Big tech companies are the clear target of the California Consumer Privacy Act, but its reach is much wider than just Silicon Valley. The threshold question, therefore, for each business looking at CCPA compliance, including auto dealerships, is whether the law applies to them. Not all businesses are covered by the CCPA; understanding whether your is will be key.

On October 10, 2019, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra released proposed regulations to implement the California Consumer Privacy Act. These regulations focus on one aspect of the CCPA, the consumer’s new rights under the law, and give businesses guidance on how to effectuate these rights and comply with the law. This now triggers the process of public comment and finalization of the rule, which will extend into 2020.

Scali Rasmussen Managing Partner Christian Scali has been recognized for his accomplishments as a leading attorney within the Los Angeles business community and selected as a nominee for the Los Angeles Business Journal’s Leaders in Law Awards.

In June of 2018, on the last day to qualify ballot measures for the 2018 ballot, California adopted AB 375, the strongest privacy law in the nation. The new law is modeled somewhat on the European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which famously purports to give customers the “right to be forgotten,” and gives consumers several new rights, aiming to bring more control and transparency to the murky trade and use of people's personal data. It also, for the first time, provides consumers with the ability to sue companies that mishandle their data without ever having to prove harm due to the misuse.

A recent California Court of Appeal decision stresses the importance of evidentiary rulings in jury trials, and it demonstrates what types of evidence may be found admissible (or inadmissible) in sexual harassment cases. In Meeks v. Autozone Inc. et al., a female employee sued her employer and one of its managers for claims of sexual harassment, failure to prevent sexual harassment, and retaliation in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act. The employee, a manager, alleged that she had been harassed by another manager over an extended period of time and that, when she complained, she was threatened with termination if she did not “squash” her complaint. The trial court dismissed the employee’s retaliation claim, finding that no reasonable juror could find in the employee’s favor, and the jury returned verdicts for the employer on the remaining causes of action.

The Federal Trade Commission in March of 2019 proposed new changes to its Safeguards Rule, which dictates how a financial institution must protect consumer data. In a recent statement the National Automobile Dealers Association opposed the proposed Rule change, citing a study that indicates that the rule change would impose hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional costs on dealers of all sizes. For California dealers that are facing compliance with the California Consumer Privacy Act, though, the question is whether the proposed change to the Rule would impose changes that differ significantly from CCPA requirements.

For decades the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) has required a “wet signature” on an odometer disclosure for sales of vehicles 10 model-years old or less. That era came to an end this September as NHTSA released its final rule allowing states to develop new odometer disclosure forms that may use an electronic signature. The rule also expands the disclosure requirement to cover vehicles 20 model-years or less. However, for California dealers there remain state laws to prevent fully electronic vehicle sales, and therefore additional steps before California can move into the electronic future.

It has now been four years since we initially reported on the new rules proposed by the Department of Labor to update the minimum salary requirement for the federal white collar overtime and minimum wage exemptions. Since then, the proposed rules have bounced around between the DOL under multiple presidential administrations, the federal courts, and the public forum during public comment periods. We have been on the sidelines reporting play-by-play on the status of these rules at every turn and it appears that we may finally have some resolution!

Last year, we discussed the California Supreme Court decision in Dynamex v. Superior Court, wherein the Court imposed a more stringent standard for employers to show that a worker is an independent contractor and not an employee. This month, Governor Gavin Newsom passed a law that incorporates the Dynamex decision into statutory law and gives the law broader scope.

The type of biometric privacy lawsuit filed last month against a Hilton Hotel in Chicago is a harbinger of privacy litigation to come—but a very similar case is not likely to come soon to California, where the recently minted California Consumer Protection Act (CCPA) excludes employees like the plaintiff against Hilton.