Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 28 APRIL 2022

Colorado AG Explains Rocky Mountain Way For Data Privacy Law

Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP
Explore more from Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP

The Colorado Privacy Act ("CPA") takes effect July 1, 2023, and will provide express consumer rights, as well as controller and processor obligations, relating to personally identifiable information of Colorado consumers.

United StatesPrivacy
Zachary Heck
Zachary Heck
Zenus Franklin
Zenus Franklin
Author LinkedIn connections

The Colorado Privacy Act ("CPA") takes effect July 1, 2023, and will provide express consumer rights, as well as controller and processor obligations, relating to personally identifiable information of Colorado consumers. This month, the Office of the Colorado Attorney General (the "Office") outlined the pre-rulemaking considerations for the CPA ("Pre-Rulemaking Considerations"), in an effort to educate regulated entities on the trajectory of this new law, and how such entities may address the upcoming requirements. The Pre-Rulemaking Considerations were also forecasted in Colorado AG Phil Weiser's address to the International Association of Privacy Professionals 2022 Global Privacy Summit.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

SB 54 Is In Effect: What California’s New Packaging Law Means For Your Business

Although being challenged by an injunction filed on August 20, 2026, by a coalition of 17 states, California’s SB 54 Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act is now in effect, and companies that sell, distribute, import, or ship packaged products into California should be evaluating whether they have compliance obligations.
United StatesPrivacy
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Article

California's Fall 2026 Privacy Roundup: Expanded CCPA Deletion Rights And More

California Governor Gavin Newsom has signed several significant privacy bills that will reshape how businesses handle consumer data, including expanded deletion rights under the CCPA, shortened data broker response cycles, and sweeping new insurance sector privacy requirements. While one landmark bill banning the sale of sensitive personal information was vetoed, the approved legislation requires companies to update their deletion workflows...
United StatesPrivacy
McDermott Will & Schulte
McDermott Will & Schulte
Article

California’s 2026 Legislative Session Wraps: A Wave Of Privacy And AI Bills Reaches The Governor, With Key Child Safety And AI Measures Signed Into Law

California's 2026 legislative session concluded with Governor Newsom signing several landmark privacy and AI bills into law, including comprehensive child safety measures, AI auditor oversight frameworks, and expanded data protection requirements. How will these new regulations reshape digital advertising, workplace AI deployment, and online platform obligations for businesses operating in California?
United StatesPrivacy
Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
Article

Eleventh Circuit Developments: Decisions On Florida And Georgia Social Media/Minor Laws And New Alabama Law

Legal risk intensifies for companies offering online interactive features to minors across Georgia, Florida, and Alabama as the Eleventh Circuit vacates preliminary injunctions against state social media laws. With Florida's HB 3 and Georgia's SB 351 now enforceable and Alabama's HB 161 set to take effect January 1, 2027, businesses face divergent compliance requirements including age verification, parental consent mechanisms, and account deletion protocols.
United StatesPrivacy
Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP
Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP
Article

D.C. Circuit Rules Pentagon Can Exclude Anthropic From Supply Chain

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has ruled that the Department of War can exclude Anthropic from its supply chain under the Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act, finding that the AI company's ability to manipulate its Claude model creates a supply chain risk. This decision contrasts with an earlier California district court ruling that blocked a similar designation under a different statute, creating a complex legal landscape for AI providers and government contractors.
United StatesGovernment, Public Sector
Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP
Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP
Article

Federal Court Rules Government’s Anthropic Supply Chain Designation Was Unlawful Retaliation: What Government Contractors Need To Know

This is the third installment in our coverage of the Anthropic/Department of War dispute. Our first alert addressed the Trump administration’s February 27 directives barring federal contractors from using Anthropic and its Claude platform, including Secretary Hegseth’s designation of Anthropic as a supply chain risk to national security and the resulting requirement that all DoW contractors sever commercial ties with the company.
United StatesGovernment, Public Sector
Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP
Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP
Article

Eleventh Circuit Developments: Decisions On Florida And Georgia Social Media/Minor Laws And New Alabama Law

Legal risk intensifies for companies offering online interactive features to minors across Georgia, Florida, and Alabama as the Eleventh Circuit vacates preliminary injunctions against state social media laws. With Florida's HB 3 and Georgia's SB 351 now enforceable and Alabama's HB 161 set to take effect January 1, 2027, businesses face divergent compliance requirements including age verification, parental consent mechanisms, and account deletion protocols.
United StatesPrivacy
Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP
Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP
Article

SEC Proposes Rule Changes And Seeks Comments On Additional Accredited Investor Pathways

The Securities and Exchange Commission has proposed six new pathways for individuals to qualify as accredited investors, moving beyond traditional income and wealth thresholds. These changes would allow qualification through professional certifications like CPA, CFA, and CFP designations, as well as through a new FINRA-administered exam testing securities knowledge.
United StatesFinance and Banking
Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP
Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP
Article

The Big Long List Of U.S. AI Laws

State legislatures across the U.S. have enacted a complex web of AI regulations affecting private sector businesses, spanning employment decisions, healthcare applications, consumer interactions, and digital rights. These laws impose compliance obligations including bias audits, disclosure requirements, and restrictions on automated decision-making, with enforcement mechanisms ranging from regulatory oversight to private rights of action. Understanding which state laws apply to your AI systems is critical,
United StatesCorporate/Commercial Law
Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP
Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP
Article

AI-Powered Call Transcription Tools Present Class Action BIPA Risk

AI-powered call transcription tools like Otter.ai are facing class action lawsuits under Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) for allegedly collecting voiceprints without proper consent. A federal court recently allowed claims to proceed, signaling potential legal risks for companies that provide or utilize these increasingly common meeting recording services.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP
Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP
Article

Supreme Court To Review Constitutionality Of Federal Home-Distilling Ban

The U.S. Supreme Court will review a constitutional challenge to an 1868 federal law banning home distilleries, creating an opportunity to resolve a circuit split between the 5th and 6th Circuit Courts of Appeals. The case centers on whether the prohibition violates the Constitution's Taxation Clause or represents a legitimate exercise of congressional power to prevent tax evasion.
United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP
Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP