Connect with us

California

What California’s Child Online Safety Bill Means for Businesses

Published

on

What California’s Child Online Safety Bill Means for Businesses


As federal information privateness laws continues to stall, California is as soon as once more trailblazing a path for different states to comply with on the earth of privateness. This time, California lawmakers have targeted on youngsters’s privateness and security on-line.

The California Age-Applicable Design Code Act (ADCA) handed unanimously and now awaits Gov. Gavin Newsom’s signature. It might impose sweeping new necessities on companies that present on-line services to youngsters.

In preparation, corporations ought to implement extra strong privateness measures and think about the broader compliance influence on grownup customers.

Stronger Guard Rails

The proposed legislation, branded the Youngsters’ Code, would require companies to impose an array of safeguards designed to guard youngsters beginning July 1, 2024. Though ADCA is garnering many of the consideration, California legislators additionally lately handed the Social Media Accountability and Transparency Act, AB 587.

Advertisement

It might require social media platforms to extend transparency with their phrases of service. That legislation, if signed by the governor, would additionally strengthen protections for the privateness and welfare of minors on social media.

Regardless of as we speak’s proliferation of social media, on-line academic packages, video video games, and extra, it has been greater than 20 years since American lawmakers handed significant and complete rules on youngsters’s on-line exercise.

The 1998 Kids’s On-line Privateness Safety Act (COPPA) addressed the fast progress of on-line advertising strategies that have been focusing on youngsters. However COPPA is restricted in its scope in that it solely applies to business web sites or on-line providers that particularly goal youngsters, and it solely protects the privateness of youngsters beneath the age of 13.

California’s ADCA would go considerably additional. First, it will apply to all California Privateness Rights Act (CPRA)-covered companies that present on-line merchandise, providers, and options “prone to be accessed by youngsters,” not simply these focusing on youngsters.

Which means that the regulation might apply to normal viewers websites, comparable to retail, information, and music—and never simply websites or apps that sometimes goal youngsters, comparable to video video games and academic websites.

Advertisement

Defining Customers and Targets

The invoice outlines indicators that may enhance the probability {that a} website might be accessed by youngsters. For instance, a service or product that options ads marketed to youngsters is prone to be topic to ADCA.

Nonetheless, a few of these listed indicators are extra imprecise, comparable to whether or not a website is “routinely accessed by a big variety of youngsters.”

Second, ADCA defines a toddler as anybody beneath the age of 18—extending information privateness safety to all youngsters, not simply the youngest ones. Companies could be required to impose age verification measures to find out the age of customers with “an inexpensive degree of certainty.”

Critics of the legislation are involved that it will have an effect on how all of us work together with on-line providers and merchandise, and the knowledge that we’ve got to supply.

Amongst ADCA’s many necessities, companies could be required to activate privateness settings by default for youngsters, embody kid-friendly language of their privateness coverage, restrict the usage of youngsters’s private info, and keep away from gathering geolocation information until “strictly crucial.”

Advertisement

Nonetheless, a few of the ADCA’s necessities are extra ambiguous. For instance, companies could be anticipated to think about “the most effective pursuits of youngsters when designing, creating, and offering” their services or products in a approach that prioritizes “the privateness, security and well-being of youngsters over business pursuits,” together with by contemplating the “distinctive wants of various age ranges.”

Compliance Measures

It isn’t essentially clear how, in follow, companies that function websites or apps which might be accessed by each adults and youngsters will be capable to adjust to this requirement, or how any business enterprise might be ready to evaluate the most effective pursuits of a kid.

Including to the listing of safeguards required beneath the ADCA, companies would even be required to conduct a knowledge safety influence evaluation (DPIA) earlier than providing the services or products to the general public. The DPIA ought to assess, partially, the “materials detriment to youngsters that come up from the information administration practices of the enterprise.”

ADCA lists elements that needs to be thought-about, together with whether or not the services or products might “hurt” youngsters by exposing them to “dangerous, or probably dangerous” content material.

It’s unclear how expansively the California lawyer normal will learn “dangerous” content material, however it’s prone to think about any psychological well being results, particularly as nationwide discourse has targeted on the dangerous influence of social media utilization typically on youngsters and notably teenage women.

Advertisement

Notably, companies that aren’t topic to the EU Common Information Safety Regulation (GDPR)—and/or usually are not making ready for the California Client Privateness Act (CPRA)—might discover it difficult to operationalize this requirement.

Enforcement Outlook

ADCA wouldn’t embody a personal proper of motion. As an alternative, the California lawyer normal would have unique jurisdiction to implement the legislation. Fines for violations might vary from $2,500 per affected little one for negligent violations to $7,500 per affected little one for intentional violations.

Notably, companies which have achieved “substantial compliance” with ADCA’s information safety influence evaluation and mitigation plan necessities could be granted a 90-day grace interval to remedy any violations recognized by the California lawyer normal—which ought to incentivize companies to adjust to these necessities.

As with CPRA, companies needs to be ready for future rounds of rulemaking, because the California lawyer normal would have the authority to undertake clarifying rules.

ADCA would additionally create a youngsters’s information safety working group” that we hope will present steering on the legislation’s ambiguities, together with tips on how to assess the most effective pursuits of youngsters and what are examples of web sites which might be “prone to be accessed” by youngsters.

Advertisement

Though ADCA wouldn’t take impact till summer time 2024, companies that could be topic to the legislation ought to begin planning for compliance now. New services or products needs to be developed with privacy-by-design in thoughts, and ADCA necessities needs to be rolled into companies’ current compliance packages.

As with CPRA, companies may also want to think about whether or not to increase these compliance obligations past California minors. Given the flurry of state information safety legal guidelines that adopted within the wake of CCPA, it will not be shocking if different states adopted California’s lead on little one on-line security and privateness laws.

This text doesn’t essentially mirror the opinion of The Bureau of Nationwide Affairs, Inc., the writer of Bloomberg Legislation and Bloomberg Tax, or its house owners.

Write for Us: Writer Pointers

Writer Info

Arsen Kourinian is a Mayer Brown associate and member of the Cybersecurity & Information Privateness follow. He offers sensible and operational steering on tips on how to harmonize information privateness legal guidelines and requirements into uniform insurance policies, procedures and practices.

Advertisement

Julie Sweeney is a lawyer in Mayer Brown’s Cybersecurity & Information Privateness and Litigation & Dispute Decision practices. She advises US corporations and multinational organizations on complicated world privateness and information safety compliance efforts, information breach response, and AG investigations.

Amber Thomson is a lawyer in Mayer Brown’s Cybersecurity & Information Privateness and Litigation & Dispute Decision practices. She counsels purchasers of all sizes on complicated and cutting-edge points associated to cybersecurity and privateness.



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

California

STEVE HILTON: Five things California Democrats still don't get

Published

on

STEVE HILTON: Five things California Democrats still don't get


Join Fox News for access to this content

Plus special access to select articles and other premium content with your account – free of charge.

By entering your email and pushing continue, you are agreeing to Fox News’ Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive.

Please enter a valid email address.

Having trouble? Click here.

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Advertisement

Along with most other Democratic politicians in California, Gov. Gavin Newsom still doesn’t seem to understand what happened in the 2024 election.

For years, Newsom, along with California cronies like former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and, of course, Vice President Kamala Harris, bragged about their state being a “model for the nation.”

In one sense–not the one they intended, of course–that’s true. California became a model of what not to do.

CALIFORNIA VOTERS NARROWLY REJECT $18 MINIMUM WAGE; FIRST SUCH NO-VOTE NATIONWIDE SINCE 1996

The terrible combination of elitism and extremism that has defined Democratic policymaking in my home state for at least the last decade has delivered failure on every front.

Advertisement

Despite having the highest taxes in the nation, despite the state’s budget nearly doubling in the last ten years (even as our population has been falling, in the exodus from blue state misrule), California has the highest rate of poverty in America. We have the highest housing costs, the lowest homeownership, highest gas and utility bills, and the worst business climate–ten years in a row.

This record of failure is exactly why Democrats lost so badly on November 5th. Voters had a clear choice: between more of the same Democrat policies that raised the cost of living and lowered their quality of life, or a return to the peace and prosperity of the Trump years.

GAVIN NEWSOM TO MEET WITH BIDEN AFTER VOWING TO PROTECT STATE’S PROGRESSIVE POLICIES AGAINST TRUMP ADMIN

In many ways, the contest between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris represented a battle between the ‘blue state model’ championed by Gavin Newsom in California, and the ‘red state model’ that has driven people and businesses out of California and into the arms of more welcoming states like Texas, Tennessee and Florida.

Of course, the red state model won and the blue state model was roundly rejected. 

Advertisement

You would think that would make blue state leaders like Newsom pause and reflect. But the exact opposite has happened. Gavin Newsom immediately called a “special session” of the California legislature to “Trump-proof” his state.

What California really needs is “Newsom-proofing.” 

Instead, California Democrats are doubling down on the exact same agenda that was defeated across the country – including in California, which saw the biggest shift from Democrats to the GOP in decades.

Here are the five things California Democrats still don’t get:

1. People want results, not lectures

Democrats and their media sycophants can do all the self-righteous, sanctimonious bloviating they like about “our democracy” and “equity”, but in the end people want the basics of the American Dream: a good job that pays enough to raise your family in a home of your own in a safe neighborhood with a good school so your kids can have a better life than you. No amount of moral superiority from the people in charge will make up for that if they fail to provide it.

Advertisement

2. Enough with the ‘climate’ extremism

“Climate” has become a religion for Democrats, and you see that especially clearly in California. But when you look at the main reason life is so unaffordable for working people, whether that’s gas prices, utility bills or housing costs, extreme climate policies are to blame. Working-class Americans can’t afford these ‘luxury beliefs.’

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

3. Who cares about Hollywood? 

This election destroyed forever the myth that fancy celebrities can sway votes. Oprah, Beyonce, George Clooney, Taylor Swift…nobody cares! The new cultural powerhouses are the podcast hosts, comedians…the raw power of UFC is where it’s at, not the decadent Hollywood elite who won’t even turn up to support “their” candidate without a multimillion dollar paycheck.

Producer and actress Oprah Winfrey holds up Vice President and Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris’ hand as she arrives onstage during a campaign rally on the Benjamin Franklin Parkway in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on November 4, 2024.  (Getty Images)

4. ‘Little tech’ beats Big Tech

Democrats may console themselves with the knowledge that California’s Big Tech monopolies are on their side. But in this election we saw the rise of what famed Silicon Valley investor Marc Andressen calls “little tech”, the upstarts and rebels who reject leftist groupthink. They got engaged in this election in a way we’ve never seen before. It’s a massive shift and will be a huge force for the future.

Advertisement

5. Working class beats the elite 

Back in 2016, after the Brexit vote, and then Donald Trump’s victory here, shocked the world, I predicted that the Republican Party had the opportunity to become a “multiracial working class coalition.” Trump’s 2024 victory has delivered that — a revolutionary shift in our political landscape. The other part of my prediction? Democrats will be left as the party of the “rich, white and woke.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Unless Democrats come to terms with these realities and change course, they can expect to lose elections for years to come. The reaction in California – epicenter of today’s Democrat elite — shows that there is zero sign of this happening. 

They just don’t get it.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM STEVE HILTON

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

California

California proposes its own EV buyer credit — which could cut out Elon Musk's Tesla

Published

on

California proposes its own EV buyer credit — which could cut out Elon Musk's Tesla


  • Gov. Gavin Newsom plans to revive California’s EV rebate if Trump ends the federal tax credit.
  • But Tesla, the largest maker of EVs, would be excluded under the proposal.
  • Elon Musk criticized Tesla’s potential exclusion from the rebate.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom is preparing to step in if President-elect Donald Trump fulfills his promise to axe the federal electric-vehicle tax credit — but one notable EV maker could be left out.

Newsom said Monday if the $7,500 federal tax credit is eliminated he would restart the state’s zero-emission vehicle rebate program, which was phased out in 2023.

“We will intervene if the Trump Administration eliminates the federal tax credit, doubling down on our commitment to clean air and green jobs in California,” Newsom said in a statement. “We’re not turning back on a clean transportation future — we’re going to make it more affordable for people to drive vehicles that don’t pollute.”

Advertisement

The rebates for EV buyers would come from the state’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which is funded by polluters of greenhouse gases under a cap-and-trade program, according to the governor’s office.

But Tesla’s vehicles could be excluded under the proposal’s market-share limitations, Bloomberg News first reported.

The governor’s office confirmed to Business Insider that the rebate program could include a market-share cap which could in turn exclude Tesla or other EV makers. The office did not share details about what market-share limit could be proposed and also noted the proposal would be subject to negotiations in the state legislature.

A market-share cap would exclude companies whose sales account for a certain amount of total electric vehicle sales. For instance, Tesla accounted for nearly 55% off all new electric vehicles registered in California in the first three quarters of 2024, according to a report from the California New Car Dealers Association. By comparison, the companies with the next highest EV market share in California were Hyundai and BMW with 5.6% and 5% respectively.

Advertisement

Tesla sales in California, the US’s largest EV market, have recently declined even as overall EV sales in the state have grown. Though the company still accounted for a majority of EV sales in California this year as of September, its market share fell year-over-year from 64% to 55%.

The governor’s office said the market-share cap would be aimed at promoting competition and innovation in the industry.

Elon Musk, who has expressed support for ending the federal tax credit, said in an X post it was “insane” for the California proposal exclude Tesla.

The federal electric vehicle tax credit, which was passed as part of the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act in 2022, provides a $7,500 tax credit to some EV buyers.

Advertisement

Musk, who is working closely with the incoming Trump administration, has expressed support for ending the tax credit. He’s set to co-lead an advisory commission, the Department of Government Efficiency, which is aimed at slashing federal spending.

The Tesla CEO said on an earnings call in July that ending the federal tax credit might actually benefit the company.

“I think it would be devastating for our competitors and for Tesla slightly,” Musk said. “But long-term probably actually helps Tesla, would be my guess.”

Advertisement

BI’s Graham Rapier previously reported that ending the tax credit could help Tesla maintain its strong standing in the EV market by slowing its competitors growth.

Prior to the EV rebate proposal, Newsom has already positioned himself as a foil to the incoming Trump administration. Following Trump’s election win the governor called on California lawmakers to convene for a special session to discuss protecting the state from Trump’s second term.

“The freedoms we hold dear in California are under attack — and we won’t sit idle,” Newsom said in a statement at the time.





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

California

California Gov. Gavin Newsom says state will provide rebates if Trump removes tax credit for electric vehicles

Published

on

California Gov. Gavin Newsom says state will provide rebates if Trump removes tax credit for electric vehicles


California Gov. Gavin Newsom said the state will provide rebates to residents if President-elect Donald Trump’s incoming administration does away with a federal tax credit for electric vehicles.

In a news release issued Monday, Newsom said he would restart the state’s Clean Vehicle Rebate Program, which provided financial incentives on more than 590,000 vehicles before it was phased out late 2023.

“We will intervene if the Trump Administration eliminates the federal tax credit, doubling down on our commitment to clean air and green jobs in California,” Newsom said. “We’re not turning back on a clean transportation future — we’re going to make it more affordable for people to drive vehicles that don’t pollute.”

The federal rebates on new and used electric vehicles were implemented in the Inflation Reduction Act that President Joe Biden signed into law in 2022. When Trump’s second term in office begins next year, he could work with Congress to change the rules around those rebates. Those potential changes could limit the federal rebates, including by reducing the amount of money available or limiting who is eligible.

Advertisement

Limiting federal subsidies on electric vehicle purchases would hurt many American automakers, including Ford, General Motors and the EV startup Rivian. Tesla, which also builds its automobiles in the United States, would take a smaller hit since that company currently sells more EVs and has a higher profit margin than any other EV manufacturer.

Newsom also announced earlier this month that he will convene a special session “to protect California values,” including fundamental civil rights and reproductive rights, that he said “are under attack by this incoming administration.”

“Whether it be our fundamental civil rights, reproductive freedom, or climate action — we refuse to turn back the clock and allow our values and laws to be attacked,” Newsom said on X on Nov. 7.

A spokesperson for Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

This isn’t the first time California will be taking action against the Trump’s administration concerning clean transportation legislation.

Advertisement

In 2019, California and 22 other states sued his administration for revoking its ability to set standards for greenhouse gas emission and fuel economy standards for vehicles, The Associated Press reported.

California sued the Trump administration over 100 times during his first term, primarily on matters including gun control, health care, education and immigration, the Los Angeles Times reported.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending