Sign Up for Alerts
Sign up to receive receive industry-specific emails from our legal team.
Sign Up for Alerts
We provide tailored, industry-specific legal updates to our clients and other friends of the firm.
Areas of Interest
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.
Other Quoted
In a Data-Obsessed World, Attorneys Welcome Privacy Law Specialization
The Los Angeles Times quotes Daniel M. Goldberg on the California State Bar’s decision to offer a specialization in privacy law. Mr. Goldberg stated that the area of privacy regulation has been exploding with growth, with California on the forefront —driving a need for designating leaders in the field. “‘The law is very complex. But on top of the law being complex, the specialization really requires a level of technical expertise. The law talks all about measures that companies need to take with respect to collection, use, disclosure of data and opting out. But if you don’t understand how the technology works or how the ecosystem works, then it’s an area that would be very, very difficult for you,’ he said.”
“He added, ‘One thing about privacy law is that you also have to be an expert on what’s going on in the news, the latest changes and whether it has to do with ad-tech platforms or AI. If you’re not up with the latest changes, you’re going to fall behind very quickly.’”
Mr. Goldberg emphasized California's pioneering role in privacy regulation. He referenced the state’s passing “the first comprehensive privacy law (the California Privacy Act or CCPA) in 2018, which he said catalyzed the creation of similar laws across other states and established California as the national leader in privacy legislation.” He noted the state had also been a leader in enforcement, citing activity of the Attorney General’s office and the California Privacy Protection Agency’s multiple enforcement actions.
Mr. Goldberg also explained why data privacy is an increasing legal practice at law firms: “‘It’s incredibly lucrative just because it’s such a broad area. It really is a subject matter expertise that goes in so many different subcategories of practices, and so almost every firm now has to have a privacy expert.'" View Article
June 26 2025
Legal, Regulatory Woes Could Mark New Era for Influencers
Hannah E. Taylor is quoted in FTCWatch on class actions against influencers and the brands they represent. Such lawsuits alleging deceptive advertising are now seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in damages. Ms. Taylor discussed this trend and commented on the FTC’s position, the NAD’s increased attention to influencer marketing, the responsibility of brands, and AI tools used to monitor content. View Article. (Subscription required)
June 24 2025
An Influencer Gained Followers as She Documented Her Weight Loss. Then She Revealed She Was on a GLP-1
Hannah E. Taylor is quoted in The Wall Street Journal about social media influencer Janelle Rohner, who shared her weight loss progression with diet and lifestyle tips, selling a paid course on nutrition. When Ms. Rohner posted she was taking a medication used for weight reduction and diabetes, her critics questioned her the legality of her advertising and e-commerce. The article stated, “Hannah Taylor, deputy managing partner and a partner in the advertising, marketing and public relations group at law firm Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, said proving an influencer acted fraudulently is a high bar because many jurisdictions require showing that the defendant had an intent to deceive. False advertising is typically easier to prove. Taylor said if someone had purchased the course believing that it led to Rohner’s weight loss, when in fact the medicine was the cause, that could be a material omission that could subject the influencer to false advertising liability.” View article.
May 30 2025
