Over 30 trade associations and companies co-signed a letter last month to California Attorney General Xavier Becerra asking him to push back the enforcement date for the California Consumer Privacy Act due to the new coronavirus and a lack of clarity on the enforcement rules.
Most companies doing business in California are well aware of the CCPA and prepared diligently in advance of the law's Jan. 1, 2020 compliance deadline. While compliance certainly is key, even compliant businesses must consider — and prepare for — the eventual onslaught of class action litigation that is coming.
The California IoT Security Law is the first of its kind in the nation and pushes device manufacturers to adopt cybersecurity standards during the product development and design stages where none have existed before.
Two overarching factors increase the cannabis industry's data security risks: data sensitivity brought on by federal illegality and lingering cultural divisiveness; and massive, mandated data footprints brought on by intense state and local regulatory scrutiny.
With big data and the resulting explosion of electronic documents, texts, images and voicemails that are subject to discovery, the cost burden was increasing at a pace that required firms to reconsider their recovery approach. This is why in 2019, Mattern conducted its first deep dive into e-discovery and litigation support cost recovery in the 2020 e-Discovery and Litigation Support Cost Recovery Survey. Some of the results were surprising.
Second and Eleventh Circuit rulings are likely to expand refuge to discovery in the U.S., even for international litigation and arbitrations that don't ordinarily include discovery rights.
Here are some of the key issues of which law firms and companies need to be aware and steps that should be considered to minimize the risk to keep everyone — and client data — safe.
In their consideration of possible worst-case cyber attack scenarios, organizations often focus on the various types of attacks and their relative severity. But, the worst-case scenario is not the breach, it's the reputational damage, regulatory enforcement action, the business interruption, and the inevitable litigation that follows a poorly handled breach from an unprepared organization. Given this reality, it is important to adjust planning assumptions and response scenarios to focus on addressing these drivers of post-breach exposure.
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.
Technology allows attorneys to keep informed so they can help their clients understand the potential impact on their company.
