Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
California's Latest Privacy Rulemaking Proposes Further Obligations for Businesses
In May, the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA or Agency) released the first draft of its much-anticipated proposed California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (CPRA) Regulations (Regs), as well as the Agency's Initial Statement of Reasons. Although useful for the purpose of indicating what the Agency's priorities may be, the draft Regs are far from complete. Of note, the Regs purposely omit provisions on key topics, including automated decision-making and profiling, cybersecurity audits, and risk assessments; consequently, companies should expect the Regs to expand far beyond their current 66-page length.
On July 8, 2022, the Agency commenced its formal rulemaking process to adopt the proposed Regs with the filing of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The Notice triggered the beginning of a 45-day public comment period, which will end on Aug. 23, 2022. The CPPA will also host public hearings on Aug. 24 and 25, 2022. After the close of the 45-day comment period, the CPPA will then determine whether to adopt the Regs substantially or, alternatively, make additional modifications based on comments submitted to the Agency. In the event the CPPA decides to move forward with making "major" modifications to the original draft Regs, a corresponding 45-day comment period will be provided; if the CCPA modifications are deemed to be only "substantial and sufficiently related," the comment period will last for only 15 days.
This article discusses the most important aspects of, and other key takeaways from, the CPPA's initial iteration of the Regs.
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.