HB Litigation News

Tag: Regulations

  • Spotify Tells EU Apple is Hampering Competitors as Apple Music Surpasses Spotify in U.S. — MoginRubin

    [one-half-first][/one-half-first] [one-half]

    “Apple Music recently surpassed Spotify in the U.S. market, according to the Wall Street Journal, signing up 28 million subscribers compared to Spotify’s 26 million. Spotify continues to have more total subscribers, however.

    “Spotify Founder and CEO Daniel Elk took to the company blog to make his case, saying, “Apple operates a platform that, for over a billion people around the world, is the gateway to the internet. Apple is both the owner of the iOS platform and the App Store—and a competitor to services like Spotify. In theory, this is fine. But in Apple’s case, they continue to give themselves an unfair advantage at every turn.”

    “In a recent statement, Apple says it revolutionized the distribution of music with iTunes, and did the same thing with the App Store, something that has created “many millions of jobs” and, it says, generated more than $120 billion for developers and new industries.”

    Read the complete post on the MoginRubin Blog here!

    [/one-half]

  • National Geographic Disclosed Customer Info, Class Action Says — Top Class Actions Blog

    [one-half-first][/one-half-first] [one-half]

    “The National Geographic class action states that prior to and at the time that he subscribed to the magazine, the company did not notify him that it discloses the personal reading information of its customers.

    “Markham also claims that he wasn’t provided with any written notice that National Geographic makes a practice of renting, exchanging, or otherwise disclosing personal reading information to third parties, and provides no means of opting out.

    “However, the National Geographic information disclosure class action lawsuit says that since subscribing to National Geographic and between Mach 26, 2016 andJuly 30, 2016, National Geographic disclosed Markham’s personal reading information to data aggregators, data appenders, and/or data cooperatives.”

    Read the complete post by Top Class Actions Editor Emily Sortor here.

    [/one-half]

  • Two Judges Find Florida Medical Marijuana Law Unconstitutional

    The Program is ‘Absolutely Broken’ — Now What?

    Edited by Tom Hagy

    Florida Circuit Judge Karen Gievers just held that the Florida medical marijuana law is unconstitutional. Reporting on the judge’s Trulieve decision for the Florida Politics news service, journalist Jim Rosica called it “a rebuke to lawmakers and the Rick Scott Administration” that was “stunning even for” Judge Gievers. “In the spirit of boxing legend Muhammad Ali, known for his pre-fight rhymes, Gievers opined that in Florida ‘the medical marijuana system was broken. Now, in the Constitution, the people have spoken.’”

    Rosica reported that while Gov. Scott is appealing the major marijuana decisions against the state Department of Health, the transition team of Republican Governor-elect Ron DeSantis, including Lt. Gov.-elect  Jeanette Nuñez, has suggested that he will not continue to defend the law in court.

    Rosica continued: “Gievers, who retires in April, said her decision striking down the law ‘includ(ed), but (is) not limited to, replacement of the voter-selected registry plan with an arbitrary, inconsistent licensing scheme … throttling access of qualifying patients to … safe use of medical marijuana from (providers that) the Department has a clear, undisputed duty to register.’ In fact, just passing the law was itself unconstitutional, Gievers suggested: ‘Voters made clear in 2016 that the Legislature was to have no role in implementing access to and availability of medical marijuana.’” Read Rosica’s full article.

    ‘It is incumbent on the Legislature to fix this’

    Today I spoke with attorney Jonathan Robbins, who is actively litigating the matter on behalf of Tampa-based Florigrown. Robbins, chair of the cannabis practice at Akerman LLP , pointed to a similar holding in the Florigrown case, commenting that, yes, “yet another judge has found that the statute implementing the amendment is unconstitutional because of the arbitrary cap on the number of dispensaries that would qualify for licensing.”

    “This further illustrates,” Robbins told me, “that the Florida medical marijuana program is absolutely broken and needs to be fixed. But rather than the courts repairing it piecemeal, the Legislature needs to get something done. It is incumbent on the Legislature to fix this.”

    In the Florigrown case, Leon County Circuit Judge Charles Dodson granted an injunction and ordered DOH to issue licenses. Once DOH appealed that triggered an automatic stay. “We went back to Judge Dodson to lift the stay because people need their meds,” Robbins said. “The judge lifted the stay, but the DOH appealed to the 1st District to reimpose the stay, which the court did.” Briefing is under way.

    “Our client wants to operate but is restricted because the statute unconstitutionally creates special classes of companies entitled to licensing. Not only does it arbitrarily cap the number of licenses, it requires that licensees must be fully vertically integrated, meaning companies must cultivate, process and sell medical marijuana. This is inconsistent with what the citizens voted for,” Robbins said. He said this prohibits a company from merely dispensing the product, for example, effectively and unfairly shutting out many businesses.

    “The Legislature was charged with providing safe and affordable medical marijuana to patients who need it. All of this was to be in place in 2017. Here we are in 2019 and we still don’t have it,” Robbins said.

    While there are 14 companies operating and people can get marijuana, many more potential competitors are blocked from operating.

    Clearly, implementation of the law, overwhelmingly approved by Florida voters, has been less than smooth and requires quite a bit more ironing out. The lack of competition hurts businesses and patients alike, critics say. In the meantime there is plenty of confusion for companies ready to provide medical marijuana services in Florida.

    Join our webinar on Jan. 25,  when attorneys in the thick of the issue –  Akerman LLP  partners Jonathan S. Robbins  and  Ari H. Gerstin  — will share background, insights and practical guidance.

    What we will cover:

    • Background: Federal vs. State Law Conflict
    • History of Medical Marijuana in Florida
    • The 2016 Amendment to the Florida Constitution
    • Implementation of the State Medical Marijuana Program
    • Litigation Over the Constitutionality of the Implementation
    • Practical Considerations When Operating in This Industry
    • Banking and Insurance Issues
    • Ethical Considerations for Attorneys

    What you will get:

    • Up-to-the-minute insights from attorneys active in the litigation.
    • Thorough course materials for later reference.
    • Real-time answers to your questions via our moderated chat.
    • The ability to send questions in advance.
    • Continuing legal education credit (CLE)
    • Access for your entire team with a feed into your conference room.
    • No scheduling risk: Suddenly can’t make it? We will send you the recording.

    Register by Jan. 18 and save $50. 

  • CBD: Confusing Regulations May Soon Find at Least Some Clarity — But Proceed With Caution

    By Tom Hagy
    July 16, 2018

    Proponents 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:

    1. What is the source of the CBD? Is it coming from a licensed source? Is it derived from industrial hemp?

    2. What do the lab tests say? You must be sure the products do not contain THC (or more than .3%).

    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/

    4. 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.

    5. 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.