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.
In addition to this informal public comment, the Colorado Department of Law (“Department”) will begin the formal notice-and-comment rulemaking phase in fall 2022 by announcing a notice of rulemaking and accompanying draft regulations. Below are topics for which the Department specifically expects informal, pre-rulemaking feedback from interested parties, as listed under the pre-rulemaking guidelines:
- Universal Opt-Out – feedback is required to develop protocols and/or tools that can address universal opt-out mechanisms, which are technical measures that consumers may exercise to opt-out of the processing of personal data for targeted advertising or sale of personal data.
- Consent – input is required to clarify the textual definition of the consent under the CPA, particularly the following concepts: “clear, affirmative act,” “freely given,” “specific,” “unambiguous” and “informed.” The Department also seeks common methods of obtaining consent currently in use to meet the standards, as well as an adequate consent mechanism framework for parental consent.
- Dark Patterns – while the CPA expressly states using dark patterns does not constitute consent, further guidance is required regarding principles, frameworks and tools to identify dark patterns and avoid inadvertent use. Interested parties are invited to provide contributory research to reference and use case examples from the practice that impact or manipulate consumer choice.
- Data Protection Assessments (“DPA”) – The Department wants to clarify the form, content and circumstances of data protection assessments required by the CPA, and questions if it should follow any existing model, such as the EU General Data Protection Regulation, and acknowledge interoperability of DPAs conducted for another regime.
- Profiling – informal feedback is required to identify (1) what type of transparency would meaningfully enable consumers to understand the automated processing of personal data such that they can make informed opt-out decisions, (2) legal or civil rights concerns, (3) specific profiling applications that may warrant additional consideration or specific rules, and 4) the most effective strategy in similar legal regimes concerning profiling or automated decision making.
- Opinion Letters and Interpretive Guidance – the CPA authorizes the Attorney General to issue opinion letters and interpretive guidance, and public comment is requested regarding the type and process of interpretive guidance the rules provide.
- Offline and Off-Web Collection of Data – the Department wants to clarify how consumer rights and controller obligations apply to offline collection (through non-electronic methods such as signing a petition on a sidewalk) and use of personal data.
- Protecting Coloradans in a National and Global Economy – the Department welcomes comments regarding the differences, overlap and interoperability between the CPA and other national and global jurisdictions to increase the participation of Coloradans in national and global markets and networks.
The Office of the Attorney General stated it will approach the rulemaking by embracing five principles: (1) promoting consumer rights; (2) clarifying ambiguities to minimize unnecessary disputes; (3) facilitating efficient and expeditious compliance for controllers and processors; (4) harmonization and facilitating interoperability of the CPA with other state, national and international frameworks; and (5) allowing for innovation and avoiding unduly burden on creativeness.
The CPA was enacted in July 2021 as the third U.S. state to adopt a comprehensive privacy law. The law contains express consumer rights, controller and processor obligations, enforcement provisions and interpretative guidance. The Colorado Attorney General also is given rulemaking authority in three distinct categories: (1) specific, required authority to draft technical specifications for one or more universal opt-out mechanisms; (2) specific, discretionary authority to create rules governing a process of issuing opinion letters and interpretative guidance; and (3) broader discretionary authority to create rules for the purpose of carrying out the CPA.
Search
Recent Posts
- Website Use of Third-Party Tracking Software Not Prohibited Under Massachusetts Wiretap Act
- HHS Announces Additional Settlements Following Ransomware Attacks Including First Enforcement Under Risk Analysis Initiative
- Employee Monitoring: Increased Use Draws Increased Scrutiny from Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Categories
- Behavioral Advertising
- Centre for Information Policy Leadership
- Children’s Privacy
- Cyber Insurance
- Cybersecurity
- Enforcement
- European Union
- Events
- FCRA
- Financial Privacy
- General
- Health Privacy
- Identity Theft
- Information Security
- International
- Marketing
- Multimedia Resources
- Online Privacy
- Security Breach
- U.S. Federal Law
- U.S. State Law
- Workplace Privacy
Tags
- Aaron Simpson
- Accountability
- Adequacy
- Advertisement
- Advertising
- American Privacy Rights Act
- Anna Pateraki
- Anonymization
- Anti-terrorism
- APEC
- Apple Inc.
- Argentina
- Arkansas
- Article 29 Working Party
- Artificial Intelligence
- Australia
- Austria
- Automated Decisionmaking
- Baltimore
- Bankruptcy
- Belgium
- Biden Administration
- Big Data
- Binding Corporate Rules
- Biometric Data
- Blockchain
- Bojana Bellamy
- Brazil
- Brexit
- British Columbia
- Brittany Bacon
- Brussels
- Business Associate Agreement
- BYOD
- California
- CAN-SPAM
- Canada
- Cayman Islands
- CCPA
- CCTV
- Chile
- China
- Chinese Taipei
- Christopher Graham
- CIPA
- Class Action
- Clinical Trial
- Cloud
- Cloud Computing
- CNIL
- Colombia
- Colorado
- Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission
- Compliance
- Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
- Congress
- Connecticut
- Consent
- Consent Order
- Consumer Protection
- Cookies
- COPPA
- Coronavirus/COVID-19
- Council of Europe
- Council of the European Union
- Court of Justice of the European Union
- CPPA
- CPRA
- Credit Monitoring
- Credit Report
- Criminal Law
- Critical Infrastructure
- Croatia
- Cross-Border Data Flow
- Cyber Attack
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
- Data Brokers
- Data Controller
- Data Localization
- Data Privacy Framework
- Data Processor
- Data Protection Act
- Data Protection Authority
- Data Protection Impact Assessment
- Data Transfer
- David Dumont
- David Vladeck
- Delaware
- Denmark
- Department of Commerce
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Department of Homeland Security
- Department of Justice
- Department of the Treasury
- District of Columbia
- Do Not Call
- Do Not Track
- Dobbs
- Dodd-Frank Act
- DPIA
- E-Privacy
- E-Privacy Directive
- Ecuador
- Ed Tech
- Edith Ramirez
- Electronic Communications Privacy Act
- Electronic Privacy Information Center
- Elizabeth Denham
- Employee Monitoring
- Encryption
- ENISA
- EU Data Protection Directive
- EU Member States
- European Commission
- European Data Protection Board
- European Data Protection Supervisor
- European Parliament
- Facial Recognition Technology
- FACTA
- Fair Credit Reporting Act
- Fair Information Practice Principles
- Federal Aviation Administration
- Federal Bureau of Investigation
- Federal Communications Commission
- Federal Data Protection Act
- Federal Trade Commission
- FERC
- FinTech
- Florida
- Food and Drug Administration
- Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
- France
- Franchise
- Fred Cate
- Freedom of Information Act
- Freedom of Speech
- Fundamental Rights
- GDPR
- Geofencing
- Geolocation
- Georgia
- Germany
- Global Privacy Assembly
- Global Privacy Enforcement Network
- Gramm Leach Bliley Act
- Hacker
- Hawaii
- Health Data
- Health Information
- HIPAA
- HIPPA
- HITECH Act
- Hong Kong
- House of Representatives
- Hungary
- Illinois
- India
- Indiana
- Indonesia
- Information Commissioners Office
- Information Sharing
- Insurance Provider
- Internal Revenue Service
- International Association of Privacy Professionals
- International Commissioners Office
- Internet
- Internet of Things
- IP Address
- Ireland
- Israel
- Italy
- Jacob Kohnstamm
- Japan
- Jason Beach
- Jay Rockefeller
- Jenna Rode
- Jennifer Stoddart
- Jersey
- Jessica Rich
- John Delionado
- John Edwards
- Kentucky
- Korea
- Latin America
- Laura Leonard
- Law Enforcement
- Lawrence Strickling
- Legislation
- Liability
- Lisa Sotto
- Litigation
- Location-Based Services
- London
- Madrid Resolution
- Maine
- Malaysia
- Markus Heyder
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Meta
- Mexico
- Microsoft
- Minnesota
- Mobile App
- Mobile Device
- Montana
- Morocco
- MySpace
- Natascha Gerlach
- National Institute of Standards and Technology
- National Labor Relations Board
- National Science and Technology Council
- National Security
- National Security Agency
- National Telecommunications and Information Administration
- Nebraska
- NEDPA
- Netherlands
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- New Zealand
- Nigeria
- Ninth Circuit
- North Carolina
- Norway
- Obama Administration
- OECD
- Office for Civil Rights
- Office of Foreign Assets Control
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Opt-In Consent
- Oregon
- Outsourcing
- Pakistan
- Parental Consent
- Payment Card
- PCI DSS
- Penalty
- Pennsylvania
- Personal Data
- Personal Health Information
- Personal Information
- Personally Identifiable Information
- Peru
- Philippines
- Phyllis Marcus
- Poland
- PRISM
- Privacy By Design
- Privacy Policy
- Privacy Rights
- Privacy Rule
- Privacy Shield
- Protected Health Information
- Ransomware
- Record Retention
- Red Flags Rule
- Regulation
- Rhode Island
- Richard Thomas
- Right to Be Forgotten
- Right to Privacy
- Risk-Based Approach
- Rosemary Jay
- Russia
- Safe Harbor
- Sanctions
- Schrems
- Scott Kimpel
- Securities and Exchange Commission
- Security Rule
- Senate
- Serbia
- Service Provider
- Singapore
- Smart Grid
- Smart Metering
- Social Media
- Social Security Number
- South Africa
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- South Korea
- Spain
- Spyware
- Standard Contractual Clauses
- State Attorneys General
- Steven Haas
- Stick With Security Series
- Stored Communications Act
- Student Data
- Supreme Court
- Surveillance
- Sweden
- Switzerland
- Taiwan
- Targeted Advertising
- Telecommunications
- Telemarketing
- Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- Tennessee
- Terry McAuliffe
- Texas
- Text Message
- Thailand
- Transparency
- Transportation Security Administration
- Trump Administration
- United Arab Emirates
- United Kingdom
- United States
- Unmanned Aircraft Systems
- Uruguay
- Utah
- Vermont
- Video Privacy Protection Act
- Video Surveillance
- Virginia
- Viviane Reding
- Washington
- Whistleblowing
- Wireless Network
- Wiretap
- ZIP Code