Skip to content

Many modern data privacy statutes are designed to encourage compliance by permitting organizations to cure an alleged violation of the statute prior to a regulatory enforcement action. The ability to cure may have been included in recognition of the fact that modern data privacy statutes impose obligations that may be foreign to many organizations (i.e., new obligations that are not consistent with prior state laws), and statutory ambiguities may result in situations in which organizations are surprised by how a regulator might interpret a statute. A cure period permits an organization to decide whether to align its practices to a regulator’s interpretation, or to challenge the regulator’s interpretation in court. The following chart provides a breakdown of the cure provisions offered by the modern privacy statutes:

Guaranteed cure period.  Organizations are provided a period in which to cure alleged violations. Length of guaranteed cure period.  Length of time within which a company may cure an alleged violation. Discretionary cure period.  Regulator has discretion to provide a cure period. Length of discretionary cure period.  Length of time within which a company may cure an alleged violation.

California 2022

CCPA

[1]

(Sunsets on January 1, 2023 per CPRA)

30 days after being notified of alleged non-compliance. [6] N/A N/A

California 2023

CPRA

 

 

[11] None specified. [13]

Colorado 2023

CPA

[2]

(Sunsets January 1, 2025)

60 days after being notified  of alleged non-compliance. [7]

 

None expressly specified, however, within prosecutor’s discretion. None specified.

Conn. 2023

CTDPA

[3]

(Sunsets January 1, 2025)

60 days after being notified of alleged non-compliance. [8]

 

[12] None specified.

Utah 2023

UCPA 

[4]

(No sunset)

30 days after being notified of alleged non-compliance.[9] N/A N/A

Virginia 2023

VCDPA 

[5]

(No sunset)

30 days after being notified of alleged non-compliance.[10] N/A N/A

 

1 Cal. Civ. Code 1798.155(b) (West 2020).

2 C.R.S. 6-1-1311(d) (2022).

3 Connecticut Substitute Bill No. 6, § 11 (2022).

4 Utah Code Ann. 13-61-402 (2022).

5 Va. Code 59.1-579(B) (2022).

6 Cal. Civ. Code 1798.155(b) (West 2020).

7 C.R.S. 6-1-1311(d) (2022).

8 Connecticut Substitute Bill No. 6, § 11 (2022).

9 Utah Code Ann. 13-61-402 (2022).

10 Va. Code 59.1-579(B) (2022).

11 Cal. Civ. Code 1798.199.45(a) (West 2021).

12 Connecticut Substitute Bill No. 6, § 11 (2022).

13 Cal. Civ. Code 1798.199.45(a) (West 2021).

About Greenberg Traurig

Greenberg Traurig, LLP has more than 3,100 lawyers across 51 locations in the United States, Europe, the Middle East, Latin America, and Asia. The firm’s broad geographic and practice range enables the delivery of innovative and strategic legal services across borders and industries. Recognized as a 2025 BTI “Best of the Best Recommended Law Firm” by general counsel for trust and relationship management, Greenberg Traurig is consistently ranked among the top firms on the Am Law Global 100, NLJ 500, and Law360 400. Greenberg Traurig is also known for its philanthropic giving, culture, innovation, and pro bono work. Web: www.gtlaw.com.

Law blog design & platform by LexBlog