California Governor Jerry Brown has signed a new law protecting employee use of social media by prohibiting an employer from requiring or requesting an employee or applicant for employment to disclose a username or password for the purpose of accessing the employee’s personal social media.… Continue Reading
A California District Court has dismissed with prejudice a class action lawsuit filed against LinkedIn on behalf of its registered users, finding the allegations too speculative to sustain a lawsuit. An earlier Complaint filed by one of the representative Plaintiffs was dismissed by the Court without prejudice, allowing the Plaintiff to amend the Complaint and bring … Continue Reading
California’s Attorney General Kamala Harris announced last week the creation of a new Privacy Enforcement and Protection Unit, including six prosecutors, in the state’s Department of Justice. This new unit intends to protect consumer and individual privacy through prosecution of state and federal privacy laws.… Continue Reading
On July 3, 2012, Orange County Superior Court Judge Nancy Wieben Stock issued a ruling dismissing a California “Shine the Light” consumer protection law case without leave to amend, making it the first “Shine the Light” case to come to a final decision in a trial court. Judge Stock dismissed the case against XO Group Inc. … Continue Reading
There have been a number of class action lawsuits recently filed in California state courts against businesses for allegedly violating California's Shine the Light privacy law.
… Continue Reading
On Wednesday, August 31, 2011, California became the third state this year to amend its existing security breach notification law when Governor Jerry Brown signed into law Senate Bill 24 ("SB 24"). SB 24's specific changes, while far from sweeping, include the addition of content requirements for notice letters to individuals and a requirement to send a sample letter to the state's attorney general if more than 500 people are affected by a breach. SB 24 won't add much to most nationwide breach response plans, but will up the ante for those doing business primarily (or exclusively) in California.
… Continue Reading
Yesterday, the California Supreme Court held that ZIP codes are "personal identification information" within the meaning of the state's Song Beverly Credit Card Act. The court's decision in Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc., No. S178241 slip op. (Cal. Feb. 10, 2011), casts a dark cloud over the established retail practice of asking for ZIP codes when customers make brick-and-mortar purchases using a credit card and essentially reverses the Court of Appeal's decision in Party City Corp. v. Superior Court, 169 Cal. App. 4th 497 (2008). In addition to some heated debate, the Pineda decision is likely to generate a healthy number of lawsuits against California retailers.
… Continue Reading
On December 19, 2008, in Party City Corp. v. The Superior Court of San Diego County, the California Court of Appeal in the Fourth Appellate District held that zip codes are not “personal identification information” under California’s Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971, California Civil Code Sec. 1747.08 (the “Act.”). The Act prohibits a retailer … Continue Reading
On June 26, 2008, in Absher v. Autozone, Inc. et al. (2008), the California Court of Appeal in the Second Appellate District, confirmed that California’s Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971, California Civil Code § 1747.08 (hereinafter, the “Act”) does not apply to a refund for the return of merchandise purchased by credit card. … Continue Reading
The June 18, 2008 Ninth Circuit panel decision in Quon et al. v. Arch Wireless et al., No. 07-55282 (9th Cir. June 18, 2008) has sparked a flurry of news reports and speculation regarding employers’ ability to monitor employees’ e-mails and text messages. In fact, the decision appears to change very little for private employers who … Continue Reading
On May 22, 2008, the California Court of Appeal narrowed the scope of claims available under California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971, California Civil Code § 1747.08, ruling that the statute is subject to the one-year statute of limitations of Code of Civil Procedure section 340 and does not apply to merchandise returns.
… Continue Reading
The new year brings with it many new California privacy laws. Included are the following: S.B. 202 – Telephone Record Pretexting As previously reported, S.B. 202 amends Penal Code § 638 to prohibit the purchase or sale of any telephone pattern record or list without the written consent of the subscriber. A.B. 424 – Identity … Continue Reading
This website uses third party cookies, over which we have no control. To deactivate the use of third party advertising cookies, you should alter the settings in your browser.
