Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Right Out of the Box: California Enacts First-of-its-Kind Statute Regulating Internet-of-Things
The California legislature had a big year in 2018. While a great deal of attention has focused on the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA), a sweeping new privacy law often compared to Europe's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), California also passed a less-publicized, but highly critical, statute that will regulate certain aspects of Internet of Things (IoT or connected) device security.
The IoT law, known as SB-327, should have a significant impact that extends well beyond California's borders when it goes into effect in January 2020. Companies impacted by SB-327 — especially manufacturers and distributors of IoT devices — should work to ensure compliance with the act as soon as possible if regulatory fallout is to be avoided come January 2020.
What Does the IoT Statute Cover?
As “smart” devices, like Internet-connected refrigerators, coffee makers and even industrial control systems for the nation's critical infrastructure become more prevalent, the opportunity for device hacking and improper use becomes more widespread and potentially more devastating. For example, the Mirai botnet, which took down a large swath of the Internet in 2016, gained control of poorly protected IoT devices and used them to carry out one of the largest distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks on record.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys
Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.
Discovery of Claim Construction and Infringement Analysis May be Compelled Prior to a Markman Hearing
A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.