1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |California Enacts Tough New Privacy Protections

California Enacts Tough New Privacy Protections

Client Alert | 3 min read | 10.02.14


Recent Happenings in APRM
October 2014

On September 30, 2014, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law Assembly Bill 1710, which contains a new set of personal information protections that affect all businesses that "own, license, or maintain personal information about Californians." In what may become a precedent for other jurisdictions, the law includes the nation's first mandatory state requirement for breached entities to offer breach mitigation services – including credit monitoring – to all affected individuals. Further, the law includes new restrictions on the sale of social security numbers (SSNs). These amendments to the existing California Civil Code Sections 1798.81.5, 1798.82, and 1798.85 will take effect on January 1, 2015.

While offering some sort of breach mitigation services has become common practice for breached entities, California will now require any notifying entity that is the source of a breach to "offer to provide appropriate identity theft prevention and mitigation services … at no cost to the affected person for not less than 12 months." This obligation will apply only to breaches involving Californians' names combined with an SSN, driver's license number, or California ID number.

California has also expanded the scope of its pre-breach privacy protections by including, in addition to business that "own or license" personal information about California residents, businesses that simply "maintain" such information. Now "a business that owns, licenses, or maintains personal information about a California resident" is required to "implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices appropriate to the nature of the information, to protect the personal information from unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification or disclosure." This could have a significant impact on service providers tasked with maintaining covered information.

Finally, the new law limits the sale of social security numbers. While carving out an exception for "release of an individual's social security number if the release … is incidental to a larger transaction," the law states that businesses may not "sell, advertise for sale, or offer to sell an individual's social security number."

The bill that passed left out some of the more stringent provisions included in an earlier proposal. Based on industry comments, the bill's co-sponsors removed provisions that included limits on the amount of payment information a retailer could store in its system as well as more stringent encryption standards. Nevertheless, this new law will affect a broad range of businesses and anyone else who "maintains" the personal information of California residents, and those businesses should review the new requirements carefully to understand their compliance requirements. 

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.21.25

A Sign of What’s to Come? Court Dismisses FCA Retaliation Complaint Based on Alleged Discriminatory Use of Federal Funding

On November 7, 2025, in Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences, No. 25-cv-2155, 2025 WL 3123732 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2025), the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation complaint on the basis that the plaintiff’s allegations that he was fired after blowing the whistle on purported illegally discriminatory use of federal funding was not sufficient to support his FCA claim. This case appears to be one of the first filed, and subsequently dismissed, following Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s announcement of the creation of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative on May 19, 2025, which “strongly encourages” private individuals to file lawsuits under the FCA relating to purportedly discriminatory and illegal use of federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in violation of Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025). In this case, the court dismissed the FCA retaliation claim and rejected the argument that an organization could violate the FCA merely by “engaging in discriminatory conduct while conducting a federally funded study.” The analysis in Thornton could be a sign of how forthcoming arguments of retaliation based on reporting allegedly fraudulent DEI activity will be analyzed in the future....