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
I-35W Bridge Collapse may be Due to “Inadequate Load Capacity”
January 22, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe Crookston Times reports that the I-35W Bridge collapse that occurred five years ago in Minneapolis, Minnesota, killing 13 people and injuring another 145, may have been caused by “inadequate load capacity.” The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report stated that it is “a simple design flaw in metal plates that help connect one steel beam to another.” Due to the findings, “the NTSB set new safety recommendations for bridge design plans, bridge inspection and training of bridge inspectors.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Certified Question Asks Hawaii Supreme Court to Determine Coverage for Allegations of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
October 09, 2023 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe federal district court certified questions to the Hawaii Supreme Court regarding coverage for underlying allegations of greenhouse gas emissions. Aloha Petroleum, Ltd. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156211 (D. Haw. Sept. 5, 2023).
Aloha was sued in two lawsuits, one filed by the County of Maui and the second filed by the City and County of Honolulu. The underlying lawsuits alleged that Aloha disregarded known risks of harm to the counties when selling its fuel products that would inevitably combust and produce greenhouse gasses, particularly carbon dioxide, thereby changing the climate and causing harm to the counties.
Aloha tendered the suits to AIG. Coverage was denied based on AIG's determination there was no "occurrence" and the pollution exclusion barred coverage. Aloha sued AIG in federal district court seeking a declaratory judgment on AIG's obligations under the policy.
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
Bad Faith Claim for Investigation Fails
January 07, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe insurer prevailed in summary judgment, disposing of the insured's bad faith claim based upon the investigation of the loss. Nino v. State Farm Lloyds, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163993 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 24, 2014).
The insured filed a claim with State Farm for damage resulting from a hailstorm on March 29, 2012. An independent adjuster, Charles Crump, conducted an investigation on behalf of State Farm. Crump inspected the roof, where he noted prior repair to the roof, and found no covered damage to the roof as the result of the 2012 hailstorm. Crump found minimal damage to other parts of the house, totaling $2,311.75, which resulted in no payment after the deduction. Crump provided the insured with a printed copy of his damage estimate.
The insured then hired a public adjuster who found damage totaling $31,991.72, including $10,051.22 in roof repairs.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Product Liability Alert: “Sophisticated User” Defense Not Available by Showing Existence of a “Sophisticated Intermediary”
November 26, 2014 —
R. Bryan Martin & Kristian B. Moriarty - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Gottschall v. Crane Co., (No. A136516, Filed 10/8/2014, published 10/22/2014), the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, held a company that manufactured and sold asbestos-containing products could not prevail under the “sophisticated user” doctrine based on the contention that a “sophisticated intermediary” existed, in an action brought by the end user of the products.
Decedent Robert Gottschall worked in a variety of shipyards for the U.S. Navy between 1957 and 1989. Defendant Crane Co. (“Crane”) manufactured and sold products containing asbestos to the Navy during that time. During his work at the various shipyards, decedent was exposed to asbestos and contracted mesothelioma.
Reprinted courtesy of
R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com; Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tenth Circuit Reverses District Court's Ruling that Contractor Entitled to a Defense
October 24, 2023 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiAfter the district court granted the insured contractor's motion for judgment on the pleadings on the duty to defend, the Tenth Circuit found there was no coverage and reversed. Owners Ins. Co. v. Greenhalgh Planning & Development, Inc., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 20137 (10th Cir. Aug. 4, 2023).
Greenhalgh remodeled a house and barn for Michelle and Steven Pickens. After completion of the project, the Pickens sold the property to Teague and Michelle Cowley. The Cowleys later sued the Pickenses asserting various fraud and breach of contract claims. The complaint alleged that the Pickenses misled them into reasonably believing that the barn was a habitable structure, even though it did not qualify as such under the applicable building code because it lacked a fire-sprinkler system.
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
Protecting Expert Opinions: Lessons Regarding Attorney-Client Privilege and Expert Retention in Construction Litigation
August 19, 2024 —
David McLain - Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCThe Hill Hotel Owner LLC v. Hanover Insurance Company case has garnered attention due to its implications on the scope of attorney-client privilege in construction litigation. This blog post delves into the project’s background, the ensuing litigation, and the intricate work undertaken by attorneys and experts, highlighting the potential pitfalls associated with assumptions about privilege protections.
Background of the Project
Hill Hotel Owner LLC initiated a construction project in Boulder, Colorado, which included building a basement-level parking garage with an 18” thick concrete slab floor. The project utilized “void form,” a cardboard underlayment intended to create a gap between the foundation and the underlying soil. Unfortunately, the void form became wet and collapsed under the weight of the fresh concrete, causing considerable damage, and necessitating millions of dollars in remediation costs.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
Failure to Comply with Sprinkler Endorsement Bars Coverage for Fire Damage
July 31, 2013 —
Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiDespite its application stating otherwise, the insured's failure to install a sprinkler system in its building barred coverage for extensive damage caused by fire.American Way Cellular, Inc. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am., 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 425 (Cal. Ct. App. May 30, 2013).
American Way contacted a broker, A&J, regarding liability and property coverage. A&J sent American Way an application for a policy with Travelers. The application indicated American Way had a sprinkler system and fire detectors in its building.
Travelers issued a policy with a Protective Safeguards Endorsement For Sprinkler Locations and Restaurants. The endorsement stated that as a condition of the insurance, the insured was required to maintain a sprinkler system. An exclusions section said the insurer would not pay for loss caused by fire if there was no sprinkler system.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred EyerlyTred Eyerly can be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
