United States: Did California Open (Another) Floodgate For Breach Litigation?

Game-changing Calif. Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 puts statutory breach damages on the table

The recently-enacted California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 is a game-changer in a number of respects.  The Act imports European GDPR-style rights around data ownership, transparency, and control.  It also contains features that are new to the American privacy landscape, including "pay-for-privacy" (i.e., financial incentives for the collection, sale, and even deletion of personal information) and "anti-discrimination" (i.e., prohibition of different pricing or service-levels to consumers who exercise privacy rights, unless such differentials are "reasonably related to the value provided to the consumer of the consumer's data").  Privacy teams will be hard at work assessing and implementing compliance in advance of the January 1, 2020 effective date.

For InfoSec professionals—as well as cyber and litigation counsel—Section 1798.150's introduction of unprecedented, statutory damages for data breaches, are cause for careful planning (and some heartburn).  Specifically, plaintiff-consumers will be able to seek the greater of (a) actual damages or (b) statutory damages between $100 and $750 "per consumer per incident," if a company's failure to "implement and maintain reasonable security" leads to "unauthorized access and exfiltration, theft, or disclosure" of personal information.  With a breach of 1,000,000 consumer records theoretically reaching $750,000,000 in statutory damages, the Act creates enormous—potentially existential—risk for large and small businesses alike.  The significance of available damages is tempered by the Act's 30-day cure period, which gives businesses an opportunity to fix alleged "violations".  How that process will work in practice, however, presents a host of questions, including how plaintiffs can identify such violations, who will assess the efficacy of remediation efforts, and whether and how the "cure" can be implemented within the 30-day time frame.  To make matters more complex, the Act gives the California Attorney General a gatekeeping role to private enforcement, forcing plaintiffs essentially to check-in with the AG and obtain permission before throwing down a civil action—although it is unclear what criteria the AG will apply in deciding whether a private claim can go forward.

Statutory damages will entice class action lawyers despite Spokeo.

We've seen this movie before: A consumer protection statute provides for statutory recoveries irrespective of whether a plaintiff suffered "actual harm," class actions flood the courts, a cottage industry forms around the statute, and lawyers on both sides begin specializing in it.  Examples of this phenomena include the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), and its cousin, the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA); the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; the Video Privacy Protection Act, and, of course, everyone's favorite, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).  According to a study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, plaintiffs filed over 3,120 TCPA lawsuits between August 2015 and December 2016 alone.

Procedurally, companies will face an uphill battle on the issue of standing in the Ninth Circuit—as well as in the Sixth, Seventh, and D.C. Circuits—because judges have held that hackers steal data for the principal purpose of misusing it, and thus, plaintiffs have suffered sufficiently imminent harm to confer standing.  But, with the Second, Third, Fourth, and Eight Circuits reaching the opposite conclusion, you can bet that the early skirmishes will be grounded in how the Supreme Court's holding in Robbins v. Spokeo should be applied to statutory-damages cases under the Act.  One thing is for certain:  even with the threshold issue of standing, the availability of statutory damages in California is sure to excite and entice the plaintiffs' bar.

We will be (re)litigating what "reasonable security" means for liability purposes.

The Act establishes potential liability for certain types of data breaches:

  • First, the triggering personal data elements are the same as those under the existing California data breach notification rules (including a provision that only "non-encrypted or non-redacted" personal information is covered)1; it does not extend liability to breaches affecting all types of personal information covered by the Act's more expansive definition.
  • Second, the triggering event is an "unauthorized access and exfiltration, theft, or disclosure" of personal information, not simply "unauthorized acquisition" of the information which triggers notification under California's data breach notification law.
  • Third, liability potentially attaches where there is "a violation of the duty to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices" that results in the data breach at issue.

On this last point, there is no single regulatory, statutory, or industry-based definition of "reasonable" data security.  The ambiguity in what is "reasonable" is well-recognized.  For example, the Eleventh Circuit, in a high-profile decision, referred to the Federal Trade Commission's order against LabMD as being improperly based on "an indeterminable standard of reasonableness."  The California legislature provides no help on this front with respect to the new Act, requiring only that reasonable security measures be "appropriate" to the nature of data maintained and to the goal of protection.2  In a statement in the 2016 California Data Breach Report, California's then Attorney General, Kamala Harris, set a high, one-size-fits-all bar for reasonableness, when she declared that "[t]he 20 controls in the Center for Internet Security's Critical Security Controls identify a minimum level of information security . . . [and] the failure to implement all the Controls that apply to an organization's environment constitutes a lack of reasonable security."  Whether that proclamation should be heeded—because it preceded the new Act—is questionable.  But, one thing is clear:  the California Attorney General will have tremendous influence over the contours of reasonableness in the security context, and on how data breach cases get "prosecuted" under the Act.  More on that later.

Beyond the definition of "reasonable," there may also be a more practical problem:  How would plaintiffs know about a company's "security procedures and practices" before filing suit and serving discovery?  Enterprising plaintiffs' counsel may very well base their allegations on statutory breach-notification letters, which always contain some details regarding the breach.  Such letters typically provide a high-level summary of the incident, investigation, and remedial measures, but do not delve into great detail.  Once the Act goes into effect, companies that provide relatively greater transparency around their breach letters, may inadvertently make it easier for plaintiffs to allege a specific laundry list of "unreasonable" security measures (e.g., lack of encryption, lack of multi-factor authentication, lack of vendor management).  As a result, we may see even more careful, and less detailed, breach notices—an unintended consequence that runs contrary to the Act's goals of enhanced transparency and disclosure).

Companies will focus on whether a "cure" is possible, and even if so, whether it is advisable to pursue a cure.

There is a "flip" side to all this, though.  Plaintiffs who seek statutory damages (whether individually or as a class) must "provide a business 30 days' written notice" that identifies each alleged violation.  Assuming that a cure is "possible," an action for statutory damages cannot proceed if the business (a) cures the violation within 30 days, and (b) "provides the consumer an express written statement that the violations have been cured and that no further violations shall occur."

While the ability to avoid a lawsuit is attractive, it is unclear what "violation" the company should seek to "cure."  The cure could relate to a violation of the duty to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices.  Or, the cure could relate to the data breach itself that compromised personal information.  In the latter case, it is unclear what a company should do to "cure" an exfiltration of data that has already occurred.  Certainly, a company can represent that it patched a piece of software or implemented more stringent security protocols, but it will not be able to put the ketchup back in the bottle so to speak.3

The requirement that a cure be accompanied by an "express written statement . . . that no further violations shall occur" is highly problematic.  Recall that the "violations" at issue ostensibly relate to the implementation and maintenance of reasonable security.  How can a business make representations that it will implement "reasonable security procedures and practices," when there is no agreement, even amongst experts, as to what that means.  Moreover, with the threat landscape evolving, and threat actors finding new ways to penetrate environments, implementing "reasonable security" is an inherently iterative, dynamic process—what is reasonable today may not be reasonable tomorrow.  If a company continues to violate the Act in breach of its express written statement claiming that violations were "cured," then the consumer may file an action to enforce the written statement and to pursue statutory damages for each breach of the written statement.  (There is no word in the Act regarding how a subsequent violation may be deemed to be a continuation of the previously "cured" violation.)

As noted in the previous section, companies that notify consumers of a data breach pursuant to state breach notification laws should anticipate that such notices could serve as the basis for a civil suit for "violations" under the Act.  As such, companies might consider explicitly referring to the successful remediation of any control failures or vulnerabilities that led to the breach.  This might proactively demonstrate that the "violation" has already been cured.  Though a proactive "cure" statement is unlikely to prevent litigious consumers from filing suit and serving the company with a violation notice, it could put the company in a better position to respond to such notices with within the 30-day cure period.  But, again, as discussed above, increased transparency carries risk.

It is important to note that the notice-and-cure process does not apply to all consumer claims.  An individual consumer who solely seeks "actual pecuniary damages," is not required to provide notice to the company before filing a claim.

The California Attorney General will be a gatekeeper for class actions.

In addition to the notice-and-cure process discussed above, there is a further notice-and-waiting process involving the California Attorney General.  Specifically:

  • The plaintiff must notify the Attorney General within 30 days that the action has been filed.
  • The Attorney General, upon receiving such notice shall, within 30 days, do one of the following

(A) Notify the plaintiff bringing the action of the Attorney General's intent to prosecute an action against the violation.  If the Attorney General does not prosecute within six months, the consumer may proceed with the action.

(B) Refrain from acting within the 30 days, allowing the plaintiff bringing the action to proceed.

(C) Notify the plaintiff bringing the action that the consumer shall not proceed with the action.

This framework will set up an interesting, and tricky, dynamic between and among companies, plaintiffs and the Attorney General.  As background, it is no secret that various state Attorneys General are working with plaintiffs' firms to "prosecute" corporate misconduct.  The Act empowers the Attorney General to effectively halt a plaintiff's case, and requires plaintiffs to consider whether, to what extent, and how they will work with the California AG before filing the case to limit the likelihood that they will invest substantial resources in a case, only to have the California Attorney General prohibit it.  And, companies must determine whether there are opportunities to intervene, advocate and persuade the Attorney General to shut down a threatened class action in the wake of a data breach.

How the Act will affect filings outside of California is harder to predict, and likely depends on the extent to which out-of-state plaintiffs want to rely on California's law, and to test the various processes outlined above.  With varying motivations and levels of sophistication in the plaintiffs' bar, only time will tell.


1 Specifically, "Personal information" means either of the following:  (A) An individual's first name or first initial and his or her last name in combination with any one or more of the following data elements, when either the name or the data elements are not encrypted or redacted:  (i) Social security number, (ii) Driver's license number or California identification card number, (iii) Account number, credit or debit card number, in combination with any required security code, access code, or password that would permit access to an individual's financial account, (iv) Medical information, or (v) Health insurance information; or (B) A username or email address in combination with a password or security question and answer that would permit access to an online account.

2 Cal. Civil Code 1798.81.5.

3 Interestingly, the Act states that the notice to the company must identify "the specific provisions of this title the consumer alleges have been or are being violated."  "[T]his Title" appears to refer to Title 1.81.5 (the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018). The breach notification section is contained in Title 1.81.25.  Thus, there is an argument that—as drafted—the violation (and therefore, cure) must be linked to a violation of the Act's main provisions, and not necessarily a violation of the duty to implement reasonable security measures.  Note that because the Act does not itself contain a requirement that companies implement reasonable security measures, a failure to do so would not necessarily be a 'violation' of the Act.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Events from this Firm
28 Aug 2019, Webinar, San Francisco, United States

This CLE webinar will analyze the potential antitrust ramifications of joint ventures (JVs) and other collaborations between competitors and how to balance the pro-competitive efficiencies against the anti-competitive effects of a proposed JV.

1 Oct 2019, Other, Washington, DC, United States

Orrick is proud to host the AIPN for its final breakfast meeting of 2019 for a session titled “Helping the World Gasify”. As natural gas production and use is very unevenly distributed throughout the world, often gas produced in association with crude oil is sold below cost or flared.

25 Nov 2019, Speaking Engagement, New York, United States

Lorraine McGowen will be speaking on the upcoming “Evaluating the Financial Health of an Entity” panel at the New York session of the Pocket MBA: Finance for Lawyers and Other Professionals program, hosted by the Practising Law Institute.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions