California voters have approved the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), a new law coming into effect on 1 January 2023 that will significantly amend the California Consumer Privacy Act. The CPRA will, among other things, modify existing consumer rights and create new rights and establish the United States' first dedicated privacy enforcer. Despite never having been reviewed by California's legislature, the CPRA also limits the extent to which its provisions can be amended through future legislation.
In response to the significant rise in ransomware attacks since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic and just in time for Cybersecurity Awareness Month, the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and the Office of Foreign Assets Control recently issued advisories on the potential legal risks of making or facilitating ransomware payments.
The Department of Commerce, the Department of Justice and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence have jointly issued a white paper containing information about privacy protections under the US law for national security access, with a particular focus on the issues raised by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in its Schrems II decision. The white paper focuses on practical applications of the legal authorities that the ECJ examined and discounts mere 'theoretical possibilities' that are unlikely to occur.
The California attorney general recently issued the final implementing regulations for the California Consumer Privacy Act. The final regulations – which had been under review by the California Office of Administrative Law since 1 June 2020 – include several changes to the previous draft regulations and take effect immediately. Most of the changes relate to grammar, formatting and drafting consistency, but several substantive provisions have been withdrawn entirely for additional consideration.
A recent action by the National Advertising Division (NAD), a self-regulatory arm of the Better Business Bureau, addresses the level of proof necessary to support 'natural' and 'satiety' claims involving competing experts and a variety of scientific data in dispute. Beyond NAD's specific findings, the decision also provides useful insight into how NAD evaluates health benefit and related claims and analyses the corresponding scientific evidence and other substantiation.