The California Chamber of Commerce is seeking to have the state Supreme Court review a recent appellate decision that would allow a state privacy regulator to move forward with enforcing updated regulations.
A state appeals court recently ruled that the California Privacy Protection Agency did not have to wait one year between final approval and implementation of regulations that harmonized a voter-approved ballot proposition with the state’s landmark consumer privacy law.
The Third District Court of Appeal’s opinion reversed a Sacramento Superior Court judge who sided with the chamber’s argument that Proposition 24 envisioned a one-year gap between the approval and enforcement of related privacy regulations.
CalChamber has highlighted in its legal arguments that under the proposition, the state’s privacy agency was to have adopted final regulations in 15 areas as of July 1, 2022. The proposition also said enforcement was not to begin until July 1, 2023.
As a result, the chamber has argued there should be a one-year gap between the final adoption of privacy regulations and their enforcement by the new privacy agency the ballot measure created.
This issue came to a head when final approval was given last March to regulations the privacy agency put forward in 12 of 15 anticipated areas, and the agency planned to move forward with enforcement by July 1, 2023.
CalChamber sued to delay the enforcement, which resulted in Sacramento Superior Court Judge James Arguelles’ ruling last summer that the regulations approved last March could not be enforced until March 29, 2024.
Arguelles said in his ruling that language in the proposition demonstrated voters “intended there to be a gap between the passing of final regulations and enforcement of those regulations.”
Upon appeal from the privacy agency and the California Attorney General’s office, the Third District Court of Appeal wrote earlier this month that the approved ballot measure “does not unambiguously require a one-year gap between approval and enforcement regardless of when the approval occurs.”
The text of the proposition “makes clear that, in approving the initiative measure, the voters intended to strengthen and protect consumers’ privacy rights regarding the collection and use (including sale) of their personal information,” the appeals court said.
CalChamber’s petition for review filed with the California Supreme Court argues that the appellate court was incorrect in its judgment.
“There is no way the voters envisioned a scenario where enforcement of regulations would begin without those regulations being in place for a reasonable period of time that affords both businesses and consumers with adequate time to prepare and comply,” said CalChamber President and CEO Jennifer Barrera in a chamber press release. “Respectfully, the Court of Appeals got it wrong as their decision deviates from Proposition 24’s text and context. It is imperative that the California Supreme Court restores common sense and the will of the voters in this matter.”
Officials at the California Privacy Protection Agency had praised the recent appellate court decision and said the agency’s enforcement team was “ready to take it from here.”
Asked about the chamber’s petition for review, a privacy agency spokesperson said the agency declined to comment on active litigation.
