New California Law Requires Tracking Transparency
Privacy & Information Security Update
Date: March 04, 2014
Since CalOPPA was enacted in 2003, technology has evolved to permit website operators to engage in sophisticated “behavioral tracking,” which involves collecting data about a user’s activities across multiple websites over time to build a profile of the user’s behavior and interests. The profiles have tremendous value and enable advertisers to tailor communications to a consumer’s real interests and help avoid inundating him or her with unwanted ads. Nevertheless, in response to privacy concerns surrounding the increased use of behavioral tracking, the Federal Trade Commission in 2010 recommended that the digital advertising community “create and implement a mechanism to allow consumers to control the collection and use of their online browsing data, often referred to as ‘Do Not Track.’” By 2013 several major Internet browsers had implemented a Do Not Track mechanism that allows users to request that websites do not track their online activities. To date, however, there is no legal requirement that website operators respect Do Not Track requests.
On September 27, 2013 the California legislature enacted an amendment to CalOPPA to provide consumers with increased transparency regarding websites’ behavioral tracking policies. Specifically, the amendment requires an operator to divulge whether it respects a user’s Do Not Track request and disclose the possible presence of third-party tracking. The amendment does not require an operator to respect a Do Not Track request so long as users are notified of the online tracking policies and can make an informed decision whether to continue using an online website or service that does not respect a Do Not Track request.
Operators receiving notification of noncompliance have 30 days to comply with the amendment. Noncompliance penalties can include fines of up to $2,500 per violation.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
For more information, please contact:
Roy E. Hadley, Jr.
Thomas F. Zych
Darcy M. Brosky
Craig A. Foster*
*Craig is not licensed to practice in Ohio; he is admitted only in Oregon.
This advisory bulletin may be reproduced, in whole or in part, with the prior permission of Thompson Hine LLP and acknowledgement of its source and copyright. This publication is intended to inform clients about legal matters of current interest. It is not intended as legal advice. Readers should not act upon the information contained in it without professional counsel.
This document may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.
© 2014 THOMPSON HINE LLP. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.