California Enacts Tough New Privacy Protections
Client Alert | 3 min read | 10.02.14
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 | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development

