The term “targeted advertising” is defined relatively consistently between and among modern U.S. data privacy statutes with the noticeable exception of California which deviates somewhat in the California Privacy Rights Act’s (CPRA) definition of the similar term “cross-context behavioral advertising” by omitting any reference to tracking a person over time, or making predictions about a

Most modern U.S. data privacy statutes require companies to allow data subjects to opt out of having their personal information used for targeted advertising. As the following chart indicates, the term “targeted advertising” is defined consistently between and among most state statutes with the noticeable exception of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and its

Modern state privacy statutes require that organizations provide individuals with the ability to opt out of targeted advertising. While the substance of the opt-out right is similar between and among states, state statutes differ in how they mandate the conveyance of the opt-out right. While all state statutes require that an explanation of the right

Modern state privacy laws have attempted to carve out organizations that process de minimis amounts of personal information, or whose business activities do not monetize data. The specific thresholds used, however, differ between states. The following provides a comparison of the thresholds that each statute creates for organizations that are subject to regulatory compliance obligations:

All modern privacy statutes regulate when personal information can be shared with third parties, whether those third parties are service providers, vendors, contractors, or business partners. Most modern privacy statutes recognize, however, that privacy risks are reduced when the third party is related to the organization from which the data originates. As the following chart

The terms “deidentified” and “deidentification” are commonly used in modern privacy statutes and are functionally exempt from most privacy and security-related requirements. As indicated in the chart below, differences exist between how the term was defined in the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and how it was defined in later state privacy statutes that are

Please join David Zetoony, U.S. Co-Chair of the Data, Privacy & Cybersecurity Group, and Associate Karin Ross for the CLE webinar “An Overview of New State Privacy Laws: CCPA/CPRA, CPA, CTDPA, UCPA, and VCDPA” on Tuesday, May 24 at 10:00 a.m. PT.

The webinar will provide an overview of the modern state data

Some organizations are confused as to the impact that pseudonymization has (or does not have) on a privacy compliance program. That confusion largely stems from ambiguity concerning how the term fits into the larger scheme of modern data privacy statutes. For example, aside from the definition, the CCPA only refers to “pseudonymized” on one occasion

In the wake of the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) and an updated Nevada privacy law that took effect in October 2019, states are wasting no time in 2020 introducing new privacy laws of their own.

Joining the chorus of Virginia and Florida, this month state lawmakers in New Hampshire,