We've Surveyed Video Conferencing Models to See Who Fits the CCPA Bill: Here's What We Found
August 10, 2020 —
Shaia Araghi & Kyle Janecek – Newmeyer DillionWorldwide closures as a result of COVID-19 have resulted in an extreme surge in video conferencing use. This spike in use has also resulted in increased concern about the privacy of these video conferencing applications, including a class action lawsuit against one of the applications: Zoom. Because of this, we took a deeper look into the privacy policies of six prominent video conferencing applications and created a chart showing each video conferencing application's compliance with the California Consumer Privacy Act. Reviewing these materials will provide an awareness of the deficiencies within the Privacy Policies, which can help you become more well-informed about your own rights, and more knowledgeable about any deficiencies in your own business' privacy policy. If these widely-used and widely-known companies can have deficiencies, it is an important way to re-examine and fix these issues in your own.
To determine this, we reviewed the CCPA's twenty requirements for compliance, including: (1) the existence of a privacy policy, (2) required disclosures of information regarding the existence of rights under the CCPA, (3) instructions on how to exercise rights, and (4) providing contact information.
Here are the top 5 discoveries from our review:
1)
No videoconferencing applications address authorized agents. This makes sense, as the treatment of authorized agents were just laid out in the recently finalized regulations. This is a reminder to businesses to utilize these regulations when setting up compliance measures to ensure there is no risk in missing out on requirements like this, which will still be required and enforced by the Attorney General.
2)
Three platforms (WebEx, Skype, and Teams) have separate tabs and pages detailing privacy policies, and don't necessarily have a single unified and simple policy. Because of the accessibility requirements, this means that the privacy policy may not be readily accessible on the business's website, and may open companies to arguments that the entirety of their policy is non-compliant if key portions are hidden or otherwise inaccessible. Therefore to eliminate this concern, keep your policy unified, simple and in one location for ease of viewing.
3)
None of the platforms address information relating to minors under the age of 16, which is notable as some of these platforms have been used for online education. The final regulations outline different treatment for minors from ages 13 to 16, and for minors under the age of 13. As a result, privacy policies focused on compliance with the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) may be insufficient as it only applies to those under 13 years old.
4)
While all of the platforms state that no sale of information occurs, two platforms (Zoom and GoToMeeting) go above and beyond to explain the right to opt-out of sales. This is especially great as the CCPA permits that no notice needs to be given if no sale occurs. By taking this extra step, Zoom and GoToMeeting explain to their users that they have additional rights, which may be necessary as these platforms are also used by other entities, which may collect or otherwise use information collected from a videoconference meeting.
5)
Only one platform (Wire) does not give instructions on how to delete information. The CCPA regulations still require that information regarding instructions on how to delete information be given. The lack of instructions does not relieve Wire from its obligations, and similarly situated businesses may find themselves in a position where they will have to comply with a consumer request, in any form, as the regulations require that a business either comply, or list the proper instructions on how to make the request.
Download the Full Breakdown
To learn more about our findings and how the video conferencing companies stacked up against the CCPA, visit: https://www.newmeyerdillion.com/ccpa-privacy-policy-compliance-videoconferencing-platforms/. We hope this serves as a reminder to everyone to read the privacy platforms for the services you use and update your company's privacy policies to comply with the most recent regulations, as none of these services are currently in complete compliance, and it is only a matter of time before enforcement begins.
Shaia Araghi is an associate in the firm's Privacy & Data Security practice, and supports the team in advising clients on cyber-related matters, including compliance and prevention that can protect their day-to-day operations. For more information on how Shaia can help, contact her at shaia.araghi@ndlf.com.
Kyle Janecek is an associate in the firm's Privacy & Data Security practice, and supports the team in advising clients on cyber related matters, including policies and procedures that can protect their day-to-day operations. For more information on how Kyle can help, contact him at kyle.janecek@ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nine Firm Members Recognized as Super Lawyers and Rising Stars
July 14, 2016 —
Ahlers & Cressman PLLC BlogAhlers & Cressman PLLC attorneys have again been recognized as “Super Lawyers” and “Rising Stars” (attorneys under 40 years of age, or practicing under 10 years) in Washington for 2016.
Six Ahlers & Cressman attorneys were recognized as Super Lawyers: John P. Ahlers, Paul R. Cressman, Jr., Scott R. Sleight, Bruce A. Cohen, Lawrence S. Glosser, and Brett M. Hill. Additionally, three of the firm’s attorneys have been recognized as Rising Stars: Ryan W. Sternoff, James R. Lynch, and Lindsay K. Taft.
Super Lawyers selects attorneys using a multiphase selection process, involving peer nominations, evaluations, and third-party research. Each attorney candidate is evaluated on 12 indicators of peer recognition and professional achievement. Only five percent of the total lawyers in Washington State are selected for the honor of Super Lawyer, and no more than 2.5 percent are selected for the honor of Rising Star.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Commercial Construction in the Golden State is Looking Pretty Golden
August 26, 2015 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogIf the $2.1 trillion erased from the U.S. stock market over the last week has you white knuckled, you might consider commercial construction in the Golden State, where things are looking . . . well . . . pretty golden.
According to the Summer/Fall 2015 Commercial Real Estate Survey jointly published by Allen Matkins and the UCLA Anderson School of Management, commercial construction in California has risen to its highest level since 2001.
The survey, conducted of commercial real estate developers and financiers and their outlook for seven metropolitan regions in California including the East Bay, the Inland Empire, Los Angeles, Orange County, San Diego, San Francisco and Silicon Valley, found that all respondents expressed optimism (characterized as an optimism sentiment above 50) that office, multifamily, industrial and retail construction would grow over the next three-years although it varied depending on the region and sentiment was at times lower than when the survey was last taken last year.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
#2 CDJ Topic: Valley Crest Landscape v. Mission Pools
December 30, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFIn July of this year,
Christopher Kendrick and
Valerie A. Moore of
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP analyzed the results of the Valley Crest Landscape v. Mission Pools case, in which “a California appeals court held that equities favor an insurer seeking equitable subrogation over a subcontractor that agreed to defend and indemnify claims arising out of its performance of work under the subcontract.”
Read the full story...
In the article, “General Liability Insurer Entitled to Subrogate Against its Insured’s Indemnitor,”
Matthew S. Foy and
Michael A. Pursell of
Gordon & Rees LLP also discussed the details of the Valley Crest v. Mission Pools case that involved installing a swimming pool on a St. Regis hotel property: “In Valley Crest Landscape Development, Inc. v. Mission Pools of Escondido, Inc., the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District held that an insurer was entitled to equitably subrogate a breach of express indemnity claim against its insured’s indemnitor.”
Read the full story...
This month,
Graham C. Mills of
Newmeyer & Dillion reported on the decision by the Court of Appeals regarding the Valley Crest case, which “reinforces the right of a general contractor to defense and indemnity by a subcontractor when the parties have contractually allocated risk to the subcontractor. To ensure compliance with that right, the Valley Crest court imposed a strong penalty against a subcontractor that defaulted on its obligation.”
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Fifth Circuit Decision on Number of Occurrences Underscores Need to Carefully Tailor Your Insurance Program
December 19, 2018 —
Michael S. Levine & Daniel Hentschel - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogThe Fifth Circuit in Evanston Insurance Co. v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co. recently held that multiple collisions caused by the same insured driver over a span of 10 minutes constitute a single occurrence subject to a $1 million limit in the insured’s primary policy with Mid-Continent. The holding reversed a lower court’s ruling that Mid-Continent is liable for an additional sum the excess insurer, Evanston, paid to resolve all of the claims arising from the collisions. At issue, a fundamental question about causation and coverage under commercial liability insurance.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Daniel Hentschel, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Hentschel may be contacted at dhentschel@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Disputes Over Arbitrator Qualifications: The Northern District of California Offers Some Guidance
August 10, 2021 —
Justin K. Fortescue - White and WilliamsThe selection of an arbitration panel can often lead to disputes between the parties regarding things like whether a particular candidate is qualified, whether a challenge to an arbitrator’s qualifications can be addressed pre-award and whether a party that names an unqualified arbitrator should lose the opportunity to name a replacement. In Public Risk Innovations v. Amtrust Financial Services, No. 21-cv-03573, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129464 (N.D. Ca. July 12, 2021), the court provided answers on all three of these issues.
In Amtrust, the parties filed cross-motions to compel arbitration. Although both parties agreed the dispute was arbitrable, they disagreed about whether Public Risk Innovations, Solutions and Management’s (PRISM) arbitrator was qualified under the terms of the applicable contract. In seeking to have PRISM’s arbitrator disqualified, Amtrust argued that he: (1) was not a “current or former official of an insurance or reinsurance company”; and (2) was not “disinterested.” Amtrust also argued that because PRISM named an unqualified arbitrator (and presumably the time to appoint had passed), PRISM should be deemed to have failed to select an arbitrator as required by the contract and that Amtrust had the right to select a second arbitrator of its choice.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Justin K. Fortescue, White and WilliamsMr. Fortescue may be contacted at
fortescuej@whiteandwilliams.com
Claims for Breach of Express Indemnity Clauses Subject to 10-Year Statute of Limitations
October 08, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to Thomas G. Cronin of Gordon & Rees LLP (published in Association of Corporate Counsel), “[i]n 15th Place Condominium Association v. South Campus Development Team LLC, the Appellate Court for the First District of Illinois held that a claim for breach of an express indemnity clause within a construction agreement was subject to the 10-year statute of limitations for written contracts instead of the four-year statute of limitations for construction claims.”
In 2008, the condo association sued the developer alleging “it had discovered latent design and construction defects in the condominium towers. In 2011, the developer filed a third-party complaint against the general contractor alleging breach of express indemnity.”
While the general contractor prevailed in the first trial, the appellate court reversed the decision, “concluding that the nature of the developer’s express indemnity claim against the general contractor related to the failure to indemnify rather than to a construction-related activity.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Court Retained Jurisdiction to Enforce Settlement Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6 Despite Dismissal of Complaint
October 21, 2024 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogAttorneys will commonly add a Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 provision in their settlement agreements to ensure that courts have continuing jurisdiction to enforce the terms of a settlement, as opposed to having to file a new complaint in the event of a breach of a settlement agreement.
Oral settlements before a trial court are also enforceable under Section 664.6, but as discussed in Eagle Fire and Water Restoration, Inc. v. City of Danuba, Case No. F086052 (May 30, 2024), in cases involving a complaint and multiple cross-complaints, questions can arise as to whether a trial court has in fact retained jurisdiction under Section 664.6 to enforce an oral settlement and even what the terms of the settlement were.
The Eagle Fire Case
Eagle Fire and Water Restoration, Inc. was hired by the City of Dinuba to reroof the City’s police station and courthouse building. The contract was for approximately $500,000. Before completion of the project, a rainstorm caused significant water damage to the interior of the building. The City incurred over $330,000 in clean-up and repair costs and withheld approximately $319,000 from Eagle as an offset.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
