On March 15, 2023, after five public input sessions, a rulemaking hearing, and over 130 written comments, the Colorado Privacy Act (“CPA”) rules were officially finalized when the Colorado Attorney General’s Office completed its review and submitted them to the Secretary of State. The final rules will be published later this month and go into effect on the same day as the statute, July 1, 2023. Continue Reading Colorado Privacy Act Rules Finalized; To Be in Effect July 1
On September 30, 2022, the Colorado Attorney General’s Office (“Colorado AG”) issued its proposed draft Colorado Privacy Act (“CPA”) Rules (the “CPA Rules” or “Rules”). The draft Rules, which add significant complexity and obligations on businesses, go far beyond what was expected of the Colorado AG and, despite the repeated insistence for interoperability with other state laws, veer sharply away from the approaches being taken in California in many respects.
Rulemaking Process Timeline
The Colorado AG will hold three virtual stakeholder meetings on November 10, 15, and 17, 2022. The stakeholder meetings are a forum for the AG to gather feedback from a broad range of stakeholders and aid in the development and finalization of the Rules to implement the CPA. Written comments for stakeholder meetings must be submitted by November 7, 2022.
In addition, the AG may host additional opportunities for public input beyond those listed above if it determines doing so is prudent or necessary to revise the Rules and incorporate stakeholder input. The dates and times of these additional sessions will be announced via the CPA rulemaking mailing list and on the AG’s website.
On February 1, 2023, the AG will hold a public hearing at 10:00 am CST. The hearing will be conducted both in person and by video conference. All interested parties must register to attend the public hearing, which can be done through the AG’s website. Interested parties can also testify at the rulemaking hearing and/or submit written comments through the online CPA rulemaking comment portal.
The February 2023 hearing date marks the end of the public comment period (unless the AG makes substantial modifications to the Rules that would require the rulemaking process to be completed a second time). After the hearing, the AG will have 180 days to file adopted Rules with the Colorado Secretary of State for publication in the Colorado Register. The Rules will then take effect twenty days after publication. The CPA itself goes into effect on July 1 of next year.
Content Highlights
The draft Rules are organized into nine parts: (1) general applicability; (2) definitions; (3) consumer disclosures; (4) consumer personal data rights; (5) universal opt-out mechanism (“UOOM”); (6) controller duties; (7) consent; (8) data protection assessments (“DPAs”); and (9) profiling.
While we will be posting a more in-depth analysis of the draft Rules shortly, a few of the more notable aspects of the Rules that jump out immediately are:
Stay Tuned For More
Please stay tuned for further analysis on these and other provisions in the draft Colorado regs.
As Alan Friel, Glenn Brown, Ann LaFrance, Kyle Fath, Elliot Golding, Niloufar Massachi and Kyle Dull explain in a comprehensive, 16-page analysis here, on June 8, 2021, the Colorado legislature passed SB 21-190, known as the Colorado Privacy Act (CPA or CO Act), which the governor signed into law on July 7, 2021. The CO Act is a mishmash of concepts from other jurisdictions. It is in large part modeled on the March 2021 Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act (CDPA), but with California influences, such as a broader definition of “sale” and requiring companies to look for and honor global privacy signals. Both the California consumer privacy regime, and even more so the CDPA, were inspired by Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), but depart from it in many material ways.
In their must read analysis, they down the similarities and differences of the three US state consumer privacy regimes.
Colorado’s SB 21-190 has passed both chambers and if not vetoed will become the 3rd omnibus state privacy law enforceable 7/1/23. It has no private right of action, but includes the right to object to processing for purposes of targeted advertising, the sale of personal data, or profiling, including via means of an online global privacy control, as well as the rights to access, correct and/or delete personal data, or obtain a portable copy of it. It does not apply to employee data. It specifies how controllers must fulfill duties regarding consumers’ assertion of their rights, transparency, purpose specification, data minimization, avoiding secondary use, avoiding unlawful discrimination and sensitive data, and requires risk assessments for certain “high risk” processing activities. The law is closer to Virginia’s CDPA than California’s CCPA/CPRA, but there are material differences. Look for a post next week that compares and contrasts the three states’ laws and the EU’s GDPR, which inspired this growing state trend.
After what seems like forever, the most recent (and last?) public comment period for the draft California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) regulations finally closed on February 19, 2025. (Read Privacy World coverage here and here.)
Following an initial public comment period on an earlier draft, the formal comment period for the current version of the proposed CPPA regulations (Proposed Regulations) began on November 22, 2024. The Proposed Regulations include amendments to the existing CCPA regulations and new regulations on automated decision-making technology, profiling, cybersecurity audits, requirements for insurance companies and data practice risk assessments. The California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) may either submit a final rulemaking package to the California Office of Administrative Law (OAL, which confirms statutory authority) or modify the Proposed Regulations in response to comments received during the public comment period.
Continue Reading Light at the End of the Tunnel – Are You Ready for the New California Privacy and Cybersecurity Rules?
Nineteen states have followed the lead of California and passed consumer privacy laws. Three went into effect this year and eight will become effective in 2025. The remainder become effective in 2026. Charts at the end of this post track effective dates (see Table 1) and applicability thresholds (see Table 2). While there are many similar aspects to these laws, they also diverge from each other in material ways, creating a compliance challenge for organizations. In addition, there are other privacy laws pertaining specifically to consumer health data,[1] laws specific to children’s and minors’ personal data and not part of a comprehensive consumer privacy law,[2] AI-specific laws,[3] or laws, including part of overall consumer privacy laws, regulating data brokers[4] that enterprises need to consider.
A recent article published by the authors in Competition Policy International’s TechReg Chronical details the similarities and differences between the 20 state consumer privacy laws and a chart at the end of this post provides a quick reference comparison of these laws (see Table 3).
Continue Reading Are You Ready for The Latest U.S. State Consumer Privacy Laws?
As we predicted a year ago, the Plaintiffs’ Bar continues to test new legal theories attacking the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology in courtrooms across the country. Many of the complaints filed to date have included the proverbial kitchen sink: copyright infringement; privacy law violations; unfair competition; deceptive and acts and practices; negligence; right of publicity, invasion of privacy and intrusion upon seclusion; unjust enrichment; larceny; receipt of stolen property; and failure to warn (typically, a strict liability tort).
A case recently filed in Florida federal court, Garcia v. Character Techs., Inc., No. 6:24-CV-01903 (M.D. Fla. filed Oct. 22, 2024) (Character Tech) is one to watch. Character Tech pulls from the product liability tort playbook in an effort to hold a business liable for its AI technology. While product liability is governed by statute, case law or both, the tort playbook generally involves a defective, unreasonably dangerous “product” that is sold and causes physical harm to a person or property. In Character Tech, the complaint alleges (among other claims discussed below) that the Character.AI software was designed in a way that was not reasonably safe for minors, parents were not warned of the foreseeable harms arising from their children’s use of the Character.AI software, and as a result a minor committed suicide. Whether and how Character Tech evolves past a motion to dismiss will offer valuable insights for developers of AI technologies.
Continue Reading Artificial Intelligence and the Rise of Product Liability Tort Litigation: Novel Action Alleges AI Chatbot Caused Minor’s Suicide
Join us for our Data Privacy Thought Leadership Series, where we dive into the latest trends shaping AI, marketing, and data monetization. With new state privacy laws, evolving regulatory requirements, and AI procurement challenges, this series offers practical insights to help you navigate the complex data privacy landscape.
Learn how to manage privacy assessments, stay compliant, and strengthen your data governance strategies to keep your organization ahead of the curve.
Speakers: Julia Jacobson, Elizabeth Berthiaume, Kyle Dull
In the first half of 2024, seven new state consumer privacy laws were enacted and three state consumer privacy laws became effective (plus one on October 1, 2024). Eight more state consumer privacy laws will become effective in 2025 and the California Privacy Protection Agency (CCPA) continued its rulemaking activity. Plus, 2024’s American Privacy Rights Act could gain traction now that Congress is back in session after the August recess. Join us on October 3rd for a rundown on where we are and what’s ahead for 2025 in consumer privacy.
Speakers: Kyle Fath, Niloufar Massachi, Gicel Tomimbang
The convergence of industry trends, business needs, and significant technology advances, particularly advancements in AI, marketing, and data monetization, has led many companies to collect more personal data and do more with it. This comes at a time when regulators are actively and aggressively pursuing privacy enforcement and over twenty states have passed comprehensive privacy laws, with most of them imposing consent obligations, opt-out rights, and even outright prohibitions with respect to specific activities or certain types of data.
Please join us for a discussion on consent, opt-out, and other regulatory requirements that are relevant to AI, marketing, and data monetization. Our goal is for you to leave this session armed with information that will help you identify risks, inform business decisions and strategy, and serve as a thoughtful and resourceful partner to your organization’s GC/CLO, business stakeholders, and C-suite.
Attend virtually or join us at our LA Office for further discussion and lunch.
Speakers: Alan Friel, Lydia de la Torre
Join Squire Patton Boggs Global Data Chair Alan Friel and of Counsel Lydia de la Torre, and former CPPA Board member, for a discussion on the next generation of CCPA regulations, including regarding employment, ADM / Profiling / AI, and Risk Assessments and Security Audits, as well as enforcement priorities and cooperation between regulators in the states that have enacted consumer privacy laws.
Speaker: Kyle Fath
State privacy laws already require, or will soon require, companies to carry out assessments – referred to as data protection assessments, risk assessments or DPIAs. These requirements extend to “high-risk” activities or those that involve a “heightened risk of harm,” including, in most cases, targeted advertising, the sale of personal data, and the processing of personal data, among other things. The Colorado Privacy Act and proposed regulations under the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) lay out detailed content requirements that companies must follow, including requiring significant input from both internal teams and external stakeholders, such as vendors and other recipients of personal data. In addition to prescriptive content requirements, businesses should also be aware of regulators’ ability to request copies of assessments under the state privacy laws, and the proposed CCPA regulations that would require businesses to file certifications of compliance and abridged versions of their assessments with the California Privacy Protection Agency.
Join us for this event where we will:
Speakers: Julia Jacobson, Charles Helleputte
The same thing, only different. Procuring AI presents many of the same challenges as procuring any other technology. An organization seeks to harness the full potential of the technology together with a supplier contract that minimizes risks. Two key issues distinguish Al procurement: AI systems are designed to continually learn and improve and the AI legal structure is dynamic. Tune in for a trans-Atlantic view on adapting technology and data governance risk management for AI procurement.
Regulators in states without omnibus state privacy laws, like New York, are staking their claim over privacy regulation and enforcement. After months of investigating the deployment of tracking technologies and privacy controls on various websites, the New York State Attorney General (“NY AG”) published its guidance, Website Privacy Controls: A Guide for Business. The NY AG also published a companion guidance for consumers, A Consumer Guide to Web Tracking, which provides a high-level overview of how websites track consumers and what steps consumers can take to protect their privacy. Stay tuned for potential enforcement actions and big-figure settlements. Will New York follow Texas in this regard?
NY AG Investigation and Findings
Tracking technologies, like cookies and tags (i.e., pixels), are utilized by businesses to collect and assess information regarding how individuals interact with the business’ website or mobile app. While tracking technologies can provide valuable insights for businesses, they also raise privacy concerns regarding data collection, selling, sharing, creation of detailed profiles about individuals that are used for targeted advertising, cross-site tracking that leads to a comprehensive understanding of an individual’s interests and behavior without the individual’s knowledge or consent, and more. The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) is attempting Section 5 Magnuson-Moss rulemaking on this, which they call surveillance capitalism.
Continue Reading Businesses Beware: New York Eyeing Privacy Regulation and Enforcement Even Absent Omnibus State Privacy Law
We reported earlier that at the July 16th California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) Board meeting, the Board would be considering a rulemaking package that staff prepared further the Board’s vote and direction in March. Copies of those documents are here. At the July 16th Board meeting the staff presented on those, and reported that it was still working on the required Standardized Regulatory Impact Assessment (SRIA) that will need to be approved by the CA Department of Finance prior to publication for public comment and the commencement of the formal rulemaking process. The Board also debated the substance of the draft rules but did not vote on them. The Board asked staff to make clear certain alternatives to the draft in the call for public comments, most notably if risk assessments related to processing that, results in consequential decision-making, should be for all processing or just processing using automated decision-making (ADM) technologies. Board Member MacTaggert raised several concerns about the current drafts, including:
Continue Reading California Privacy Regs Advance But Vote on Drafts Delayed