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.
Posts published in “Compliance Management”
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on June 2 announced a settlement with a Tennessee-based company and its subsidiaries that provide short-term loans (payday or auto-title) for the lenders' conduct at all stages of their operations, including providing “deceptive finance charge disclosures … failing to refund overpayments ... and engaging in unfair debt collection practices.”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently affirmed entry of summary judgment against a consumer debtor who claimed that a collection letter’s language, implying that interest or other charges (which the debt collector did not collect on debts referred to it by the creditor and were not referenced in the subject credit agreement) could accrue in the event of a default, violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
A number of states have tolled the statutes of limitations on legal actions in response to COVID-19. The Iowa Supreme Court announced a toll on statutes of limitations in a March 17 order regarding court procedures. According to a March 23 operations summary from the Iowa Judicial Branch: “The March 17th order is intended to toll the statute of limitations or similar deadline for commencing an action in district court by 48 days. Tolling means you add that amount of time to the statute of limitations. So, for example, if the statute would otherwise run on April 8, 2020, it…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that the trial court had Article III jurisdiction and did not abuse its discretion in approving a settlement between a social media company and a nationwide class of its users who alleged that the social media company routinely scanned and collected their private information without their consent.
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.