A number of legislative proposals seeking to amend the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) are moving forward following an April 23 hearing before the California Assembly’s Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection in which the bills were approved. The bills will now advance to the Assembly’s Appropriations Committee before being voted on by the full Assembly and potentially advancing to the California Senate for consideration.
-
AB 25 would modify the definition of “consumer” to exclude certain employment-related information.
-
AB 846 would amend the anti-discrimination provision (§1798.125) to clarify that it would not prohibit a business from offering different levels of service or price if such differential treatment is in connection with a consumer’s voluntary participation in a loyalty, rewards, premium features, discount, or club card program.
-
AB 873 would amend the much-criticized definition of “deidentified” to be “information that does not reasonably identify or link, directly or indirectly, to a particular consumer, provided that the business makes no attempt to reidentify the information, and takes reasonable technical and administrative measures designed to: (1) ensure that the data is deidentified, (2) publicly commit to maintain and use the data in a deidentified form, and (3) contractually prohibit recipients of the data from trying to reidentify it.” It would also refine the definition of “personal information” to remove the term “household” from the definition as well as the expansive formulation “is capable of being associated with.”
-
AB 874 would amend the definition of “personal information” to clarify that it does not include deidentified or aggregate consumer information. It would also revise the definition of “publicly available” by removing the sentence “Information is not ‘publicly available’ if that data is used for a purpose that is not compatible with the purpose for which the data is maintained and made available in the government records or for which it is publicly maintained.”
-
AB 981 would exempt insurance institutions, agents, and support organizations to which the Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act applies from the CCPA.
-
AB 1146 would limit the scope of the CCPA’s exemption for vehicle information shared between a dealer and the vehicle’s manufacturer to clarify that the CCPA’s transparency obligations, access rights, and private right of action for breaches still apply, but such information would not be subject to the right of deletion or the right to opt-out of sales.
-
AB 1564 would modify the requirement in§ 1798.130 that currently mandates that a business make available two or more designated methods for consumers to submit access requests, including at minimum a toll-free telephone number and a web address, to instead require only that a business make available a toll-free telephone number or an email address, or if the business maintains a website, a method to submit requests via the website.
Also of note, AB 1760, the CCPA amendments bill from Assemblymember Buffy Wicks that proposed to significantly change the law’s provisions, including to require affirmative opt-in consent to share personal information, was withdrawn from consideration by the Committee and has been confirmed by the sponsor’s office as “dead for the year.”
Finally, AB 1138, a bill introduced by Assemblymember James Gallagher to amend California’s Parent’s Accountability and Child Protection Act (entering into force on January 1, 2020 to prohibit the creation of social media accounts by minors under 16 years of age without parental consent) by clarifying the law’s definition of “social media” and setting a January 1, 2021 deadline for Department of Justice guidelines on parental consent.
The Senate Judiciary Committee was also scheduled in its April 23 hearing to consider SB 753, an amendment to exempt certain data sharing related to targeted advertising from CCPA “do not sell” compliance requirements. However, as the hearing extended into the late evening hours without reaching SB 753, sponsor Senator Henry Stern pulled the bill from the hearing’s remaining agenda.
[View source.]
