The Nevada Privacy Law Is No CCPA, but Beware of Noncompliance

02 October 2019 Privacy, Cybersecurity & Technology Law Perspectives Blog
Authors: Kathryn Parsons-Reponte

This week, on October 1, 2019, the Nevada State Privacy law goes into effect. Nevada residents can look forward to a limited right to opt out of sales of personal information. Businesses subject to both laws will be pleased to find that the new Nevada law shares similar obligations to the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). 

The good news for businesses subject to both laws is that the Nevada privacy law is substantially narrower in scope in comparison to the California privacy law. 

Businesses who provide goods or services to Nevada citizens and who operate an internet website will be subject to the new Nevada law if the business collects and maintains personal information of Nevada citizens. 

However, the Nevada law narrowly defines the term sale. Under the law sales are exchanges of personal information for monetary consideration by the online operator to a person for the person to license or sell the personal information to additional persons. Unlike CCPA where a disclosure can be deemed a sale, the Nevada law requires an exchange of monetary consideration and a subsequent sale of that personal information must be intended by the parties.

Under the Nevada law there are a substantial number of exemptions including broad exemptions for financial institutions subject to Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), entities that are subject to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, manufacturers and servicers of motor vehicles, and service providers of the business. The Nevada law also exempts out a number of business activities, such as: disclosures to a service provider, disclosures for the purposes of providing products or services requested by the consumer, disclosures for purposes that are consistent with a consumer’s reasonable expectations in light of the context of the collection of that information, disclosures to affiliates, and disclosures as part of a merger, acquisition, bankruptcy or other transfer of assets. Businesses who are subject to both the Nevada law and CCPA should pay careful attention to the differences between the exemptions if the business is subject to GLBA.

For most businesses, the exemption for disclosures to service providers and affiliates will exclude most disclosures from the opt-out requirements. As such, this law has a very narrow application to most businesses, providing consumers with a narrowly tailored opt-out of sales to persons who will further sell that data (generally known in the industry as data brokers). 

Under the law, businesses have minimal obligations for compliance. A business must post a privacy notice on its website, designate a contact method for consumers to opt-out, reasonably authenticate the identity of the consumer to verify the request, comply with a Consumer’s opt out of sales request, and respond to a consumer’s opt out request. Unlike CCPA, the Nevada law does not have any new or uncommon notice requirements; however, a violation of the notice requirement may now result in a regulatory action by the Nevada Attorney General as discussed below. The consumers opt-out applies to both data already held by the business and data that is collected after the opt-out request is submitted. A business has a generous 60 days to respond to the consumer’s request to opt-out, extendable by an addition 30 days if reasonably necessary.

Generally, most businesses subject to both laws have implemented or are preparing procedures for CCPA. A business subject to both laws may use the same procedures for Nevada residents that it uses for California residents; however, a business who does so is providing more rights to a Nevada consumer than the law requires. In particular, the opt-out procedures for a California resident must prevent all sales of personal information; whereas, for consumers in Nevada the opt-out procedures should be tailored to prevent sales to data brokers. Businesses may operationalize the distinct opt-out processes with technical solutions that flag the individual’s account as either not eligible for any sales or as not eligible for sales to data brokers. The 60 days a business has to respond to a consumer’s opt out allows sufficient time to implement the technical solutions for compliance with both laws. 

For businesses who are only subject to the Nevada law, it is not too late to implement procedures for compliance with the new law. With minimal compliance obligations and sixty days to respond to your first opt-out request, businesses have ample time to implement the required procedures to remain in compliance with the new law.

While the Nevada law does not provide consumers with a private right of action, it also does not contain a 30 day right to cure. With violations resulting in injunctions on activities or fines of $5000 for each violation of the act, businesses should not delay in implementing requirements to ensure its compliance with the act. 

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

Bad Holiday Season News! Estimates of an increase of Cyberattacks 20%!
13 December 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
Driving the Future of Automotive Technology
12 December 2019
Manufacturing Industry Advisor
Massachusetts Governor Proposes Facility Fee Ban
12 December 2019
Health Care Law Today
American Rule Prevails; PTO May Not Collect In-House Attorneys' Fees as "Expenses"
12 December 2019
IP Litigation Current
ACCC 46th Annual Meeting & Cancer Center Business Summit
04-05 March 2020
Washington, D.C.
Foley/Deloitte Compliance and Privacy Officer Roundtable
27 February 2020
Boston, MA
Let’s Talk Compliance
24 January 2020
Orlando, FL
New England Alliance Annual Meeting
15-17 January 2020
Woodstock, VT