Scali Rasmussen partner Jeffrey Erdman was profiled in this month's Elite Boutique edition of National Law Journal's Trailblazers magazine. They praised his dedication "to working within the profession to create a more diverse bar and judiciary, open more minds and educate people." Erdman is a co-chair of Scali Rasmussen's Diversity Initiative.
The California Consumer Privacy Act has four major prongs intended to protect consumer’s privacy while also allowing consumers to use services provided by companies that share and sell data. In general terms, businesses will need to tell customers what type of data they collect, what they disclose or sell, and what purpose they use the data for. Businesses may also be required to erase data and, in more limited circumstances, allow customers to “opt out” of certain usages.
The California Consumer Privacy Act governs three different types of data usages: collection of data, disclosure of data, and sale of data. It is important for businesses, including auto dealers, to know not only what type of data they are collecting, but what use they intend to put it to, as their duties under the law depend on the data usage.
The California Consumer Privacy Act applies to “personal information” of a consumer, broadly defined as “information that identifies, relates to, describes, is capable of being associated with, or could reasonably be linked, directly or indirectly, with a particular consumer or household.” Data covered includes, but is not limited to, traditional identifiers like name, postal address, email address, driver’s license numbers, and social security numbers. It also personal characteristics such as age, race, or national origin; commercial information such as records of purchases of goods or services; biometric data; Internet or other electronic network activity; geolocation data; professional or employment-related data; and education information. However, “publicly available information,” defined as information lawfully made available from federal, state or local government records.
Scali Rasmussen is proud to be a sponsor of this event, attended by firm partner Jeffrey Erdman. Last year Mr. Erdman was appointed to SAGE’s board of directors. SAGE serves as a resource dedicated to improving the lives of LGBT seniors and their caregivers through education, training and technical assistance. With a growing network of affiliates nationwide, SAGE strives to improve the lives of the aging LGBT population in the United States.
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 forthe 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.