Assembly Bill 713 was approved by California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sept. 25, 2020, at which time its provisions went into effect. The legislation amends the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) in part by addressing certain issues related to de-identified patient information.
Posts published by “Eric Rosenkoetter”
Eric Rosenkoetter is a principal at Maurice Wutscher LLP, and is focused on advising clients with respect to federal and state consumer financial protection laws and data privacy and security, and he is a Certified Information Privacy Professional though the International Association of Privacy Professionals. He also brings to the table experience as a litigator, chief compliance and ethics officer, director of legislative affairs, federal lobbyist, and administrative hearings officer. Eric earned his Juris Doctor from Washington University School of Law, and his Bachelor of Business Administration from Southern Methodist University. He is a member of the International Association of Privacy Professionals, the Receivables Management Association International (RMAI), and ACA International. He is admitted to practice law in Texas and Missouri and in the U.S. District Courts for the Northern, Southern, Eastern, and Western Districts of Texas. For more information, see https://mauricewutscher.com/attorneys/eric-rosenkoetter/
On Sept. 9, 2020, California Assembly Bill 1885 was enacted, significantly increasing the amount of California’s homestead exemption. The amendment becomes effective Jan. 1, 2021.
In a case of first impression for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the Court joined the Sixth Circuit in holding that obtaining a consumer report to verify a consumer’s identity and eligibility for a service is a “legitimate business need” and therefore a “permissible purpose” under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
On June 1, the Office of the California Attorney General filed its proposed Final Text of Regulations relating to the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) with the California Office of Administrative Law.
The “Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act,” HF 3936, is a walleye-size privacy bill that significantly expands on the California Consumer Privacy Act. Unlike the CCPA, it does not include a dollar threshold for applicability.
Instead of introducing one all-encompassing bill addressing consumer data privacy issues, legislators in Wisconsin have introduced three consecutively-numbered privacy bills.
Rhode Island S 2430 is titled the “Consumer Privacy Protection Act” and has a number of provisions similar to the California Consumer Privacy Act, though the annual gross income threshold is much lower.
Although just over five pages in length (excluding the cover page and three-page summary), New Jersey S269 is not your garden-variety piece of privacy legislation and is packed with plenty of weedy issues.
Legislators in Mississippi recently introduced SB 2548. the "Mississippi Consumer Data Privacy Act." The bill contains provisions similar to the California Consumer Privacy Act but goes further than the CCPA with a lower annual gross revenue threshold, applying to any for-profit business, or any entity that controls or is controlled by such a business, that does business in Mississippi.
Illinois SB 3299 and HB 5603 are nearly identical and would create the “Consumer Privacy Act.”
Idaho HB 425 was introduced on Feb. 6, 2020, to address the perceived issue that “current Idaho law enables excessive attorney's fees and fails to provide judges with clear guidance to combat abuses of the collections process.” This proposed law would apply to “any person” and does not limit its application to debt collectors.
Consumer data privacy appears to be on the minds of legislators in Arizona this session. As previously mentioned, House Concurrent Resolution 2013 was introduced in Arizona on Jan. 10, 2020, by five Republicans and one Democrat declaring: That the Members of the Legislature oppose the enactment of laws, the adoption of regulations or the imposition of out-of-state standards that would restrict or otherwise dictate standards related to consumer data privacy, absent a clear nexus with consumer harm. That the Members of the Legislature believe a single federal standard for comprehensive consumer data privacy regulation is preferable to a state-by-state approach. Not…