Quoted

May 12th, 2022

Connecticut Privacy Law Adds Stitch to Confusing Legal Patchwork

Privacy & Data Security Group Chair Daniel M. Goldberg and Privacy & Data Security Associate Maria Nava are quoted in the article, “Connecticut Privacy Law Adds Stitch to Confusing Legal Patchwork” published by Bloomberg Law. The article discusses Connecticut’s newly enacted consumer privacy law which gives Connecticut residents the right to opt out of the processing and sale of their personal data and the right to ask that it be deleted while requiring companies to limit collecting personal data. With Connecticut being the fifth state to pass consumer privacy legislation after California, Virginia, Colorado, and Utah, the growing national patchwork complicates business compliance. Daniel is quoted saying, “Putting the laws into practice—making consumers’ rights easily accessible, for example—is another major problem stemming from the country’s patchwork system.” California, Colorado, and Connecticut require businesses to honor universal opt-out signals, while Utah and Virginia do not require those universal opt-outs. Daniel says, “Adding functionality for that type of tool to websites can be a challenge, especially with such differences” and “This is one area where I’m hopeful California will clarify specifics with regulations, and there’s a good chance other states could follow suit.”

With respect to children’s data, the Connecticut law requires opt-in consent for the processing of children’s sensitive data and requires that the processing be done in accordance with the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, which applies to those under 13. It goes further by prohibiting companies from processing the data of minors known to be ages 13 to 16 for purposes of targeted advertising and from selling it without consent. Maria says, “The new law defines ‘biometric data’ in a similar fashion to Virginia and Utah, which isn’t as comprehensive as the definition in California’s statute” and “There are exceptions in the law that weren’t originally in the bill, like photographs and audio recordings.”

Unlike the California Privacy Rights Act, which created a standalone privacy agency tasked with rulemaking, the Connecticut measure doesn’t establish a regulator or call for rules. The Connecticut attorney general isn’t tasked with rulemaking, as is the case in Colorado. Daniel says, “But it does convene a task force in the General Assembly where the topics for exploration range from algorithmic decision-making to children’s privacy.” He concludes by saying, “The findings could be considered for future tweaks or future laws.”

Read the full article here.