The California Invasion of Privacy Act continues to be a focal point for privacy litigation, particularly concerning website tracking practices. A recent case, Gabrielli v. Insider Inc. sheds new light on whether collecting and sharing an IP address violates the law.

Tomorrow is International Data Privacy Day, so a happy day to all!  

The California Privacy Protection Agency released proposed regulations in November 2024 that will, if finalized, create significant new hurdles for employers using artificial intelligence to assist with a variety of employment decisions.

New regulatory burdens would apply to businesses that deploy “automated decisionmaking technology” (known as “ADMT”) to ...

In an opinion filed on Friday, California’s Third District Court of Appeal reversed a lower court ruling that postponed until the end of March the enforcement of regulations promulgated pursuant to the California Privacy Rights Act.

On January 16, Gov. Phil Murphy (D) of New Jersey signed Senate Bill No. 332 into law. The New Jersey privacy law generally follows the same framework found in many of the comprehensive privacy laws enacted by other states and contains many of the same standard features. However, there are a few notable differences, highlighted below, that will require covered businesses to adjust their privacy programs.

Data processing agreements are a standard part of business arrangements involving personal data due to the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation as well as the ever-expanding number of U.S. consumer privacy statutes.

Amendments have recently been proposed to two of the three statutes to be enacted under Canada’s Bill C-27: The Digital Charter Implementation Act. The statutes that may be amended are the Consumer Privacy Protection Act and the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act. The proposed amendments would beef up the protections in both statutes.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) has signed AB 947 and AB 1194 into law.