CCPA 2.0 Sponsor Says He Balanced Interests, Sues State to Ensure Nov. Vote
California privacy advocate Alastair Mactaggart laughs at claims he would “sabotage” the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) with the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), he testified at an Assembly Privacy Committee hearing livestreamed Friday. Mactaggart sponsored the CPRA, a ballot…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
initiative expected to appear in November (see 2006040046), and in 2018, he sponsored a ballot initiative that never went to vote because he struck a deal that led to the legislature quickly passing the CCPA. Privacy groups gave the CPRA a lukewarm reception because it includes some exemptions sought by businesses (see 2005080037). “If the criticism is that I talked to Google and Facebook and Experian, well, guilty as charged,” Mactaggart said at the hearing. He also spoke with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse and American Civil Liberties Union and other privacy advocates, he said. Mactaggart met with the California Chamber of Commerce and made some requested changes, testified CalChamber Policy Advocate Shoeb Mohammed. The chamber has no formal position on the initiative, but Mohammed warned the initiative could increase compliance costs. CompTIA Senior Director-State Government Affairs Laura Curtis said, “The ballot initiative adds complexity to an already complex law before businesses and consumers even have an opportunity to become familiar with the CCPA.” Consumer Reports likes that the ballot initiative would make it harder for the legislature to weaken the privacy law, said Policy Analyst Maureen Mahoney. The CPRA needs 685,533 verified signatures to qualify for the November ballot; it has 420,744 verified so far of 931,000 submitted, said a slide presented by Mactaggart at the hearing. The real estate developer sued California Secretary of State Alex Padilla (D) Monday for failing to immediately notify county officials to start the verification process. “We believe the Secretary of State did not fulfill their ministerial duty to notify counties that they had to submit their random sample results by June 25,” the statutory deadline to qualify measures for November, emailed a spokesperson for Mactaggart’s group, Californians for Consumer Privacy. Padilla notified counties May 14, giving them until June 26, said the complaint at the California Superior Court in Sacramento. Mactaggart sought immediate judicial relief. It “remains to be seen how the Court may interpret the term ‘immediately’ and whether it will agree to (or even has the power to) order the Secretary of State to require county registrars to complete the certification process sooner than statutorily allowed,” McGuireWoods attorneys blogged Wednesday. Padilla didn’t comment now.