Photo of Alan Friel

Alan Friel

Contact:Read more about Alan Friel

Hundreds of lawyers and several privacy regulators from California, Washington State, Oregon, Colorado, Connecticut, and the Federal Trade Commission gathered in Los Angeles last week for the second annual California Lawyers Association Privacy Summit (“Summit”). Among many engaging sessions on pressing topics, the panels with privacy regulators stood out discussions on enforcement priorities and administrative fines and injunctions, along with punchy and newsworthy statements – including that they are “plotting” and that considering the typical investigation presents “hundreds or thousands of violations,” potential fines are “significant.”

Perhaps even more newsworthy is that due to a California Court of Appeal order laid down as the Summit wound down on Friday, the stay in enforcement of the CCPA regulations was lifted. This happened as many companies were treating March 29, 2024, the end of the stay period, as the effective and enforcement date of regulations promulgated under the CPRA’s amendments by the California Privacy Protection Agency. The appeals order also nullifies the year delay in effectiveness of issued CCPA regulations that the trial court had required, making almost certain that CCPA regulations on risk assessments, cybersecurity assessments, and automated decision-making and profiling will be promulgated and in effect sometime this year, perhaps as early as Q2 or Q3.

Will 2024 be the year of privacy enforcement? In view of signaling from California regulators and those in other jurisdictions, and in view of several upcoming effective dates and regulatory deadlines, ongoing enforcement by regulators in California and beyond, and an impending uptick in privacy enforcement, it just might be. Stay tuned for future posts on these issues. Keep reading for more detailed takeaways regarding the Summit.Continue Reading Potential CCPA Fines “Significant”, California AG’s Office “Plotting” and Other Takeaways From Privacy Regulators during Privacy Summit in Los Angeles

Acting expeditiously in part in response to recent events, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) declared on February 8 that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s “restrictions on the use of ‘artificial or prerecorded voice’ encompass current [artificial intelligence (“AI”)] technologies that generate human voices.” Therefore, the FCC ruled “calls that use such technologies fall under the TCPA and the [FCC’s]…implementing rules and…require the prior express consent of the called party to initiate such callas absent an emergency purpose or exemption.” If telemarketing is involved, prior express written consent is required. However, contrary to other media reports, the FCC ruling neither bans use of AI, nor even requires consent to use AI to create content that is in text or that is subsequently converted into artificial voice. Rather, it merely equates AI-voice generation to other forms of artificial or prerecorded voice messages for TCPA consent purposes. Since prior express consent to use of artificial or prerecorded voice messages is what the TCPA requires, that is what the consent should cover. However, it is advised that the use of AI to generate such audio content should also be disclosed as part of the consent.Continue Reading FCC Rules Voice-Cloned Robocalls Are Covered by the TCPA as Artificial/Pre-Recorded

Whether to and how to integrate AI into business operations remains a real challenge for companies considering the adoption of the technology. We have released “Ten Things About Artificial Intelligence (AI) for GCs in 2024” providing 10 key insights as a helpful guide on the issues around AI. Our global team stands ready…

On Friday, February 9, the Court of Appeal of the State of California sided with the California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA” or “Agency”), finding that a California Superior Court judge erred when he issued an order staying the Agency’s enforcement of the regulations promulgated pursuant to the CPRA’s amendments to the CCPA until March 29…

As state legislation increasingly regulates sensitive data, and expands the concepts of what is sensitive, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) is honing-in on sensitive data processing in expanding its unfairness authority in relation to privacy enforcement. The FTC’s recent enforcement activities regarding location aware data is a good example. As we have previously reported here and here, Kochava, an Idaho-based data broker, is currently embroiled in a federal lawsuit with the Commission that has the potential to redefine the legal bounds of sensitive data collection, use and sharing and the data brokering industries on a federal level.Continue Reading Sensitive Data Processing is in the FTC’s Crosshairs

The first month of 2024 brought two new state privacy laws. On January 18, the New Hampshire legislature passed the 15th US state consumer privacy law (notably, still subject to some procedural requirements and signature by Governor Chris Sununu before it is officially law). The New Hampshire law was passed a few days after New Jersey’s new consumer privacy law (Approved P.L.2023, c.266) was signed into law on January 16. 

Both new state consumer privacy laws follow the now-familiar format, offering consumer privacy rights and requiring role-based data processing agreements, but with a few notable differences. A more detailed comparison follows.Continue Reading New Jersey and New Hampshire Pass Consumer Privacy Laws – and 11 Other States Are Considering Similar Laws

On January 18, during a luncheon fireside chat at the California Lawyers Association’s UCL Institute event in Los Angeles, Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) Bureau of Consumer Protection Director Samuel Levine shared his insights on what data practices are of concern to him and to the FTC.  Companies should take heed of his comments, the highlights…

Most U.S. public companies are gearing up to prepare and file their annual reports (Forms 10-K) between February 29th and April 1st.  This year’s preparations will be busier because the Regulations on Cybersecurity Risk Management, Strategy, Governance, and Incident Disclosure (Cyber Risk Regulations) issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) are now in force. Continue Reading FBI and DOJ Issue Guidance on SEC Incident Reporting Delay Requests

2023 was an eventful year for privacy legislation, regulation and regulatory enforcement. The compliance landscape continues to develop and evolve rapidly, making it difficult for covered businesses to keep up with the myriad requirements. In this post, we discuss some of the year’s most interesting privacy compliance developments globally.Continue Reading 2023 Privacy Compliance Year in Review

On January 8, New Jersey’s General Assembly and Senate passed a consumer privacy bill, S332, which would grant New Jersey residents several rights, and obligate controllers and processors of New Jersey residents to take action. The law is similar to consumer privacy laws passed last year in other states, with some distinctions.

Note:…