Author: Tom Hagy
-
RSA’s Zulfikar Ramzan on Blockchain
Is blockchain as impenetrable as people think? Or as necessary?
It’s not predicated on the same type of cryptographic security that we’ve seen historically, but if someone has enough money and enough motivation — like a nation state — couldn’t they severely compromise a system? Is blockchain the only way transactional protections can become so secure, or could traditional technologies be employed and with less effort?
RSA Security’s Chief Technology Officer Zulfikar Ramzan, Ph.D., spoke at our Cyber Sector Risk: Blockchain Security in April 2018 in New York. Hear what he had to say about this much-heralded technology.
Related content
https://hb.worryfreeweb.com/www-litigationconferences-comprivacysecurity-forum-2018-2/
International Cyber Risk Management Conference | Dec. 6-7, 2018 | Bermuda
The Urgency of Cyber Threats to U.S. and Global Critical Infrastructures | Video Session
-
Right to Try Act: Commentary Roundup

A Life Saver, Political Grandstand, or Harmful Scam?
Depends on Who You Ask. And When.

It’s been two months since President Donald J. Trump signed into law the Right to Try Act which allows terminally ill patients access to experimental drugs not yet approved by the FDA. Like many things in America in 2018, opinions on the efficacy of this new law vary along party or ideological lines. Will it give hope and precious life-extending solutions for patients fighting terminal disease? Or is it a money-driven scheme intended to enrich corporations and the super rich? Signed into law on May 24, 2018, is it something that can be implemented effectively? Here are a few quotes that explain the controversy.
Additional commentary or insights welcome.
Send yours to Editor@LitigationConferences.com.
“Timely access to promising treatments in … devastating circumstances.”
“This new law amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to establish a new pathway aimed at increasing access to unapproved, investigational treatments for patients diagnosed with life-threatening diseases or conditions who have exhausted approved treatment options and who are unable to participate in a clinical trial. Our implementation of the Right to Try Act will build on our long-standing efforts to help patients and families who are facing life-threatening diseases or conditions, in a way that seeks to protect their autonomy, their safety, and the safety of others following in their paths.”
“The decisions we reach related to products that can serve as an effective treatment for a terminal illness, or that can arrest a devastating and debilitating condition, are among the most important and carefully considered judgments that we make. We recognize the important balance between making sure patients have the assurances Congress intends, while enabling timely access to promising treatments in these devastating circumstances. And we’ll implement this new law consistent with these longstanding values.”
FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb

“GOP senator reveals the truth: Right-to-try bill was a scam tailored to harm public health”
“Anyone with a smidgen of knowledge about healthcare understood that the right-to-try legislation signed by President Trump on Wednesday was a scam, perpetrated by the Koch brothers and their henchmen.”
“Masquerading as a “compassionate” measure aimed at providing victims of terminal diseases with a last bit of hope that an experimental treatment might save them, it really was aimed at undermining the authority of the Food and Drug Administration to make sure our drugs are safe and effective.”
Read the full article in the Los Angeles Times.

“We remain skeptical about whether right-to-try statutes actually help anyone …
… as opposed to being political grandstanding. That said, from the perspective of attorneys representing pharmaceutical companies, this bill is about as good as it could be, and – to the extent that it extends preemption to the compassionate use program – it even marginally improves current law.”
Read the full commentary written by James M. Beck of Reed Smith on the Drug & Device Law Blog.
Note: Beck’s commentary was written in March 2018.

“Very little change for most patients …”
“Despite these state gains and the policy’s growing popularity among states, ethical questions remain about the tangible impact of a federal right to try law on Americans with terminal illnesses. Most notably, a growing body of evidence from policy analysts argues that the legislation would unfortunately accomplish very little change for most patients, and it could actually make it harder to get new drugs approved in the future.”
Written for CBS.com by Morten Wendelbo, a lecturer at the Bush School of Government and Public Service and a research fellow at the Scowcroft Institute of International Affairs at Texas A&M University, and Timothy Callaghan, assistant professor at Texas A&M University Health Science Center. Read the complete commentary.
Additional commentary or insights welcome.
Send yours to Editor@LitigationConferences.com.
This controversial topic will be on the agenda at the Drug & Device Defense Forum in New York Oct. 15, 2018.

-
Judy Selby on Improving Cyber and Privacy Board Reporting

“While general awareness of cyber risks among corporate boards is increasing, even the most motivated and knowledgeable directors cannot effectively fulfill their duties without receiving appropriate data about the organization’s risk profile. Unfortunately, however, there appears to be a disconnect between management and boards when it comes to cyber risk reporting . . . In order for directors to effectively discharge their duty of active, informed, and engaged oversight, the information they receive must be relevant, understandable, reliable, and objective.”
Judy Selby, JD
Judy Selby Consulting
Read the full article and Judy’s tips for improving board reporting.
Judy Selby of Judy Selby Consulting
-
BitSight Releases eBook on Use of A.I. & Big Data in Continuous Cyber Risk Monitoring

“With every reported data breach or cyberattack, the cyber risk landscape gets a little more complex. Cyber criminals create new attack vectors, cybersecurity professionals develop new controls to protect their systems, the criminals get to work circumventing the controls, and so on.The result of this back and forth is that cyber risk professionals have a huge variety of risk factors to worry about. In response, risk managers and security specialists need to develop extremely complex cybersecurity programs to make sure all of their bases are covered.
“With so many cybersecurity risks to consider, it’s inevitable that some will receive less attention than they deserve. Unfortunately, these overlooked risk factors could play a role in your next cyberattack, and if your financial services firm isn’t prepared, that could be extremely costly.” Read more.
We’re looking forward to seeing the BitSight team in Bermuda Dec. 6-7, 2018, at the International Cyber Risk Management Conference.
-
Crowell & Moring on Insurance for Autonomous Vehicles Accidents

“As responsibility for accidents shifts away from drivers and towards the companies that design, manufacture, and maintain autonomous vehicles, the pool of companies potentially liable for accidents will deepen.Companies need to consider potential liability risk when designing autonomous vehicle-related systems and partnering with other companies.”
Another good piece from the team Crowell & Moring LLP
-
Crowell & Moring on D&O Corporate Liability for Cyber Claims
“Although many commentators have noted the potential exposure for cyber claims in the form of shareholder actions under D&O coverage, little attention has been given to the risks of cyber exposure under Side C [D&O corporate liability] coverage,” write Laura A. Foggan and Thomas Kinney of Crowell & Moring LLP. “D&O policies contain many exclusions and coverage limitations that should protect against undue, unintended expansion of such policies to encompass cyber risks. However, as this case illustrates, courts may not always agree that those coverage limitations fully address cyber breach exposures.”
-
CBD: Confusing Regulations May Soon Find at Least Some Clarity — But Proceed With Caution
By Tom Hagy
July 16, 2018Proponents say the medical benefits are many and magnificent.
You can feel better without feeling stoned. While that will be disappointing to some, people enduring a variety of ailments may find relief, proponents and some studies say. From inflammation to pain to anxiety. From arthritis to alcoholism to diabetes. From psychoses to seizures. Cannabidiol may cure what ails you. And in many cases the science is there, even studies sponsored by the government, say the folks at Project CBD.
While the regulations vary from state to state, and the definitions can be confusing, clarity is coming for at least the hemp-derived variety of products – as opposed to its sister cannabis plant, marijuana – with the likely passage of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s Hemp Farm Bill. The measure is also noteworthy because it has drawn rare bipartisan support.
CBD can be found in just about anything, from skin care products to pain medications to anti-seizure drugs—even beer. Companies, including large retailers, like Target, have tried to sell or are selling products containing CBD online or across state lines.
While small compared to the marijuana industry, CBD is on a serious growth trajectory.
“Spending on legal cannabis worldwide is expected to hit $57 billion by 2027,” according to an article at Forbes.com, written by Thomas Pellechia, citing the research of Arcview Market Research and BDS Analytics. “The largest group of cannabis buyers will be in North America, going from $9.2 billion in 2017 to $47.3 billion a decade later.”
In a release from MarketNewsUpdates.com, “A new report by cannabis/legal marijuana market analysts firm Hemp Business Journal projects that the U.S. CBD market will grow to $2.1 billion by 2020, an astronomical jump in value compared to last year’s CBD market of $202 million. As the market continues to swell, it is expected the space will reach the billion-dollar status as product diversification and global demand drive revenue levels. One of the major drivers for the CBD market is the growing list of health benefits of CBD oil.”
Proceed with Caution
In his post for the Canna Law Blog – a must-follow for any attorney or company interested in the legal aspects of cannabis – attorney Daniel Shortt of Harris Bricken tells businesses they must know the rules.
“It is no secret that CBD is having a moment right now. Unlike its cousin tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which is another cannabinoid found in the cannabis plant, CBD is not psychoactive. It has been growing in popularity for years for medical and other applications, but has really taken off lately.”
Shortt offered five questions businesses must ask before diving in. Here is a truncated version of that list:
-
What is the source of the CBD? Is it coming from a licensed source? Is it derived from industrial hemp?
-
What do the lab tests say? You must be sure the products do not contain THC (or more than .3%).
-
Where is the CBD going to be sold? State laws vary and if you violate them you could face criminal sanctions. Read more here: https://www.cannalawblog.com/industrial-hemp-dont-forget-about-state-law/
-
What claims are you making about CBD? Are you claiming the product treats disease? You don’t want to make health claims or allow others to make them via testimonials on your website, for example.
-
Has the law changed? You must keep up with federal and state laws.
Read more.

Writing for the online news service CBD Origin, Aaron Cadena echoes Shortt’s first point, saying legality of CBD has to do with its origin. Does it come from hemp or does it come from marijuana? “[B]oth are members of the cannabis family,” Cadena writes, “so they do share a lot of characteristics. There is, however, a crucial difference between the two–the amount of psychoactive THC each plant produces …. In other words, marijuana can get you really high, while hemp has such a low amount of THC, that it would be impossible to get high off it.”
“Botanically speaking, there’s not a shred of difference between the two plants: Both are cannabis Sativa under the Linnean definition*,” writes Chris Roberts for Leafly.com. “Legally speaking, the two do indeed have a binary difference: One is federally legal, and the other is not.” (* Named for Swedish botanist Carolus Linnaeus or his modern system of botany and zoology. Who knew.)
It is because of these psychoactive differences that CBD taken from hemp – with no such effects – is legal almost everywhere in the U.S., while the legality of marijuana-derived products is a mixed bag.
Cadena’s article includes a survey of the various state laws regulating both forms of CBD. Read the full article to see which 46 states have legalized CBD with a prescription, the 17 that have specific legislation for THC levels and which conditions it’s to be used for, and the 29 states that have fully legalized medical use of both forms of CBD.
ProCon.org offered another survey, current as of May 8, 2018, providing summaries of the law in each state. The organization commented that “we do not consider passing a CBD-specific law to be the equivalent of making medical marijuana legal because these laws do not recognize the use of marijuana plant for medical purposes.” (For their survey of medical marijuana states, go here: https://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000881.)
The Hoosiers Take the Lead
Right now, Indiana has “the most robust regulations of hemp-derived CBD products.” In his post for the Canna Law Blog, Shortt wrote that, as of March 21, 2018, the state allows the distribution and retail sale of “low-THC hemp extract,” defined as a product “(1) derived from Cannabis sativa L. that meets the definition of industrial hemp; (2) that contains not more than 0.3% delta-9-THC (including precursors); and (3) that contains no other controlled substances.”
This is interesting, Shortt says, because it shows that Indiana is officially aware of CBD products and decided to allow their sale. “The catch is that those sales are restricted to a certain class of CBD products, and they are heavily regulated,” he says.
The list of labeling requirements will be a challenge for companies distributing across state lines. Some will not be selling in Indiana and others will comply, Shortt predicts.
“Indiana is unique in the sense that it allows CBD and also regulates its sale so robustly. Let’s hope for more positive cannabis developments in the Hoosier State,” Shortt writes.
Shortly after the Ninth Circuit’s CBD ruling, on May 22, 2018, the DEA issued an internal directive regarding products derived from cannabis but are not marijuana. They referenced an earlier Ninth Circuit ruling from 2004 which enjoined the DEA from enforcing certain THC regulations (See Hemp Industries Ass’n v. DEA, 357 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2004)).”
Responding to various inquires, the DEA issued the following to agency personnel:
“Products and materials that are made from the cannabis plant and which fall outside the CSA definition of marijuana (such as sterilized seeds, oil or cake made from the seeds, and mature stalks) are not controlled under the CSA. Such products may accordingly be sold and otherwise distributed throughout the United States without restriction under the CSA or its implementing regulations. The mere presence of cannabinoids is not itself dispositive as to whether a substance is within the scope of the CSA; the dispositive question is whether the substance falls within the CSA definition of marijuana.”
“[A]ny product that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection determines to be made from the cannabis plant but which falls outside the CSA definition of marijuana may be imported into the United States without restriction under the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act. The same considerations apply to exports of such products from the United States, provided further that it is lawful to import such products under the laws of the country of destination.”
The DEA explained, though, that its statements regarding the drug code for marijuana extract and regarding resin remain the same. “[T]he drug code for marijuana extract extends no further than the CSA does, and it thus does not apply to materials outside the CSA definition of marijuana.”
Mona Zhang, writing for Forbes.com, said there are CBD producers who source their hemp from cultivators that operate under the Farm Bill. “But given how widespread these products are, it’s unlikely that all of them were sourced from research hemp. And state laws on CBD and hemp vary widely. Colorado, which legalized adult-use marijuana in 2012, has a robust industrial hemp program and is home to the first U.S.-bred certified hemp seed. But in Massachusetts, where you can now grow marijuana at home, it’s still a crime to grow hemp without a state license …”
If only someone would do something at the federal level.
Clarity on the Horizon?

Harris Bricken attorney Shortt notes that U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell – in an attempt to settle the CBD matter – introduced a bill to legalize hemp on the federal level, an initiative that is getting rare bipartisan support: the Hemp Farming Act of 2018 or S.2667.
Shortt said that, while subject to change, hemp would be defined as: “the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including the seeds thereof and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with a delta-0 [THC] concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.”
“This proposed definition is significant,” Shortt writes, “because it specifically includes the term ‘extracts,’ thereby undermining the DEA’s much-maligned ‘marihuana extract’ rule, which broadly defines any extract from the cannabis plant as ‘marijuana’ and not hemp. The proposed ‘hemp’ definition also includes ‘cannabinoids’ contained in hemp which could add much needed legal certainty to the already booming CBD market. The Act would also explicitly remove hemp from the Controlled Substances Act’s definition of marijuana.”
Jason Amatucci, co-founder of CBD producer Anavii Market, said the Hemp Farming Act has bi-partisan support and has a “decent chance of actually getting signed into law this year.”
“It’s time the federal government changes the way it looks at hemp,” Sen. McConnell said when he announced the measure, adding, it will “modernize federal law in this area and empower American farmers to explore this promising new market.”
“The future of the legal American hemp derived CBD oil industry looks very bright even though some folks are still confused about the legality nuances. This new law will even further solidify the legality and legitimacy of the hemp derived CBD industry,” Amatucci says.
Sidebar: Marihuana?
For the etymology nerds out there, like me, Washington Post writer Christopher Ingraham wrote a piece on the DEA’s insistence on spelling marijuana with an “h” instead of a “j” – something this one-time Spanish student found jarring. I imagine actual Spanish-speaking people would say something like, “Yeah, we have bigger things to worry about,” except in Spanish. Ingraham uncovers some surprising theories but little hope for change. Read it now.
It’s ironic, I suppose, that the only letter the government is avoiding is the letter “j,” as in “jay” for joint. Maybe that’s the real reason for their spelling.
-
-
CBD: Legal or Not? | Webinar | Aug. 16, 2018 | 2pm

[two-fifths-first]
DATE: Thursday, Aug. 16, 2018
TIME: 2 p.m. EDT; 1 p.m. CDT; 12 p.m. MDT; 11 a.m. PDT
PLACE: Your computer
PRICE: $197 per dial-in site (unlimited attendance at one location) through Aug. 3, $247 thereafter
Register by Aug. 3 and save!
For more information, email leslie.davidson@litigationconferences.com.
Your webinar registration includes:
• A site license to attend this webinar (invite as many people in one location as you can fit around your computer at no extra charge).
• Downloadable PowerPoint presentations from our speakers.
• The opportunity to connect directly with speakers during the audience Q&A session.
• At least one-hour of CLE credit.
Speakers
Daniel Shortt
Harris Bricken
Seattle
Alison Malsbury
Harris Bricken
San Francisco[/two-fifths-first][three-fifths]
With so many studies coming out on the benefits of CBD, a lot of people and companies see tremendous market opportunities and are diving in.
Whether derived from industrial hemp or marijuana, these days CBD can be found in just about anything, from skin care products to pain medications to anti-seizure drugs—even beer. Companies, including large retailers like Target, have tried to sell or are selling products containing CBD online or across state lines.
But determining the legal status of CBD isn’t easy. Because CBD is a cannabis derivative, the biggest question, of course, is whether or not it’s even legal under state and federal law. How you answer that could mean the difference between significant revenue gains and significant losses—even the possibility of criminal prosecution—for your clients.
So, what do current federal laws say about the use of CBD? How do individual state regulations affect the legal status of CBD? What do the 2014 Federal Farm Bill and the Controlled Substances Act say about growing hemp? And what are the legal and business implications for companies operating in this space?
Get answers to these questions and more when you register to attend “CBD: Legal or Not? How State and Federal Laws Govern the Manufacture, Marketing, and Distribution of CBD Products” on Thursday, Aug. 16, 2018. Listen as experts Daniel Shortt and Alison Malsbury, both attorneys with Harris Bricken, provide information that can help your clients determine whether or not what they’re doing with CBD is legal.
You’ll learn about the two primary sources of legal CBD—industrial hemp cultivated in the U.S and hemp from abroad—and how the two distinct pathways differ. You’ll get practical do’s and don’ts for working lawfully in the hemp-CBD world despite its precarious legal status. You’ll come away with the most current data on the legalities of using CBD that could change the advice you give your clients about working within the law and avoiding possible criminal prosecution.
Who Should Attend
Whether you’re a local government official, state regulator, or an attorney with clients in the state-legal cannabis industry—anyone who needs to make sense of the current laws that govern the manufacture, marketing, sales, and distribution of products containing CBD—this is one webinar you can’t afford to miss.
For one low price—just $197 (through Aug. 3, $247 thereafter)—you and your entire team at one location can take part in this fast-paced, insightful webinar. Best of all, you’ll be able to connect personally with our speakers when we open things up for questions from the audience.
Here is just some of what you’ll learn during this in-depth 90-minute session:
• How to interpret current state and federal laws governing the use and sale of products containing CBD.
• The key questions to ask that will help determine if your CBD comes from a legal source—and what to do if it doesn’t.
• How to find out which part of the plant your CBD is created from—and how what you learn could affect the legal status of your product.
• What FDA approval of the first CBD drug, Epidiolex, means for the industry.
• Marketing: The claims you can (and shouldn’t) make about your CBD products.
• What the FDA has to say about marketing CBD as a supplement.
• Is trademark protection possible under current law for CBD products—and if it is, how do you get it?
• The prerequisites for legally selling CBD products across state lines or in stores that aren’t licensed to sell marijuana.And more!
Speaker Bios
Daniel Shortt is an attorney with Harris Bricken and works extensively with entrepreneurs in the cannabis industry. He is an authority on legal issues relating to CBD and hemp laws and has spoken on these topics at events across the country and overseas.
Mr. Shortt helps clients with corporate formation, transactional, licensing, regulatory, and litigation needs. He writes for the award-winning Canna Law Blog and speaks to media outlets about his perspective on legal issues in marijuana and hemp.
Mr. Shortt graduated from the University of Washington School of Law where he worked extensively with the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board to fund and establish the Cannabis Law and Policy Project (CLPP). He then served as the editor of the CLPP blog and as a Hazelton Fellow researching cannabis law.
Alison Malsbury is an attorney with Harris Bricken. She focuses her practice on corporate and intellectual property transactions, working primarily with cannabis, tech, and entertainment clients. Ms. Malsbury has assisted clients with contracts, company formation, intellectual property protection, and regulatory compliance, and has worked with creative entrepreneurs at all stages of business development. She has a growing practice representing celebrities on cannabis endorsement deals and helping cosmetic and skin care companies navigate the complex CBD laws.
Before joining Harris Bricken, Ms. Malsbury worked with the in-house legal team of one of the largest software companies in the world on its trademark and technology licensing issues.
Ms. Malsbury graduated cum laude from Santa Clara University School of Law where she was the technical editor for the Santa Clara Journal of International Law.
REGISTER NOW
[/three-fifths]
-
California Enacts the ‘First Truly Sweeping Privacy Regime’ in Record Time
The California legislature — apparently not wanting to be pegged as just another slow-moving governing body — took the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 from proposal to passage to signing in one week.Critics weren’t sitting on their hands either.
“Businesses Blast California’s New Data-Privacy Law,” read one headline in the Wall Street Journal. For consumers, Californians anyway, the good news is that they can refuse to allow companies to sell their personal data. But, the WSJ reported, business across the country say the law will cause “far-reaching damage to everything from retailers’ customer-loyalty programs to data gathering by Silicon Valley tech giants.”
Law firms are cranking out their advisories and analyses.
Sullivan & Cromwell says the CCPA establishes a new privacy framework for covered businesses by:
“Creating an expanded definition of personal information for purposes of the Act;
“Creating new data privacy rights for California consumers, including rights to know, access, have deleted and opt out of the sale of their personal information;
“Imposing special rules for the collection of consumer data from minors; and
“Creating a new and potentially severe statutory damages framework for violations of the Act and for businesses that fail to implement reasonable security procedures and practices to prevent data breaches.”
The firm also offered a quick comparison between the CCPA and the GDPR. “At a high level, the CCPA bears certain similarities to GDPR, the comprehensive regulation governing the “processing of personal data” of EU residents. But the CCPA and GDPR provide for differing rights, obligations, and exceptions, and compliance with one will not necessarily ensure compliance with the other. For example, unlike GDPR, the CCPA does not generally (other than with respect to minors) require businesses to implement an “opt-in” system to obtain consumers’ consent prior to processing their information. Instead, the CCPA requires businesses to allow consumers to “opt-out” of having their information sold. Thus, businesses will need to develop a CCPA compliance strategy in light of these and other differences with GDPR. Businesses may choose to adopt differentiated policies for consumers in different jurisdictions, or may seek to create a unified global policy that adopts the most consumer favorable protections from the CCPA and GDPR (and, of course, other applicable regulations).”
A Ropes & Gray team wrote that now is the time for companies to evaluate the impact of the law on their options, even though it does not go into effect until 2020. “Perhaps reflecting the rushed manner in which the legislation was adopted, there remains considerable ambiguity about some key provisions within the Act. For example … companies are not permitted to discriminate against consumers who exercise their rights under the Act through differentiated pricing or lower service levels. However, the Act provides that companies may offer a different price if the consumer allows the company to sell their data, provided the price difference is “directly related to the value provided to the consumer by the consumer’s data.” Presumably, this is intended to mean the value provided to the consumer in exchange for their data, but on its face, it would appear that companies are required to calculate the intrinsic value to the consumer of their personal information.
Covington & Burling attorneys said “the California legislature is expected to further revise the CCPA before it takes effect in 2020,” but businesses should start to prepare. “Covered businesses should assess whether existing practices involving the collection, use, or sharing of data implicates the personal information identifiers defined in the act. If so, it might be prudent to consider changes, such as minimizing the collection of certain personal identifiers where practicable, modifying third party contracts involving the sale or sharing of personal Data Privacy and Cybersecurity information, and adjusting data privacy policies and procedures to comply with the CCPA. Companies in highly regulated industries that already are subject to sector-specific federal privacy laws will want to consider the potential availability of exemptions under the CCPA. For example, the CCPA does not apply to personal information that is collected, processed, sold, or disclosed by a financial institution pursuant to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (“GLBA”) if the CCPA is in conflict with the GLBA. Additionally, with personal information increasingly employed to optimize products and services, covered businesses across industries, particularly those utilizing data monitoring and analytic tools, should anticipate the need to allocate resources and prepare for increased operating costs associated with, among other things, optimizing data retention policies, training personnel, enabling consumers to submit requests to access, delete, or opt out of the sale of their personal information, updating consumer notice practices, and other organizational and infrastructure changes.”
Morrison & Foerster attorneys commented that with the passage of the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (AB 375), “the United States now has its first truly sweeping privacy regime.”
The Act is a first, the firm writes, “not only because of its expansive scope, but also because of the process by which it was enacted. Never before has such sweeping privacy legislation been enacted in the span of a single week, with limited input from key stakeholders. While this fast track averted the ballot initiative and the challenges presented by the initiative, it also left a complex—and messy—privacy regime whose exact scope is not clear.”
“In the short term,” the MoFo analysis continues, “businesses undoubtedly will continue their efforts to identify and advocate for amendments to clarify key ambiguities, including the scope of consumers’ private right of action and civil enforcement actions. Businesses may also seek to amend onerous provisions, such as the requirement that businesses disclose to consumers both categories of PI and “specific pieces” of PI collected about them. Separately, businesses should also monitor for any regulatory proposals by the California AG to implement the Act and be prepared to advocate accordingly.”
Read the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 for yourself.




