The California Privacy Protection Agency may act next week on proposed rules to implement the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), the agency said Monday. The agenda for the Feb. 3 virtual meeting also includes preliminary rulemaking activities for new rules on risk assessments, cybersecurity audits and automated decision-making. CPRA rules could take effect in April or later, even though the law took effect Jan. 1 (see 2212160040). The meeting begins at 10 a.m. PST.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices Jan. 24 on AD/CVD proceedings:
New York state and ISP associations must file supplemental briefs on whether the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has appellate jurisdiction over the lower court’s final judgment that the parties negotiated, the court ordered Friday. In the challenge of New York’s Affordable Broadband Act (ABA), the state told the court last week that the stipulated final decision was appealable (see 2301200029). Judges grilled New York on the question at a hearing earlier this month (see 2301120041). To clear an appeals path, the New York attorney general in July 2021 reached agreement with ISP plaintiffs that the state reserved appeal rights but would not to enforce its law (see 2107230044). They agreed the court’s holdings on preemption in a June 11 preliminary injunction order resolved legal issues and should be used as a final judgment. In Monday’s order, judges asked if the state’s agreement to be “permanently enjoined from enforcing” the ABA was “an ‘intentional relinquishment’ of Defendant-Appellant’s claim to be free from such an injunction?” It asked if any “defect in appellate standing” was cured by the stipulated judgment saying the state reserved all rights to appeal. Also, the court wonders if the stipulated judgment lacked “finality … insofar as Plaintiffs-Appellees voluntarily dismissed their claim” without prejudice. Briefs will be due Jan. 30, the court said.
AT&T “took a blow” Wednesday when U.S. District Court Judge Amos Mazzant for Eastern Texas denied its application for a preliminary injunction to stop T-Mobile’s allegedly false BannedSeniors.com ad and marketing campaign (see 2301190009), emailed a T-Mobile spokesperson Friday. With Mazzant’s ruling, “seniors will now continue to have access to truthful information about 55+ wireless discounts,” he said. “AT&T's approach is unfair and confusing. We'll continue to bring attention to this injustice until AT&T finally does the right thing and offers a wireless plan for seniors in states not named Florida.”
The Commerce Department is beginning new antidumping duty investigations on gas powered pressure washers from China and Vietnam, as well as a new countervailing duty investigation on gas powered pressure washers from China, it said in a fact sheet Jan. 20. The underlying petition was filed Dec. 29 (see 2301050059). The International Trade Commission is scheduled to make its preliminary injury determinations by Feb. 13. These AD/CV duty investigations will continue only if the ITC finds injury. International Trade Today will provide more details upon publication of the initiation notices in the Federal Register.
A Jan. 18 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit antidumping duty decision concerning the Commerce Department's rejection of untimely filed submissions has surfaced in another AD case at the Court of International Trade. In a notice of supplemental authority the same day, petitioner Mid Continent Steel & Wire said the Trinity Manufacturing v. U.S. ruling is relevant for the present action (Oman Fasteners v. U.S., CIT # 22-00348). In Trinity, the Federal Circuit found Commerce didn't abuse its discretion in rejecting a late submission that led to the revocation of an AD order (see 2301180025).
U.S. District Court Judge Amos Mazzant for Eastern Texas in Sherman denied AT&T’s Sept. 6 application for a preliminary injunction to stop T-Mobile’s allegedly false BannedSeniors.com ad and marketing campaign. The memorandum opinion and order the judge signed Wednesday (docket 4:22-cv-00760) came five days after he denied T-Mobile’s motion to dismiss AT&T’s application (see 2301170040).
The Commerce Department has released the final results of the antidumping duty administrative review on emulsion styrene butadiene rubber from Mexico (A-201-848), making no changes to its preliminary results. Commerce set an AD rate of zero percent for Industrias Negromex S.A. de C.V., the only company under review. As a result, the agency will not assess AD duties for subject merchandise from Negromex entered Sept. 1, 2020, through Aug. 31, 2021, it said. The new AD duty cash deposit rate for Negromex takes effect Jan. 20, when the final results are published in the Federal Register.
The Commerce Department has released the final results of its countervailing duty administrative review on prestressed concrete steel wire strand (PC strand) from Turkey (C-489-843). It said it made no changes to its preliminary results of this review. However, it noted that the preliminary results contained an error about the start date of the period of review: the correct date is Sept. 21, 2020, instead of Sept. 9, 2020.
A class action filed in U.S. District Court for Central Illinois in Peoria Tuesday seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction against Henkel from collecting users’ facial geometry in its virtual try-on feature for hair care products, said the privacy complaint (docket 1:23-cv-1015). Plaintiff Sarah Watkins of Peoria alleged Henkel’s Schwarzkopf brand collects users’ facial geometry data with its virtual try-on feature, without their prior consent, a violation of Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), which makes them at “heightened risk for identity theft.” Visitors to the Schwarzkopf website who use the feature enable their computer webcam or phone camera to take a photo to be used by Schwarzkopf, which collects, “unbeknownst to the website user,” detailed and sensitive biometric identifiers and information, including “complete facial scans,” alleged the complaint. “It does this without first obtaining their consent, or informing them that this data is being collected.” In violation of BIPA, Schwarzkopf “does not provide users with a schedule setting out the length of time during which their biometric information or biometric identifiers will be collected, stored, used or will be destroyed,” said the complaint. Though the defendant provides a link to its North American privacy policy, the policy doesn’t inform users how their facial geometry is collected, used or retained in order for the try-on feature to operate, said the plaintiff, saying biometric identifiers are protected by BIPA. Schwarzkopf lacks a publicly available written policy establishing a retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying biometric identifiers obtained from consumers, as required by BIPA, the complaint said. In addition to an injunction preventing further collection of biometric identifiers without written release, plus a written policy governing retention and deletion of biometric data, the class seeks $1,000 per negligent violation, $5,000 per willful violation, or actual damages to be determined by the court or jury at trial.