The California Consumer Privacy Act / by kevin murray

Not everything that glitters like gold is gold, of which the very powerful initiative which had received double the amount of signatures needed to be certified for a democratic vote in California in regards to the right of privacy for consumers in today's hi-technology digital world, was circumvented by a hastily put together alternative to such, known as the Consumer Right to Privacy Act which was passed by the legislature of California in 2018, thereby in its effect, signified as part of this quid pro quo, that the sponsors of the initiative, would withdrew their ballot initiative, before the statutory ballot initiative deadline, which they so did.


As might be expected, the sponsors of the initiative, believe that their withdrawal was done upon having received in effect, the very things that they so desired from the legislative action that passed this alternative privacy act, in addition to also receiving some added privacy protections not specifically addressed in their initiative.  On the other hand, the sponsors do admit that in the area of consumer lawsuits, that there was a definite trade-off, of which those consumer lawsuits are legally limited to data breaches only, with the rest of law  “...subject to enforcement by the California Attorney General.”


It doesn't take a genius to recognize, that when the biggest and most important hi-technology companies in the world are located in the State of California, and that these companies do billions upon billions of dollars worth of business, as well as profit to the tune of billions upon billions of dollars from the consumers of their products and their usage, that these companies will not risk in any way, form or substance, the very basis of their profitability and growth.  This thus signifies, that despite what this legislated privacy act so stipulates or purports to stipulate, that these companies are both confident and comfortable that it will essentially be business as usual, especially in consideration that the Attorney General will not under virtually any circumstances do anything that will endanger the very businesses that California's economy depends so heavily upon.


The bottom line is the best lawyers are going to be working hand-in-hand with the hi-technology companies, so that, whatever words are written into legislation, they are written in a manner that may say one thing to the layperson, but clearly says something materially different to those that understand implicitly and explicitly how the law will work in its implementation.  That said, such a privacy act is still a step in the right direction, for it serves notice to those big businesses that as much as it may appear that most Americans are nothing more than mindless sheep, there are still a few Americans that at least have one eye open and are aware of their right to privacy as well as its essential importance to their freedom and their right to just be left alone.  So too, it must be stated as an axiom, that when the people's democratic initiative is circumvented by a suddenly awoken legislature, seldom will the alternative, be anything more than fool's gold.