California Privacy Rights Act Enforcement Delayed
Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.06.23
In a June 30, 2023 decision by the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, the Court issued a ruling delaying agency enforcement of final regulations under the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) until March 2024. Calfornia Chamber of Commerce v. California Privacy Protection Act, Case No. 34-2023-80004106-CU-WM-GDS (Sacramento Superior Court, June 30, 2023).
The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) and the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (CPRA) provisions in the ballot initiative passed in 2020 by California voters are still in effect. However, enforcement of the final regulations implementing the CPRA, enacted on March 29, 2023 by the California Privacy Protection Agency (Agency) and which were set to go in effect on July 1, 2023, has been stayed by the California court until March 2024 (until one year after the enactment of the final CPRA regulations). Assuming the ruling is not overturned on appeal, it gives businesses another 9 months to become compliant with the final CPRA regulations. Businesses still need to remain compliant with the prior CCPA regulations in effect before the final CPRA regulations, including the CPRA provisions that were in the ballot initiative of 2020. The Agency has set a public meeting for July 14 to discuss enforcement and other topics.
Notably, on March 29, 2023, the Agency issued final regulations with respect to only 12 of the 15 areas required by Section 1798.185 of the CPRA. The Court ruled that enforcement of these regulations was delayed until March 29, 2024. Enforcement of any regulations in the remaining three areas (cybersecurity audits, risk assessments and automated decision-making technology) will begin until a year after the Agency finalizes those rules. The Court did not mandate any specific date by which the Agency must finalize these remaining regulations.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
