Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com, Slash podcasts. Google and its
Speaker 1: industry allies and making a late bid to water down
Speaker 1: the first major data privacy law in the US, according
Speaker 1: to Bloomberg sources. Joining me is Cardoke Marota, Bloomberg News
Speaker 1: cybersecurity reporter who reported on this story first. So Cardoke,
Speaker 1: many people may not be familiar with the California Consumer
Speaker 1: Privacy Act tell us what it aims to do. The
Speaker 1: c c p A is UH, California's response to GDPR
Speaker 1: in Europe, and what it would allow UH users in
Speaker 1: California to do is opt out of UH data aggregation
Speaker 1: related to their idea entity. So, if you're browsing on
Speaker 1: the Internet and like a pair of boots on Amazon
Speaker 1: put them in your car, but don't buy them and
Speaker 1: go to another website and add follows you, this law
Speaker 1: would UH, as it currently stands, allow you to opt
Speaker 1: out of Google or other entities from following you around
Speaker 1: the Internet to advertise at you, and that applies to
Speaker 1: multiple industries. And so what changes is Google looking for? Well,
Speaker 1: they're looking for an exemption to allow for continued targeted
Speaker 1: advertising and analysis of the data they collect while following
Speaker 1: you around the internet. Uh. They generate over of their
Speaker 1: revenue from uh AD sales and and so if they're
Speaker 1: no longer allowed to follow you and then also take
Speaker 1: that information, analyze it and sell it to a third
Speaker 1: party that could potentially impact their bottom one. Does that
Speaker 1: defeat the whole purpose of the law? Consumer privacy folks
Speaker 1: certainly seem to think so. Uh. The lawmaker in Sacramento,
Speaker 1: her name is Hannaboth Jackson, who has been the face
Speaker 1: of the Consumer Privacy group, says that this exemption would
Speaker 1: drive a truck through the c c p A. There
Speaker 1: will be no point to it. So there were two
Speaker 1: years of debate over the c c p A from
Speaker 1: what I understand from your article. So what would the
Speaker 1: procedure be to make changes at this late date? Yeah,
Speaker 1: So c c p A sort of came into clarity
Speaker 1: in the last three days of the two thousand eighteen
Speaker 1: legislative session. We're in that same period now in uh
Speaker 1: and there are a number of amendments on the table
Speaker 1: to tinker with the c c p A. That's what
Speaker 1: two thousand nineteen was all about. And so there are
Speaker 1: proposals from lawmakers on the table to make these tweaks
Speaker 1: before it kicks in, and we'll get clarity in the
Speaker 1: next or thirty six hours. So then lawmakers would have
Speaker 1: to approve a new ccp A. No, they would have
Speaker 1: to approve a bill to amend the c c p A.
Speaker 1: They would have to prove approve new legislation to tweak
Speaker 1: the act that currently exists that kicks in on January one.
Speaker 1: How likely is that to happen on ad tech and
Speaker 1: target advertising? Extremely unlikely. Well, California's law, I mean, this
Speaker 1: is the first privacy law in the US that you know,
Speaker 1: comprehensive sort of Will that be an example for other states? Absolutely? Absolutely.
Speaker 1: We know that Washington tried and failed to pass its
Speaker 1: own this year. Some of that was related to they
Speaker 1: don't know what what California is up to just yet.
Speaker 1: Um Nevada has explicitly stated that they want to know
Speaker 1: what happens in California before they push forward with their own.
Speaker 1: We know Illinois has been a leader in privacy law. UM,
Speaker 1: and not just states, but Congress is having the same
Speaker 1: conversation in d C. And they're waiting to see what
Speaker 1: the benchmark set by California is before they push forward
Speaker 1: with any sort of legislation in one So certainly whatever
Speaker 1: California does will set the baseline for data privacy laws
Speaker 1: around the country. You spoke of California State Senator Jackson,
Speaker 1: she said that this could shift the c c p A,
Speaker 1: could shift the balance of power in Sacramento. How so well,
Speaker 1: she says that over the last decade two decades, that
Speaker 1: the tech industry has been able to ensure that this
Speaker 1: wild West of deregulation remains the culture in Silicon Valley.
Speaker 1: And she argues that with this stepping stone of data privacy,
Speaker 1: you're creating an environment where where regulation can't be avoided
Speaker 1: any longer, and and Silicon Valley has to come to
Speaker 1: the table to discuss the rules of the game, which
Speaker 1: she says haven't existed. And so that is the fundamental
Speaker 1: change that there will actually be conversations about regulation going
Speaker 1: forward instead of uh, no debate at all. UM. On
Speaker 1: the surface, you hear a lot from Google and other
Speaker 1: Internet companies about it's a good idea to respect privacy
Speaker 1: and to have this kind of legislation, but does it
Speaker 1: play out in reality? I mean that that is an
Speaker 1: observation that we made in the story as well. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, the talking points are are are fantastic, and
Speaker 1: h G DPRS is encouraged and welcomed and and other
Speaker 1: legislations are are a good idea. But you know, we
Speaker 1: see that Google has lobbied against this law in California.
Speaker 1: We see they've lobbied against a similar law in Washington,
Speaker 1: and they've tried to narrow a biometric law in Illinois
Speaker 1: not once but twice. And so the question remains whether
Speaker 1: the talking points are going to materialize in something, uh
Speaker 1: in Congress or at these states beyond the lip service.
Speaker 1: And I think right now what you're seeing is uh
Speaker 1: that lobbyists are still being paid to protect the business
Speaker 1: model instead of data privacy. Does it seem though, as
Speaker 1: if there is a trend lately against tech, especially with
Speaker 1: data privacy. And you just had Google paying a hundred
Speaker 1: and seventy million to settle claims that have violated children's
Speaker 1: privacy law, So is there is the tide turning against tech,
Speaker 1: at least temporarily. Well, I think you're seeing that in
Speaker 1: the fact that this amendment is unlikely to get anywhere. Uh.
Speaker 1: Nobody seems to want to carry the industry's water right
Speaker 1: now in Sacramento and be the face of the amendment
Speaker 1: that allows big tech to continue to behave like big tech. Uh.
Speaker 1: And so yes, I think there does appear to be,
Speaker 1: at least in this current uh point in time, a
Speaker 1: question about whether you want to be the company that
Speaker 1: is pushing a loophole for Google to continue target advertising. Um.
Speaker 1: We heard a lot before the the g DPR as
Speaker 1: it was enacted in in Europe. Is there has there
Speaker 1: been that much of a problem with it, because we
Speaker 1: don't seem to be hearing as much about it, at
Speaker 1: least I don't. Yeah. No, there've been a number of
Speaker 1: fines issued uh in Europe over a lack of compliance. Uh,
Speaker 1: It's it's been a year and a half and and
Speaker 1: so companies are pointing to that and saying, look, these
Speaker 1: aren't entities that are behaving maliciously. It just takes a
Speaker 1: long time to come to grips with what these laws
Speaker 1: are are doing and how they're changing the game. And
Speaker 1: so that same question exists with c c p A
Speaker 1: and and industry lobbyist and attorneys believe that the language
Speaker 1: and c c p A is even more confusing and
Speaker 1: bigger than it is in GDPR. And so these same
Speaker 1: issues of compliance are going to to linger for extended
Speaker 1: periods of time, maybe years, until companies can figure out
Speaker 1: exactly how to fall into place. And so the Attorney
Speaker 1: General in California is going to be the one in
Speaker 1: charge of enforcement. And it will undoubtedly be a question
Speaker 1: of whether or not UH companies that don't comply are
Speaker 1: penalized or if they're given some sort of um leeway
Speaker 1: to figure things out for extended period right, more battles ahead.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, Cardike. That's cardke Mrotrie, the Bloomberg
Speaker 1: News cyber security reporter. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen to the show
Speaker 1: on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast.
Speaker 1: I'm June Brosso. This is Bloomberg