The California Legislature Return the Power Back to the People by Passing the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018
January 02, 2019 —
Richard H. Glucksman, Esq., David A. Napper, Esq., & Lana Halavi – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & BargerIntroduction
Data breaches and social media hacks are becoming increasingly common stories on the news cycle. Meanwhile, companies have made fortunes on unsuspecting individuals by selling information gathered on the user. Every internet user has wondered why a pop-up ad or banner on an unrelated website relates to something you purchased or searched for "that one time. The California legislature has decided to return some power back to the people with the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018. California is the first state to introduce privacy protection for individuals personal data and could pave the way for other states to follow suit in the near future.
The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018
On June 28, 2018, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 ("the Act"). The California Legislature eagerly passed the Act, which comes into effect on January 1, 2020, granting broad new privacy rights to "consumers" and enforcing requirements on the protection of their personal data allowing consumers the right to take back control of their personal information.
A "consumer" is defined as a "resident of California as defined by California's personal income tax regulations. "Personal information" pursuant to the Act is 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." Personal information is generally recognized in California as information that can identify a specific individual. The Act also includes information that can be used to identify a household.
Provisions of the Act
Pursuant to the Act, consumers are given the right to know upon request if their personal information is disclosed, and to whom it is disclosed, the right to know what personal information has been collected about them by a business, the right to object to the sale of their personal information, the right to obtain data collected about them, the right to require businesses to obliterate their personal information, and the right to be given equal service and pricing from businesses, including equal prices and quality of goods or services. The Act forbids discrimination by businesses against consumers for exercising their privacy rights pursuant to the Act.
Businesses are, however, permitted to charge different prices or provide different quality of service to consumers if the difference is "reasonably related to the value provided to the consumer by the consumer’s data." Additionally, businesses must allow consumers to exercise their rights by providing to consumers toll-free telephone numbers and/or websites to request such information or privacy. If a consumer sends a verified request for information to a business, the business subsequently has 45 days to give the consumer the requested information from the preceding 12 months with no charge to the consumer.
Who Must Comply with the Act
The Act will apply to for-profit businesses that do business in the State of California, deal with personal information of California residents, and either·(1) have more than $25 million in annual gross revenues, or (2) receive or disclose more than 50,000 California residents' personal information, or(3) derive 50% or greater of California residents' annual revenues from selling their personal information.
Who is Exempted from Compliance with the Act
A for-profit company, a small company, and/or a company that does not derive large amounts of personal information and does not share a brand with an affiliate covered by the Act is exempted from complying with the Act. Additionally, a company is exempted from compliance with the Act "if every aspect of . . . commercial conduct takes place wholly outside of California," meaning: (1) the personal information was collected from the consumer while they were outside California, (2) no sale of their personal information took place in California, and (3) there was no sale of personal information that was collected while the consumer was in California.
Impact
According to 2017 estimates, California's population totaled approximately 39 million people. Clearly the Act will affect an incredibly large amount of people considering it concerns the most populous state in America. The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, which is being compared to the EU General Data Protection Regulation for its all-encompassing method and resilient privacy protections is also speculated to have an impact on businesses throughout the nation and around the world. While the costs will likely go up for companies to do business in California, the transparency and trust earned by business and gained by consumers in this new landscape could potential overcome the initial costs to provide these required services. Perhaps most importantly however, is if California consumers decide to take advantage of the new protections, they will no longer have to wonder what for-profit businesses are doing with their data.
Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys
Richard H. Glucksman,
David A. Napper and
Lana Halavi
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Napper may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurer Cannot Abandon Defense Agreement on Underlying Asbestos Claims Against Insured
June 12, 2023 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court found that the insurer continued to be bound by a defense agreement entered with the insured who merged with another company. Continental Ins. Co. v. Neles-Jamesbury, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52521 (D. Mass. March 28, 2023).
In 1990, Neles-Jamesbury became the sucessor by merger to the liabilities of Jamesbury Corp. and Neles, Inc. The companies were both in the business of manufacturing and selling valves.
Continental issued two primary CGL policies to Neles, Inc. from 1986 to 1988. After the merger, Neles-Jamesbury was involved in numerous lawsuits that alleged bodily injury from asbestos exposure. Due to the continuing question of whether the policies created duties for Continental, the parties entered into a 2007 Cost Sharing Agreement, which served to clarify and define their respective obligations and coverage in the lawsuits. The agreement noted that Continental wanted to avoid the expense and uncertainties of litigation over defense obligations.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Bay Area Firm Offers Construction Consulting to Remodels
October 02, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFHomeowners sometimes aren’t too clear on questions of “building codes, permit process or where to find the right materials,” according to Benoni Mocanu, the owner of MB Development. He’s ready to step in an help by offering construction consulting to homeowners doing their own remodeling projects. In addition to providing the advice to help them through their projects, they’re ready to step in if a homeowner finds that they can’t finish the project.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Importance of Providing Notice to a Surety
October 21, 2015 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contractor AdvisorA recent case out of Missouri emphasizes the importance of providing notice to a surety when a bonded subcontractor is in default. When the question of whether a surety will be obligated under the bond is in the balance, notice is crucial.
In CMS v. Safeco Insurance Company, Safeco provided a performance bond to a subcontractor for the benefit of CMS. The bond specifically provided:
“PRINCIPAL DEFAULT. Whenever the Principal [Subcontractor] shall be, and is declared by the Obligee [CMS] to be in default under the Subcontract, with the Obligee having performed its obligations in the Subcontract, the Surety [Safeco] may promptly remedy the default, or shall promptly:
4.1 COMPLETE SUBCONTRACT. . . .
4.2 OBTAIN NEW CONTRACTORS. . . .
4.3 PAY OBLIGEE. . . .
4.4 DENY LIABILITY. . .”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLPMr. Martin may be contacted at
cmartin@ldmlaw.com
Who is a “Contractor” as Used in “Unlicensed Contractor”?
June 08, 2020 —
Taylor Orgeron - Autry, Hall & Cook, LLPA recent Georgia Court of Appeals case established a rule concerning the effect of an unlicensed contractor failing to disclose that he is unlicensed. In Fleetwood v. Lucas,[1] the contractor was hired by the homeowners to perform renovations on two homes. One of the projects went over budget, and the homeowners failed to pay the remaining balances on both projects. Following their failure to pay, the contractor sued the homeowners for breach of contract, and the jury delivered a verdict in his favor. The homeowners appealed on the grounds that the contractor was barred from bringing suit because the contractor did not have a license to perform the work.
Generally, if a contractor does not have a residential or general contractor’s license but performs work when a license is required, the contract is unenforceable. O.C.G.A. § 43-41-17(b). However, under O.C.G.A. § 43-41-17(g), a contractor may perform repair work without a license if the contractor discloses that he does not have a license, and the work does not affect the structural integrity of the project. In this case, the contractor failed to disclose that he did not have a license.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Taylor Orgeron, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLPMr. Orgeron may be contacted at
orgeron@ahclaw.com
Patriarch Partners Decision Confirms Government Subpoenas May Constitute a “Claim” Under D&O Policy; Warns Policyholders to Think Broadly When Representing Facts and Circumstances to Insurers
January 08, 2019 —
Michael S. Levine, Sergio F. Oehninger, & Joshua S. Paster - Hunton Andrews KurthThe Second Circuit recently confirmed in Patriarch Partners, LLC v. Axis Insurance Co. that a warranty letter accompanying the policyholder’s insurance application barred coverage for a lengthy SEC investigation, which ripened into a “Claim” prior to the policy’s inception date. The opinion left intact the lower court’s finding that the SEC subpoena constituted a “demand for non-monetary relief” and thus qualified as a “Claim” under the directors and officers (D&O) insurance policy.
Reprinted courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth attorneys
Michael S. Levine,
Sergio F. Oehninger and
Joshua S. Paster
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Paster may be contacted at jpaster@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Rio Olympics Work Was a Mess and Then Something Curious Happened
April 06, 2016 —
Jonathan Levin, Tariq Panja & David Biller – BloombergIn early 2014, a senior Olympic Committee official returned from a trip to Rio de Janeiro and declared Brazil’s preparations for the Summer Games to be the worst he’d ever seen. In the two years since, a crippling recession set in, dozens of construction executives were ensnared in a nationwide corruption scandal and the president has been pushed to the brink of impeachment.
And the preparations?
They’re basically fine now, actually. In what is emerging as a rare bright spot in a country buffeted by crisis on all sides, the organizing committee is saying that more than 95 percent of the venues are complete some four months ahead of the opening ceremony and, what’s more, data shows spending has largely remained under control.
Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg reporters
Jonathan Levin,
Tariq Pania and
David Biller Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Court Finds Duty To Defend Environmental Claim, But Defense Limited to $100,000
August 14, 2023 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiWhile agreeing with the insured there was a duty to defend, the court determined the defense of an environmental claims was limited to $100,000. Casa Nido Partnership v. JAE Kwon, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97701 (N.D. Calif. June 5, 2023).
In 1976, Casa Nido purchased the property and remains the current owner to this day. Catherine O'Hanks owned and operated a dry-cleaning facility at the property from 1960 to 1992.
In August 2016, Casa Nido learned of Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) subsurface contamination. Casa Nido stipulated that it did not know, nor had any reason to know, before 2016, of the existence of the subsurface contamination. Casa Nido alleged that due to equipment malfunction or improper usage, there were sudden and accidental spills and equipment overflows of PCE during the 32-year period that defendant O'Hanks operated the dry-cleaning business on the property. Casa Nido spent hundreds of thousands of dollars remediating the environmental damage.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
