No Opt-Out for State Data Privacy Compliance: California, Colorado and Connecticut Keep Data Privacy Enforcement Pressure on with Joint Enforcement Sweep
Client Alert | 3 min read | 09.10.25
On September 9, 2025, the California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA”), along with California Attorney General Rob Bonta, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, and Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, (collectively the “Coalition”) announced a joint investigative sweep (the “Sweep”) into businesses refusing to honor consumers' requests to opt-out of the sale of their personal information submitted via Global Privacy Controls (“GPCs”). This Sweep is another action in a growing trend of multi-state cooperation in data privacy enforcement activities. Given the continued lack of a federal data privacy law, state cooperation and enforcement activities are expected to continue.
Per the California Consumer Privacy act, the Colorado Privacy Act, and the Connecticut Data Privacy Act (the “Statutes”), consumers have the right to opt out of the sale or sharing of their personal information, including for purposes of targeted advertising. With some exceptions, a business who has previously received a request to opt out must honor such a request unless the consumer later provides authorization for such activities.
In this particular case, the Sweep focuses on one mechanism for a consumer to opt-out, the Global Privacy Control or GPC. GPCs are designed to automate this process and submit a consumer’s request to opt out through the use of a browser setting or extension. Thus, a consumer may easily request to stop selling or sharing their personal information to third parties. With GPCs enabled, a consumer visiting a website would theoretically not need to navigate through a cookie banner or a separate privacy-specific webpage to exercise its opt out rights. Per the Statutes, businesses subject to the obligations are required to honor such opt out requests submitted via GPCs.
As part of the Sweep announcement, California Attorney General Bonta indicated that the Coalition has identified and sent letters to businesses “refusing to honor consumers’ requests to stop selling their personal data [via GPCs] and have asked them to immediately come into compliance with the law.” Though the Coalition has not yet announced a timeline for enforcement following the letters to non-compliant businesses, Connecticut Attorney General Tong stresses that the Sweep is intended to put “violators on notice today that respecting consumer privacy is non-negotiable.” The Sweep followed the three states’ 2025 Data Privacy Day educational efforts on the GPC.
Those who have followed privacy enforcement trends in the past will recognize that the Sweep is not the first time regulators have focused on GPC compliance. In fact, the first ever CCPA enforcement was brought against Sephora due, in part, to its failure to process user requests to opt out of sale via user-enabled GPCs. However, the Sweep does mark the first time that regulators in different states have come together in an effort to improve GPC compliance and may indicate that the Coalition may conduct similar sweeps in the future. Given the emphasis placed on GPC compliance during the 2025 Data Privacy Day, it is important for companies to stay informed of state agency activities of and notices as one avenue of insight into potential enforcement priorities.
Crowell supports its clients through data privacy compliance reviews regarding the various state privacy laws, as well as responding to state agency notices. We will continue to monitor the development of the Sweep and provide updates when further information is released. Please reach out if you have any questions or would like to discuss your compliance related questions.
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



