Photo of David Navetta

David Navetta

Subscribe to David Navetta's Posts

David advises clients on all aspects of technology and data law, including data privacy, information security, artificial intelligence (AI), financial reporting, data governance, technology-related transactions, and data monetization and use.

Contact:Read more about David Navetta

Key point: The California legislature is currently considering several privacy-related bills that could impact the private sector.

The California legislature is currently in its summer recess, returning on August 18. Once it returns, it will have approximately five weeks to pass bills prior to closing for the year on September 12.

We are currently tracking 23 private sector AI-related bills and eight privacy-related bills that crossed chambers at the legislature’s deadline. If passed and signed into law, these bills could significantly impact companies doing business in California.

In this two-part series, we provide a brief summary of the bills and their current status. This article focuses on the privacy bills. Our prior article focused on the AI bills. Once the legislature reconvenes, we will provide regular updates on the status of the bills. If you are not already subscribed to this blog, we encourage you to do so to stay up to date.

tpl_linkedin_laterals_davidstauss

Renowned Privacy Law Attorney Brings Extensive Experience in State Legislation and AI Regulation, Strengthening Firm’s National Reach and Service Offerings

David Stauss has joined Troutman Pepper Locke as a partner in the firm’s Privacy and Cyber Practice Group. A distinguished authority in privacy, information security, and AI law, Stauss brings…

Privacy_1200x600_GettyImages-2154887234

In what appears to be an emerging privacy litigation trend, plaintiffs’ attorneys have recently filed a series of putative class action lawsuits targeting data companies in possession of cellular telephone numbers. The lawsuits attempt to leverage an untested provision in Colorado’s Prevention of Telemarketing Fraud Act (PFTA) which prohibits knowingly listing “a cellular telephone number in a directory for a commercial purpose unless the person whose number has been listed has given affirmative consent[.]” Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 6-1-304(4). Although the law was originally enacted in 2005, there is almost no case law interpreting its provisions. However, the PFTA provides for statutory damages of $300-500 per violation, attorneys’ fees, and costs, making it attractive to plaintiffs’ lawyers. Several other states have similar laws. See, e.g., Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 16-247s, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 399-cc.1, Minn. Stat. Ann. § 325E.318, 73 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 2403, S.D. Codified Laws § 49-31-118, and TX UTIL § 64.202.

Biometric-Data_1200x600_GettyImages-1311613664

In Part One of this FAQ series, we break down Virginia’s Senate Bill 754, Consumer Protection Act; prohibited practices, etc., reproductive or sexual health information (Act), which amends the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (VCPA). The law goes into effect on July 1. Overall, given the broad definitions used in the Act, the law likely regulates organizations that are not traditional health care companies, and goes beyond traditional health information.

Security_1200x600_GettyImages-1162361864

Troutman Pepper Locke attorneys assess California’s collaboration with other foreign governments on promoting privacy rights and what this means for the future of data protection worldwide.

The California Privacy Protection Agency recently announced that it signed a declaration of cooperation on privacy protections or collaboration with the UK Information Commissioner’s Office, its latest collaboration with a foreign government.

COPPA_1200x600_GettyImages-1060622854

In this episode of the Regulatory Oversight podcast, Stephen Piepgrass welcomes David Navetta, Lauren Geiser, and Dan Waltz to discuss the $51.75 million nationwide class settlement involving Clearview AI and its broader implications. The conversation focuses on Clearview AI’s facial recognition software, which has sparked controversy due to its use of publicly available images to generate biometric data.

Webinars_1200x600_GettyImages-1406524821

Troutman Pepper Locke partners examine ambiguities in the Department of Justice’s compliance guidance for its new data security program.

The Department of Justice’s new data security program took effect on April 8. A few days later, the agency issued an implementation and enforcement policy that provides a 90-day leniency period for DSP civil enforcement through July 8, along with a compliance guide and frequently asked questions.