Sasha Kiosse

Contact:Read more about Sasha Kiosse

In a final push before adjourning for the summer, state legislators across the country contemplated consumer privacy laws.  Three legislatures made it to the finish line.  One – Minnesota’s state legislature passed the Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act on May 19th as part of an appropriations bill, which was signed by Minnesota’s governor on May 24th.  Of the other two, one is pending gubernatorial action, and the other was vetoed.

The Rhode Island Data Transparency and Privacy Protection Act (RI-DTPA) was passed by the state legislature on June 13th.  Before RI-DTPA becomes law, Governor McKee must either sign, take no action or veto it.  If signed, RI-DTPA is in force on January 1, 2026, like the Indiana Consumer Data Protection Act and Kentucky Consumer Data Privacy.

We are not, however, making assumptions about RI-DTPA’s passage.  This post was originally planned to cover the Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act and the Vermont Data Privacy Act, not the RI-DTPA.  On June 13th (the same day that RI-DTPA was passed), Vermont’s Governor Phil Scott vetoed the Vermont Data Privacy Act.  In his letter to Vermont’s General Assembly, Governor Scott noted that the Vermont Data Privacy Act created “big and expensive new burdens and competitive disadvantages for the small and mid-sized businesses Vermont communities rely on.”  He also noted that the private right of action is “a national outlier, and more hostile” than any other state privacy law, notwithstanding its limited scope and sunset.  He raised the possibility of a First Amendment challenge to the Age-Appropriate Design Code (Section 6), noting that “similar legislation in California has already been [preliminarily enjoined] for likely First Amendment violations.” (See here.)  A veto override was not successful.

The RI-DTPA already faces opposition from privacy advocacy organizations claiming that RI-DTPA is too weak (see, e.g., here).  Advertising associations also reportedly oppose RI-DTPA.  Nonetheless, we have highlighted some key elements of RI-DTPA in this post so you can decide for yourself, together with answers to FAQs about the Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act (MN-CDPA) and how it is similar to and different from the other state consumer privacy laws.Continue Reading Minnesota Makes 19: Will Rhode Island’s Privacy Law Replace Vermont’s Vetoed Privacy Law as #20?

Since its inception in 1998, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) has been the cornerstone of protecting the personal data of minors under the age of 13 in the United States. COPPA imposes various requirements, including parental consent, notice and transparency, and data minimization, among other things, on online services that are “directed to children [under 13]” and “mixed audience” online services, or those that have actual knowledge that they have collected personal data from a child [under 13] online.

Many organizations that previously did not have to worry about COPPA or COPPA-based standards as applied to state consumer privacy laws should be aware of the trend in state privacy legislation to expand restrictions and obligations beyond COPPA’s under age 13 standard, to minors that are at least 13 and under the age of 18 (“Teens”). This trend began in 2020 with the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) requiring consent for “sale” of personal information of consumers at least age 13 but younger than 16 years of age  (the California Privacy Rights Act expanded that requirement to “sharing” as well). Consent must be given by the Teen or, if the consumer is under age 13, by the parent, using COPPA verification standards. Other relevant aspects regarding this trend, of which organizations should be aware, include:Continue Reading Trending: Teens’ Data Subject to Heightened Restrictions Under Ten (and Counting?) State Privacy Laws

1. Introduction

The Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence, Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law has been concluded by the Council of Europe (CoE) Committee on Artificial Intelligence on March 24, 2024, finally landing a decisive blow with a provisional agreement on the text of a treaty on artificial intelligence and human rights (Treaty).

This Treaty is the first of its kind and aims to establish basic rules to govern AI that safeguard human rights, democratic values and the rule of law among nations. As a CoE treaty, it is open for ratification by countries worldwide. It is worth noting that in this epic battlefield, apart from the CoE members in one corner of the global arena, on the opposite corner, representing various nations like the US, the UK, Canada and Japan, we have the observers, eyeing the proceedings, ready to pounce with their influence. Although lacking voting rights, their mere presence sends shockwaves through the negotiating ring, influencing the very essence of the Treaty.Continue Reading Heavyweight Fight, Did the US or EU KO the AI Treaty?

This week, House Committee on Energy and Commerce Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) and Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation Chair Maria Cantwell (D-WA) unveiled their bipartisan, bicameral discussion draft of the American Privacy Rights Act (APRA draft).[1] Chair Rodgers’ and Chair Cantwell’s announcement of the APRA draft surprised many congressional observers after comprehensive privacy legislation stalled in 2022.Continue Reading April’s APRA: Could Draft Privacy Legislation Blossom into Law in 2024?

In 2023, we analyzed the laws in Arkansas, Texas and Utah that require age verification and parental consent before allowing minors to create accounts on social media and other interactive platforms.  A similar law – Secure Online Child Interaction And Age Limitation (SOCIAL) Act – was passed in Louisiana, which has an in-force date of July 1, 2024.  Ohio legislators also enacted the Parental Notification by Social Media Operators Act (Ohio Act).  All of these laws have requirements that are similar to the proposed federal law titled “Kids Online Safety Act” (KOSA), which we explain in a companion post).Continue Reading Protecting Kids Online – Part II

Protection for minors online continues to top the list of U.S. regulatory and legislative priorities in 2024. So far in 2024, legislators in California introduced several bills focused on minors; Congress held hearings and advanced federal legislation protecting minors online; and constitutional challenges to 2023 state laws focused on minors’ social networking accounts advanced in the Courts. Congress and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) are looking to update the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act and corresponding Rule, as detailed in another post. However, the proposals explained in this post extend far beyond online privacy concerns, and we believe more focus on minors’ online safety is on the way.Continue Reading Protecting Kids Online: Changes in California, Connecticut and Congress – Part I

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 October 10, 2023, Governor Newsom signed into law SB 362, known as the “California Delete Act” or “Delete Act”, which had been passed by the legislature at the end of the 2023 legislative session on September 14. The Delete Act amends California’s existing Data Broker Registration law (Cal. Civ. Code Section 1798.99.80 et. seq). Among other things, the law imposes additional registration requirements on top of those that already exist, doubles the administrative fine for failure to register, requires the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) to set up a one-stop shop deletion mechanism that allows consumers to make requests to all registered data brokers, and obligates data brokers to access the mechanism every 45 days and process each and every deletion request made by consumers within a prescribed timeframe (including directing all service providers and contractors of the request).Continue Reading California Delete Act Imposes New Obligations on Data Brokers

Since our July 13 post about the European Commission’s formal adoption of the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (EU DPF), members of our Data Privacy, Cybersecurity & Digital Assets Practice have been hard at work helping clients prepare for and complete the certification process. We prepared for our readers answers to some of the most frequently asked questions we have received over the past few months.Continue Reading You have Questions, We have Answers: Data Privacy Framework FAQs

Until late August 2023, California’s data protection law, the California Consumer Privacy Act, or “CCPA,” only provided for future rulemaking on automated decision-making, including profiling, on risk assessments, and on cybersecurity audits. However, during a board meeting it held this past Friday, September 8th, the California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA” or “Agency”), which shares enforcement authority of the CCPA with the California Attorney General, discussed a new set of draft regulations (“Regs”) it released for Agency discussion purposes in late August 2023. While not yet part of the official rulemaking, the draft and the discussions around it provides direction on its upcoming rulemaking on these topics. We will refer to the draft and related commentary as the “Roadmap.” Most notably, the Roadmap proposes that condensed versions of assessments and audits completed by businesses pursuant to their CCPA obligations be filed with the CPPA and sets forth detailed obligations surrounding such assessments and audits. The implication of this is that it may become obvious to the Agency which companies are or are not conducting assessments or audits and thus complying with their CCPA obligations. It may also provide the Agency an easily accessible way to review the evaluate businesses’ practices, especially with regard to higher risk processing activities. Furthermore, the Agency’s Roadmap suggests assessment requirements that not only incorporate, but exceed, what is required in the Colorado regulations, including risk / harm assessments of any monitoring of personnel or students, or monitoring of consumers in public places. We will be co-hosting a webinar with Ankura to take a deeper dive into what companies should be doing regarding assessments and audits. Register here to join us on October 18 to learn more.Continue Reading California’s Potential Approach to Regulations on Risk Assessments and Cybersecurity Audits Could Be a Game Changer