Proposition 244, the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020, clearly mandated that the new privacy agency had to promulgate regulations in 15 areas by July 1, 2022. It also provided that the agency could begin enforcing the Act on July 1, 2023. The agency didn't promulgate final regulations until 9 months after the deadline. This decision holds that the trial… Read More
The trial court erred in giving a jury instruction in this invasion of the constitutional right of privacy case which stated unconditionally that bank customers have a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to financial information disclosed to their bank. While a bank customer has a right to privacy of financial records, the customer does not have an unconditional expectation… Read More
Penal Code 502(c)(2) prohibits knowingly accessing and without permission taking, copying, or making use of any data from a computer, computer system, or computer network. Section 502(e)(1) grants a private right of action to an owner or lessee of the data who suffers damage from a violation of section 502(c)(2). This deciison holds that the trial court erred in giving… Read More
Oregon's wiretapping statute violates the First Amendment and is unenforceable. It is a content-based regulation of speech since it excepts from its scope police recordings of conversations in which the policeman is a party and is performing official duties. The law doesn't meet strict scrutiny because it is too broad, banning audio or visual recording on any conversation without consent--thus,… Read More
The district court correctly denied Amazon's motion to compel arbitration of a claim by its Flex drivers that Amazon violated state and federal privacy laws by monitoring and wiretapping the drivers’ conversations when they communicated during off hours in closed Facebook groups. To be arbitrable under Amazon's terms of service, the claim had to arise from or involve the Flex… Read More
This decision holds that the complaint alleged a viable claim under CCP 526a to enjoin Orange County's program for collection of DNA samples from persons accused of misdemeanors on the ground that as applied it violated the accused's rights to privacy, counsel and due process. Though Orange County had the accused misdemeanants sign forms waiving those rights, the complaint alleged… Read More
Plaintiffs failed to allege a viable claim of trespass to chattels against defendants whom they alleged accessed and copied, without authority, computer files containing private legal and medical information about them and other workers compensation plaintiffs. Under Intel Corp. v. Hamidi (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1342, a trespass to chattels claim cannot be stated for computer hacking (either sending or copying… Read More
A family court judge has jurisdiction to rule on the Attorney General's motion to unseal financial records submitted to the family court. The public's right to documents on which a court bases its decision overrides the couple's privacy rights. However, the record was unclear as to whether the court actually considered the records before making any substantive decision in the… Read More
Like Board of Registered Nursing v. Superior Court (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 1011, this writ proceeding arises from Johnson & Johnson's discovery in the county's opioid UCL, FAL and public nuisance action. J&J subpoenaed several non-party counties to produce records of opioid prescriptions and drug treatment records with intact personal identification information to J&J's third party vendor for it to de-identify… Read More
Pen. Code 637.2 provides criminal and civil remedies against a person who "without consent of all parties to the communication, intercepts or receives and intentionally records" a phone call in which one phone is a cell phone or a cordless phone. This decision holds that the section applies to parties to the telephone call as well as to non-participants who… Read More
