California Dental Association’s Post

A few weeks ago, Jeffrey Moore, Blake Adams, and I provided an overview of some of the problems that Pixel-style ad trackers were causing with medical privacy compliance (linked in comments). A lot has happened since then. A Texas District Court undid some of HHS's guidance on using tracking. Nothing bigger than this decision out of California. A California federal judge found that a class of plaintiffs stated a plausible claim that using these ad tracker's violated California's trap and trace law. We'll see how this plays out in discovery where evidence of how this tracking technology works comes to light. It may well be that the claim is not sufficient once the true facts are discovered. However, until then it is something to worry about. Even businesses that do not have a physical presence in California could face liability related to tracking California residents. And the penalties are severe. Each violation comes with a $5,000 penalty. But under the plaintiffs' theory, every tracked user is a violation. A website visited by 100 Californians could be subject to $500,000 in penalties. Having looked at website analytics in litigation, the amount of penalties can quickly become astronomical. https://lnkd.in/e45rTSGN

California's Age Appropriate Design Code enforcement is stayed until March 6, 2025. This follows a 9th Circuit decision partially vacating the preliminary injunction against it. Notably, California won't enforce the law retroactively. This provides services accessed by children under 18 six months to comply. Companies must consider whether to estimate user ages "with reasonable certainty" or apply child-appropriate protections universally. However, the law's constitutionality is still in question, leaving companies uncertain and potentially with a very tight compliance timeline. #DataPrivacy #ChildPrivacy #LegalUpdate #CalifiorniaLaw #AdvertisingLaw https://lnkd.in/eprp9xcA

The recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to vacate the preliminary injunction against the California Age Appropriate Design Code Act (CAADCA) significantly alters the landscape of children's data privacy in the U.S. With most provisions of CAADCA now enforceable, online services must implement age estimation processes and child-appropriate privacy protections for users under 18. This development raises critical questions about compliance for businesses previously unaffected by children's privacy laws, as the CAADCA's scope is broader than existing regulations. It is imperative for marketers and advertisers to prioritize consent and age verification to mitigate legal risk, especially as the enforcement landscape evolves. #DataPrivacy #ChildrenPrivacy #CAADCA #LegalCompliance #MarketingEthics https://lnkd.in/g2p2BX8Y

Check out our latest article on tracking technologies! 

A recent federal court decision highlights a potential defense strategy for government entities facing litigation under the ECPA, CFAA, and related state laws, as it discusses in detail several aspects of the new and evolving case law applying sovereign immunity principles to these claims. Kanu Song looks at the case: https://okt.to/4x8Omi

CALIFORNIA SOCIAL MEDIA LAW WRITTEN TO PROTECT CHILDREN LIKELY VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT, THE NINTH CIRCUIT RULED TODAY Superficially at least it would seem that the risk to children from social media use is clear. However, creating laws to ameliorate that risk is hard. Four months ago, I posted about social media laws promulgated by various states which sought to protect children. Today, a panel of judges found that part of California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code Act requirement likely violates the First Amendment. This means a key part of California’s online safety law for kids is on hold. The bipartisan law prohibited social media platforms from using children’s personal information or geolocation data. It also required that privacy information, terms of service, policies and community standards be easily accessible. The law was supposed to go into effect this summer, it was put on hold while the federal courts weighed the merits. “The panel held that NetChoice was likely to succeed in showing that the CAADCA’s requirement that covered businesses opine on and mitigate the risk that children may be exposed to harmful or potentially harmful materials online facially violates the First Amendment,” according to the decision. As a result, the Ninth Circuit ordered that that portion of the law continue to be blocked from enforcement, while throwing out the rest of the preliminary injunction against the law. It then sent the case back down to the U.S. District Court for further review. Here’s a link to earlier post on this topic. online.https://https://lnkd.in/g22tQ2_M

Just in time for back-to-school, we see three small steps for children's privacy--two in California, one federally. 1.   Last week, a federal appeals court largely upheld a lower-court ruling that blocked key provisions of California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code Act. However, it allowed privacy-focused provisions to stand, which require companies to estimate the age of child users and provide a high level of privacy by default, marking a win for children’s privacy advocates. 2.  Also last week, the California Children’s Data Privacy Act was passed by the CA Senate Appropriations committee 4-1. This bill prohibits businesses from collecting, selling, sharing, using, or disclosing the personal information of children aged 13-17 without their consent, and for children <13, without the consent of a parent or guardian. 3.  Three weeks ago, the Senate resoundingly passed the Kids Online Safety Act, which would require digital platforms to take "reasonable" steps to reduce harm to children using their products. However, the measure’s future in the House of Representatives remains unclear. All three of these are really half-steps. California still has work to do to put #1 and #2 into effect. And the House would need to pick up the Senate bill for it to make it to law #childrensprivacy #CAADCA Boltive #privacycompliance

A few of my thoughts here on the new social media regulation bill that passed the U.S. Senate. History repeats itself: In 1996, Congress overwhelmingly passed another bill, which included Section 230, that also tried to protect children from online harms. Most of legislation was tossed out in court, but important principles relating to reduced legal liability by interactive websites ultimately reshaped our entire media and speech environment and allowed the internet to flourish. I'm interested in what this new regulatory attempt might catalyze, and what seeds it may contain, if signed into law: https://lnkd.in/edmkZEZF

Maryland recently enacted the Age-Appropriate Design Code Act, setting new standards for children's online privacy and safety. Learn how this compares to California's law and what it means for businesses in this Perkins Coie LLP blog post. #Privacy #PrivacyLaw #OnlinePrivacy #ChildrensPrivacy

Maryland recently enacted the Age-Appropriate Design Code Act, setting new standards for children's online privacy and safety. Learn how this compares to California's law and what it means for businesses in this Perkins Coie LLP blog post. #Privacy #PrivacyLaw #OnlinePrivacy #ChildrensPrivacy