Supreme Court Passes on Challenge to Extension of Title III to Websites and Mobile Apps

On October 7, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an order denying certiorari in Domino’s Pizza, LLC v. Robles, a case that would have required the Supreme Court to determine the application of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to websites and mobile applications. The Supreme Court’s order means a Ninth Circuit decision applying Title III to websites and mobile apps will stand, even in the absence of Department of Justice-promulgated regulations outlining applicable compliance standards.

On September 1, 2016, Guillermo Robles, who is visually impaired, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. He alleged that Domino’s website and mobile app were incompatible with his chosen screen-reading software, and thus violated Title III of the ADA, among other statutes. Domino’s moved for summary judgment, in part on the basis that Title III of the ADA does not extend to its website or mobile app. The District Court found that Title III did apply to Domino’s website and app, but granted summary judgment on the grounds that imposing liability on Domino’s without clear standards for satisfying Title III obligations would violate the company’s due process rights. Robles then appealed.

View the full Alert on the Duane Morris LLP website.

Nevada Privacy Law Takes Effect October 1: Is Your Company Compliant?

The newest Nevada privacy law, SB 220, is about to become operative on October 1, 2019, and will require website operators to provide consumers with the right to opt out of the sale of their personal information. The definition of what constitutes a “sale” is fairly narrow and includes several broad exclusions. Therefore, this opt-out provision is likely to apply only in narrow circumstances. However, businesses that may be covered by this new law will need to complete the following items prior to October 1:

  1. Determine whether the law applies to your business.
  2. Confirm compliance with existing consumer notice requirements.
  3. Establish a designated request address where consumers may submit a verified request to opt out of the sale of their covered information.
  4. Develop policies, procedures and processes for verifying and responding to requests within 60 days.

Please see our Alert for a detailed discussion of this law and when it applies.

Amendments to the CCPA Ready for Governor’s Signature

By:  Michelle Hon Donovan, Brandi Taylor and Angelica Zabanal

Last Friday, September 13, 2019, marked the final day for the California Legislature to vote to pass amendments intended to clarify the terms and scope of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), which takes effect on January 1, 2020. The bills are now on Governor Gavin Newsom’s desk for approval, and the Governor will have until October 13, 2019, to sign or veto them.

Of the CCPA amendment bills that were in consideration, the following were passed:

  • AB 25, regarding employee exemption
  • AB 874, regarding the definition of PI (personal information)
  • AB 1146, regarding warranty and vehicle repairs
  • AB 1355, regarding the B2B exemption and other clarifying amendments
  • AB 1564, regarding toll-free telephone number exception

Also of note, AB 1130 – a bill that does not specifically amend CCPA – also passed. This bill expands the categories of PI covered by California’s data breach notification laws, which will now include tax identification numbers, passport numbers, military identification numbers and unique identification numbers issued on a government document, as well as certain types of specified unique biometric data. This expansion is anticipated to impact liability under the CCPA’s private right of action

While not an exhaustive list of the bills that stalled during the legislative process, the following bills of note failed to be passed by the legislature:

  • AB 873, regarding the definition of de-identified
  • AB 846, regarding customer loyalty programs
  • AB 981, regarding exemption for certain insurance transactions

While the approved amendments did not significantly overhaul the CCPA, several notable changes were made. Please see our Alert for a detailed discussion of these changes.

California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) Amendments One Step Closer to Passage

By Angelica A. Zabanal

When the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) was passed last year, it was generally acknowledged that the CCPA would need to be clarified prior to its January 1, 2020, implementation. A variety of CCPA amendments are now one step closer to full passage.

Last month, the California Senate Judiciary Committee passed seven amendment bills to the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”).  The bills are now headed to the Committee on Appropriations for a vote. Any bills amended by the Senate will need to return to the Assembly for a vote and a possible reconciliation.  Lawmakers have until September 13, 2019 to vote on these CCPA amendments, which are summarized in their current form below:

  • B. 25 (regarding Employee Exception):  Amends the CCPA so that it excludes the collection of personal information (“PI”) from job applicants, employees, business owners, directors, officers, medical staff, or contractors, who would not be considered as “consumers” under the CCPA.  Now amended to weaken the employee exception with a sunset exemption on January 1, 2021 and negating the exemption as it pertains to the CCPA’s notice and data breach liability provisions;
  • B. 846 (regarding Customer Loyalty Programs):  Excludes application of certain prohibitions in the CCPA to loyalty or rewards programs.  Now amended to prohibit a business from selling consumer PI that was collected as part of a loyalty, reward, discount, premium features, or club card program;
  • B. 1202 (regarding Data Brokers):  Requires data brokers to register with the California Attorney General.  Now amended to exclude language that would have provided consumers the right to opt-out of the sale of their personal information by data brokers;
  • B. 1564 (regarding Disclosure Methods):  Requires businesses to provide consumers with two methods for the submission of privacy requests, including a toll-free telephone number at a minimum.  Excludes smaller online companies from the toll-free number and allows these companies to provide an email address for submitting privacy requests;
  • B. 1146 (regarding Warranty and Vehicle Repairs):  Exempts vehicle information retained or shared for purposes of a warranty or recall-related vehicle repair.  Now amended to provide a clearer description of vehicle recalls;
  • B. 874 (regarding “Publicly Available” Information):  Expands definition of “publicly available” to include information that is lawfully made available from federal, state, or local government records.  Amends definition of “personal information” to exclude de-identified or aggregate consumer information.  (Approved by the Judiciary Committee without amendments);
  • B. 1355 (regarding Opt-In Clarification):  Exempts de-identified or aggregate consumer information from the definition of PI.  Also clarifies that consumers over 13 years of age but younger than 16 years of age are required to opt in. Furthermore, parents need to authorize consent only for consumers under 13 years of age. (Approved by the Judiciary Committee without amendments.)

Stay tuned for more updates from Duane Morris LLP regarding the advancement of these CCPA amendments and join us for our CCPA webinar series.

What Trends Are Shaping Blockchain In The Legal Industry? 7 Experts Share Their Insights

Photo of attorney Daniel Tarr
Daniel Tarr

Nobody should feel smarter than their lawyer. Whether you’re on death row or in a corporate boardroom, legal counsel should provide you with peace of mind. This becomes impossible with one sniff of incompetence or uselessness.

The need for relevancy will drive blockchain adoption in the legal industry. As customers learn how blockchain (and smart contracts in particular) improve security, they may seek out lawyers who understand it too.

[…]

“The biggest trend that will shape blockchain use and adoption in the legal industry is the increased use of artificial intelligence in the legal industry.  The rise of AI solutions and products to assist in contract drafting, litigation, and other legal services will require the use of secure tracking and storage systems that can be directly integrated with the AI solutions. Blockchain is well positioned to fulfill that requirement.”

To read the full text of this article quoting Duane Morris attorney Daniel Tarr, please visit the Disruptor Daily website.

 

Executive Order Addresses Foreign Threats to U.S. Information and Communications Technology and Services Systems

On May 15, 2019, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 13873, “Securing the Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain” (Federal Register Vol. 84. No. 96, page 22689-92).

Supported by various laws and regulations, the president determined that the United States’ information communication technology systems are increasingly under threat from “foreign adversaries,” defined as “any foreign government or foreign non-government person engaged in a long-term pattern or serious instances of conduct significantly adverse to the national security of the United States or security and safety of United States persons.” These systems and services are targets for “malicious cyber-enabled actions, including economic and industrial espionage” as they “store and communicate vast amounts of sensitive information, facilitate the digital economy, and support critical infrastructure and vital emergency services.”

To read the full text of this Duane Morris Alert, please visit the firm website.

The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 Webinar Series

Duane Morris will present The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 Webinar Series: Strategies for the New Era of Strict Consumer Privacy Protections. The first program, “Understanding the New California Consumer Privacy Act: Why The CCPA Applies to You and Practical Steps You Can Take Now to Comply,” will be held on Thursday, May 23, 2019, from 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. (Pacific).

For more information or to register, please visit the event website.

What Is Personal Information? In Legal Terms, It Depends

In early March, cybersecurity professionals around the world filled the San Francisco Moscone Convention Center’s sprawling exhibition halls to discuss and learn about everything infosec, from public key encryption to incident response, and from machine learning to domestic abuse.

[…]

Companies should not overthink [data privacy and personal information]. Instead, data privacy lawyers said businesses should pay attention to what information they collect and where they operate to best understand personal data protection and compliance.

As Duane Morris LLP intellectual property and cyber law partner Michelle Donovan said:

“What it comes down to, is, it doesn’t matter what the rules are in China if you’re not doing business in China. Companies need to figure out what jurisdictions apply, what information are they collecting, where do their data subjects reside, and based on that, figure out what law applies.”

To read the full text of this article, please visit the MalwareBytes website.

Emerging Product Liability Concerns for Medical 3D Printing

Duane Morris partner Sean Burke authored the Medical Device and Diagnostic Industry article, “Emerging Product Liability Concerns for Medical 3D Printing.”

Mr. Burke writes:

Additive manufacturing, commonly known as 3-dimensional (3D) printing, has been billed as the new industrial revolution. It is a lofty prediction; but we are seeing this prognostication materialize. Everyday consumer products ranging from children’s toys to running shoes are being 3D printed, sometimes right in consumer stores or at home. More and more manufacturers have begun or are exploring additive manufacturing options for their products. 3D-printed products even won an Oscar, when Ruth Carter won Best Costume Design for her work in the movie Black Panther, where portions of Carter’s costumes were 3D printed. From everyday consumer products, to its appearance on the red carpet, 3D printing has arrived.

Recognizing the potential advantages, endless possibilities, and unique manufacturing capabilities offered by 3D printing, more and more medical device manufacturers are entering this new field of technology. However, industry standards and regulations lag behind the pace of innovation. The unique aspects and potential availability of additive manufacturing raise novel products liability issues that may impact traditional product liability litigation doctrines. This article examines the current status of additive manufacturing as well as potential issues and uncertainties it raises for the future of product-liability litigation.

To read the full article, visit the Medical Device and Diagnostic Industry website.

© 2009-2025 Duane Morris LLP. Duane Morris is a registered service mark of Duane Morris LLP.

The opinions expressed on this blog are those of the author and are not to be construed as legal advice.

Proudly powered by WordPress