Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Where Is the Consumer In Consumer Privacy Legislation?
In the past four months of 2021, the amount of state legislative activity around consumer data privacy laws has been frantic, by state legislatures standards. So much so, it is not easy to discern the cause for all this effort; is it that consumers are demanding action, are market forces lobbying for the least restrictive options, or have legislators initiated these efforts on their own seeing their citizens simply must be protected from more than data breaches, but also be encouraged to exercise control over their personal information?
State of Laws
In the U.S., existing consumer privacy laws are either sectoral based (think, healthcare and financial services) or state-law based. Despite several federal bills being introduced over the past few years, the U.S. Congress has failed to pass any comprehensive consumer-based data privacy laws to date. (See, "Information Transparency & 12 Personal Data Control Act" introduced by Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-WA) March 10, 2021; "Consumer Data Privacy and Security Act" introduced by Sen. Jerry Moran (R-MO) May 6, 2021; "Setting an American Framework to Ensure Data Access, Transparency, and Accountability (SAFE DATA) Act" introduced by Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) Sept. 17, 2020. See also, Consolidating US privacy legislation: The SAFE DATA Act, aipp.org).
Instead, as it often does, California led the way with its groundbreaking California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) in 2020 and Virginia followed abruptly in April this year with its "CCPA-like" Virginia Consumer Privacy Act. Also, there are a variety of proposed consumer data privacy laws currently pending in 13 other states (AB, AL, CO, CT, IL, MA, MN, NC, NJ, NY, RI, SC, and TX). As of May 5th, state lawmakers have introduced bills in 26 states and 10 states (AZ, FL, KY, MA, MI, ND, OK, UT, WA, and WV) have rejected these legislative attempts.
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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.