includes health apps such as fertility trackers. The press release reminds health app providers that the CMIA requires businesses to preserve the confidentiality of medical information and prohibits the disclosure of medical information without proper authorization. It also urges mobile app providers to adopt robust security and privacy measures to protect reproductive health information. According to the press release, this should include, at a minimum, “assess[ing] the risks associated with collecting and maintaining abortion-related information that could be leveraged against persons seeking to exercise their healthcare rights.”

On May 4-6, 2022, the California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA”) held via video conference several public pre-rulemaking stakeholder sessions regarding the California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”). During the sessions, stakeholders ranging from privacy and cybersecurity experts to trade associations and California small business owners provided verbal comments, insights and suggestions to the CPPA as it develops the forthcoming CPRA regulations. The sessions focused on a number of issues, including automated decision-making, data minimization and purpose limitation, dark patterns, consumers’ rights (e.g., opt-out rights, limitation on the use of sensitive personal information), and cybersecurity audits and risk assessments. Comments and positions taken amongst the stakeholders varied. Some of the positions taken by stakeholders are summarized below:

On May 10, 2022, Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont signed An Act Concerning Personal Data Privacy and Online Monitoring, after the law was previously passed by the Connecticut General Assembly in April. Connecticut is now the fifth state to enact a consumer privacy law.

In April 2022, two states enacted insurance data security legislation based on the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (“NAIC”) Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668). Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear signed HB 474 into law on April 8, 2022, and Maryland Governor Larry Hogan signed SB 207 into law on April 21, 2022. The new laws establish data security obligations for insurance carriers and generally require carriers to take the following actions, subject to certain exemptions:

On April 5, 2022, North Carolina became the first state in the U.S. to prohibit state agencies and local government entities from paying a ransom following a ransomware attack.

North Carolina’s new law, which was passed as part of the state’s 2021-2022 budget appropriations, prohibits government entities from paying a ransom to an attacker who has encrypted their IT systems and subsequently offers to decrypt that data in exchange for payment. The law prohibits government entities from even communicating with the attacker, instead directing them to report the ransomware attack to the North Carolina Department of Information Technology in accordance with G.S. 143B‑1379.

On April 11, 2022, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin signed into law three bills that amend the Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act (“VCDPA”) ahead of the VCDPA’s January 1, 2023 effective date. The bills, HB 381, HB 714 and SB 534, (1) add a new exemption to the VCDPA’s right to delete; (2) modify the VCDPA’s definition of “nonprofit”; and (3) abolish the Consumer Privacy Fund.

On April 12, 2022, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser made remarks at the International Association of Privacy Professionals Global Privacy Summit in Washington, D.C., where he invited stakeholders to provide informal public comments on the Colorado Privacy Act (“CPA”) rulemaking.

On March 29 and March 30, 2022, the California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA”) held via video conference two public pre-rulemaking informational sessions regarding the California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”). During the sessions, members of the California Attorney General’s Office and various privacy and cybersecurity experts led discussions on topics such as the sale and sharing of personal information, dark patterns, data privacy impact assessments, cybersecurity audits and automated decision-making. The CPPA Board has not at this time responded to the views expressed by the experts at the meetings.

On March 18, 2022, Indiana Governor Eric Holcomb signed into law an amendment to Indiana’s data breach notification statute. The amendment requires notification of a data breach to affected individuals and the Indiana Attorney General without unreasonable delay, but no later than forty-five (45) days after discovery of the breach. The amendment will take effect on July 1, 2022.

On January 18, 2022, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed into law Assembly Bill No. 3950, requiring employers to provide written notice to employees prior to the use of tracking devices in vehicles used by employees (the “Act”). The Act will go into effect on April 18, 2022.

On March 25, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois approved a $1.1 million settlement with TikTok Inc. (“TikTok”) to resolve claims that TikTok collected children’s data and sold it to third parties without parental consent. The plaintiffs sued TikTok in 2019, alleging that TikTok did not seek verifiable parental consent prior to collecting personal information of children under 13 on the popular video platform in violation of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act. The complaint further alleged that TikTok disclosed and sold user data, including lip-syncing videos created by children who used a TikTok-affiliated app called Musical.ly, to third parties, without parental consent. The $1.1 million settlement will be distributed among class members, who consist of U.S. users who, prior to the settlement’s effective date and while under the age of 13, registered for or used TikTok or Musical.ly.

On March 29 and March 30, 2022, the California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA”) will hold public pre-rulemaking informational sessions regarding the California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”) via video conference. As we previously reported, the CPPA, which has rulemaking authority under the CPRA and will be responsible for implementing and enforcing the CPRA, recently estimated that it will not publish final CPRA regulations until the third or fourth quarter of 2022.

On March 24, 2022, Utah became the fourth state in the U.S., following California, Virginia and Colorado, to enact a consumer data privacy law, the Utah Consumer Privacy Act (the “UCPA”). The UCPA resembles Virginia’s Consumer Data Protection Act (“VCDPA”) and Colorado’s Consumer Privacy Act (“CPA”), and, to a lesser extent, the California Consumer Privacy Act (as amended by the California Privacy Rights Act) (“CCPA/CPRA”). The UCPA will take effect on December 31, 2023.

On March 10, 2022, in its first formal written opinion interpreting the California Consumer Privacy Act’s (“CCPA’s”) compliance obligations, the California Attorney General (“AG”) confirmed that the CCPA grants a consumer the right to access inferences drawn from personal information collected about the consumer, even if such inferences are generated by the business (unless the business can demonstrate that a statutory exception to the CCPA applies). The opinion also makes clear that the CCPA does not require businesses to disclose trade secrets in response to access requests. The decision interprets the CCPA’s existing language, as opposed to creating new obligations with respect to access requests made pursuant to the CCPA.

On February 18, 2022, California Assembly Member Evan Low (D) introduced a pair of bills – AB 2871 and AB 2891 – that would extend the duration of the current exemptions in the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) (as amended by the California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”)) for certain HR data and business-to-business (“B2B”) customer representative personnel data from most of the law’s requirements. The existing temporary “HR” and “B2B” exemptions were first introduced through amendments to the CCPA, and were extended by the CPRA, under which the exemptions will sunset on the CPRA’s compliance deadline, January 1, 2023.

On February 17, 2022, the California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA”) announced at a board meeting that it will delay the publication of final regulations under the California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”). As drafted, the CPRA provides for regulations to be finalized by July 1, 2022, to allow for a six-month compliance window ahead of the law’s January 1, 2023 effective date. However, the CPPA estimated that it will not publish final regulations until the third or fourth quarter of 2022. The CPPA also indicated that it may not issue draft regulations until June 2022. The CPPA cited delays in hiring staff and beginning operations as reasons for the delayed rulemaking process.

On February 18, 2022, the Texas Attorney General’s Office (the “Texas AG”) announced that it had issued two Civil Investigative Demands (“CIDs”) to TikTok Inc. The Texas AG’s investigation focuses on TikTok’s alleged violations of children’s privacy and facilitation of human trafficking, along with other potential unlawful conduct.

On February 14, 2022, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton brought suit against Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, over the company’s collection and use of biometric data. The suit alleges that Meta collected and used Texans’ facial geometry data in violation of the Texas Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act (“CUBI”) and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“DTPA”). The lawsuit is significant because it represents the first time the Texas Attorney General’s Office has brought suit under CUBI.

On January 31, 2022, Hunton Andrews Kurth’s retail industry team released its annual Retail Industry in Review publication, which provides an overview of key issues and trends that impacted the retail sector in the past year, as well as a preview of relevant legal issues retailers can expect to arise in 2022. This year’s edition takes a close look at issues stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic, and addresses the evolving U.S. state privacy law landscape, with a focus on the passage of the Colorado Privacy Act and Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act. The publication also addresses ...

On January 28, 2022, in celebration of Data Privacy Day, the Colorado Attorney General’s Office issued prepared remarks from Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser and published guidance on data security best practices. In his remarks, Attorney General Weiser highlighted the importance of protecting data security and outlined his office’s plans for implementing the Colorado Privacy Act (“CPA”), which takes effect July 1, 2023.

On January 28, 2022, California Attorney General Rob Bonta published a statement regarding recent investigations conducted by the California Office of Attorney General (“AG”) with respect to businesses operating loyalty programs and their compliance with the California Consumer Privacy Act’s (“CCPA’s”) financial incentive requirements. As a result of the investigations, the AG’s Office sent non-compliance notices to major corporations across multiple sectors, including retail, food services, travel and home improvement. The businesses have 30 days to cure the alleged CCPA violations and bring their loyalty programs into compliance with the CCPA. Otherwise, enforcement action can be initiated.

On November 10, 2021, the New York City Council passed a bill prohibiting employers and employment agencies from using automated employment decision tools to screen candidates or employees, unless a bias audit has been conducted prior to deploying the tool (the “Bill”).

On November 8, 2021, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law A.430/S.2628 (the “Act”), which requires private employers with a place of business in New York State to provide their employees prior written notice, upon hiring, of any electronic monitoring, as defined in the Act, to which the employees will be subjected by the employer.

As reported on the Hunton Retail Resource Blog, on October 20, 2021, a new wave in the fight against “robocalls” is targeting telemarketing text messages. In the past six months, there has been an uptick in activity at both the state and federal level to reign in telemarketing text messages.

On October 15, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts entered a final order approving a $14 million class action settlement resolving claims against HelloFresh for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq. The named plaintiffs alleged that HelloFresh violated the TCPA by (1) placing telemarketing calls to consumers whose phone numbers were listed on the federal Do Not Call registry; (2) placing telemarketing calls to consumers using an automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”) without prior express written consent; and (3) placing telemarketing calls to consumers who had requested to be placed on Hello Fresh’s internal Do Not Call list. According to plaintiffs’ attorneys, this settlement is the largest TCPA class action settlement in Massachusetts state history.

During the week of October 4, 2021, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law bills amending the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (“CPRA”), California’s data breach notification law and California’s data security law. Additional bills, amending the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (“CMIA”) and the California Insurance Code, also were also signed into law. The Governor also signed into law a bill protecting the privacy and security of genetic data processed by direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies and a bill designed to prevent the sale, purchase and use of data obtained by illegal means.

On October 1, 2021, Florida’s Protecting DNA Privacy Act (the “Act”), took effect. The Act, signed into law by Governor Ron DeSantis on June 29, restricts certain willful collection, retention, analysis and disclosure of the DNA samples or DNA analysis results of persons in Florida without their express consent.

On October 4, 2021, the California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA”) appointed Ashkan Soltani as its first Executive Director. Soltani, a former chief technologist for the Federal Trade Commission and senior advisor to the White House, began his new role on Monday. He also is a distinguished fellow at the Georgetown Law Institute for Technology Law and Policy and the Georgetown Center on Privacy and Technology.

On October 1, 2021, Connecticut’s two new data security laws become effective. As we previously reported, the new laws modify Connecticut’s existing breach notification requirements and establish a safe harbor from certain Connecticut Superior Court assessed damages for businesses that create and maintain a written cybersecurity program.

On September 22, 2021, the California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA” or “Agency”) issued an Invitation for Preliminary Comments on Proposed Rulemaking Under the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (“CPRA”). The CPPA was established by the CPRA, which vested the Agency with full administrative power, authority and jurisdiction to implement and enforce the CCPA. The Agency’s responsibilities include updating existing regulations and adopting new regulations.

On September 17, 2021, in Tims v. Black Horse Carriers Inc., Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist., No. 1-20-563, the Illinois Appellate Court, in a case of first impression at the appellate level, addressed the statute of limitations under the state’s Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), holding that a five-year period applies to BIPA claims that allege the failure to (1) provide notice of the collection of biometric data, (2) take care in storing or transmitting biometric data, or (3) develop a publicly-available retention and destruction schedule for biometric data. The Court also held that a one-year period applies to claims alleging the improper disclosure of, or improper sale, lease, trade or profit from, biometric data.

On August 29, 2021, a New York City Council bill amending the New York City Administrative Code to address customer data collected by food delivery services from online orders became law after the 30-day period for the mayor to sign or veto lapsed. Effective December 27, 2021, the law will permit restaurants to request customer data from third-party food delivery services and require delivery services to provide, on at least a monthly basis, such customer data until the restaurant “requests to no longer receive such customer data.” Customer data includes name, phone number, email address, delivery address and contents of the order.

On August 9, 2021, Baltimore joined Portland, Oregon and New York City in enacting a local ordinance regulating the private sector’s use of facial recognition technology. Baltimore’s ordinance will become effective on September 8, 2021. Read our earlier post for more details about Baltimore’s ban on the use of facial recognition technology by private entities and individuals within its city limits.

Connecticut recently passed two cybersecurity laws that will become effective on October 1, 2021. The newly passed laws modify Connecticut’s existing breach notification requirements and establish a safe harbor for businesses that create and maintain a written cybersecurity program that complies with applicable state or federal law or industry-recognized security frameworks.

The California Attorney General (“AG”) recently released a summary of enforcement actions the agency brought against companies in violation of the CCPA since enforcement of the Act began on July 1, 2020. The summary provides 27 illustrative examples of instances in which the AG sent notices of alleged noncompliance with the CCPA and how each company cured the alleged noncompliance.

The California Attorney General has updated its CCPA FAQs to state that the newly developed Global Privacy Control (“GPC”) “must be honored by covered businesses as a valid consumer request to stop the sale of personal information.”

On June 30, 2021, the New York State Department of Financial Services (“NYDFS,” the “Department”) issued guidance to all New York state regulated entities on ransomware (the “Guidance”), identifying controls it expects regulated companies to implement whenever possible.

On July 8, 2021, Colorado Governor Jared Polis signed SB21-190, the Colorado Privacy Act (“the Act”), into law, making Colorado the third state to have a comprehensive data privacy law on the books, following California and Virginia. The Colorado House voted 57-7 in favor of the Act on June 7 after it had previously passed the Senate unanimously on May 26. The Senate voted unanimously to adopt the House’s amendments to the Act on June 8. The Act will go into effect on July 1, 2023, with some specific provisions going into effect at later dates.

On June 14, 2021, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed HB 3746, a bill amending Texas’s data breach notification law. Texas’s breach notification law requires notice to affected residents in the event of a data breach affecting certain sensitive personal data, including Social Security numbers, driver’s license or other government-issued ID numbers, account numbers or payment card numbers in combination with any required security code, access code or password, or certain information about an individual’s health or medical condition or treatment. The law also requires businesses to notify the Texas Attorney General of any data breach affecting at least 250 Texas residents.

On June 14, 2021, the Baltimore City Council passed a bill that would ban the use of facial recognition technology by private entities and individuals within the city limits. If signed into law, Baltimore, Maryland would become the latest U.S. city to enact stringent regulations governing the use of facial recognition technology in the private sector.

July 1, 2021 marks the deadline for certain businesses to comply with the metrics reporting obligations under the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”) regulations. Section 999.317(g) of the regulations applies to any business that is subject to the CCPA and that knows or reasonably should know that it, alone or in combination, buys, receives for the business’s commercial purposes, sells, or shares for commercial purposes the personal information of 10,000,000 or more California residents in a calendar year.

On June 2, 2021, Nevada’s governor approved SB 260 (the “Amendment Bill”), which expands on the previously amended Nevada Privacy of Information Collected on the Internet from Consumers Act (the “Act”). Specifically, the Amendment Bill broadens the definition of key terms along with providing several new exemptions.

On May 18, 2021, New York Attorney General (“AG”) Letitia James announced a settlement agreement with Filters Fast LLC (“Filters Fast”) over a data breach that compromised personal information of approximately 324,000 consumers nationwide, including over 16,500 New York state residents. The breach affected purchases made on Filters Fast website for almost a year – from July 16, 2019 to July 10, 2020.

On April 29, 2021, the New York City Council passed the Tenant Data Privacy Act (“TDPA”), which would regulate the collection, use, safeguarding and retention of tenant data by owners of “smart access” buildings. The TDPA has been sent to the New York City Mayor’s desk for signature.

On March 18, 2021, Lisa Sotto, Chair of Hunton’s global Privacy and Cybersecurity practice, and Mike Swift, MLaw Chief Global Digital Risk Correspondent, led a webinar on Everything You Need to Know About the California Privacy Rights Act. The webinar, which was part of LexisNexis’ Emerging Issues Webinar Series, provides an immersive look at the California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”) and other recent privacy laws.

On April 1, 2021, California’s Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the state’s prohibition on recording calls without consent applies to parties on the call and not just third-party eavesdroppers. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye wrote that California’s penal code “prohibits parties as well as nonparties from intentionally recording a communication transmitted between a cellular or cordless phone and another device without the consent of all parties to the communication.”