October 7, 2022

Volume XII, Number 280

Advertisement

October 06, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

October 05, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

October 04, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
Advertisement

Understanding the Delta: How do modern state privacy laws differ in terms of giving companies an opportunity to cure?

Many modern data privacy statutes are designed to encourage compliance by permitting organizations to cure an alleged violation of the statute prior to a regulatory enforcement action. The ability to cure may have been included in recognition of the fact that modern data privacy statutes impose obligations that may be foreign to many organizations (i.e., new obligations that are not consistent with prior state laws), and statutory ambiguities may result in situations in which organizations are surprised by how a regulator might interpret a statute. A cure period permits an organization to decide whether to align its practices to a regulator’s interpretation, or to challenge the regulator’s interpretation in court. The following chart provides a breakdown of the cure provisions offered by the modern privacy statutes:

  Guaranteed cure period.  Organ-izations are provided a period in which to cure alleged violations. Length of guaranteed cure period.  Length of time within which a company may cure an alleged violation. Discretionary cure period.  Regulator has discretion to provide a cure period. Length of discretionary cure period.  Length of time within which a company may cure an alleged violation.

California 2022

CCPA

✔[1]

(Sunsets on January 1, 2023 per CPRA)

30 days after being notified of alleged non-compliance. [6] N/A N/A

California 2023

CPRA

 

 

✔[11] None specified. [13]

Colorado 2023

CPA

✔[2]

(Sunsets January 1, 2025)

60 days after being notified  of alleged non-compliance. [7]

 

None expressly specified, however, within prosecutor’s discretion. None specified.

Conn. 2023

CTDPA

✔[3]

(Sunsets January 1, 2025)

60 days after being notified of alleged non-compliance. [8]

 

✔[12] None specified.

Utah 2023

UCPA 

✔[4]

(No sunset)

30 days after being notified of alleged non-compliance.[9] N/A N/A

Virginia 2023

VCDPA 

✔[5]

(No sunset)

30 days after being notified of alleged non-compliance.[10] N/A N/A

1 Cal. Civ. Code 1798.155(b) (West 2020).

2 C.R.S. 6-1-1311(d) (2022).

3 Connecticut Substitute Bill No. 6, § 11 (2022).

4 Utah Code Ann. 13-61-402 (2022).

5 Va. Code 59.1-579(B) (2022).

6 Cal. Civ. Code 1798.155(b) (West 2020).

7 C.R.S. 6-1-1311(d) (2022).

8 Connecticut Substitute Bill No. 6, § 11 (2022).

9 Utah Code Ann. 13-61-402 (2022).

10 Va. Code 59.1-579(B) (2022).

11 Cal. Civ. Code 1798.199.45(a) (West 2021).

12 Connecticut Substitute Bill No. 6, § 11 (2022).

13 Cal. Civ. Code 1798.199.45(a) (West 2021).

©2022 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved. National Law Review, Volume XII, Number 152
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

David A. Zetoony Privacy Attorney Greenberg Traurig
Shareholder

David Zetoony, Co-Chair of the firm's U.S. Data, Privacy and Cybersecurity Practice, focuses on helping businesses navigate data privacy and cyber security laws from a practical standpoint. David has helped hundreds of companies establish and maintain ongoing privacy and security programs, and he has defended corporate privacy and security practices in investigations initiated by the Federal Trade Commission, and other data privacy and security regulatory agencies around the world, as well as in class action litigation. 

David receives regular recognitions from clients and peers for...

303.685.7425
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement