Over 50 Privacy Professionals & Experts Oppose Prop. 24

The length and complexity of Proposition 24, the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), makes it challenging for ordinary citizens to evaluate the proposal. Thus, it’s helpful to hear how members of the privacy community feel about it. They are in the best position to understand and interpret it, and they may have some personal financial interest in it. Perhaps not surprisingly, many folks who know the most about privacy law actually oppose Prop. 24.

59 privacy community members (listed at the bottom of the post) signed the following statement:

“We are privacy professionals or other privacy experts. Proposition 24, the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), will benefit us financially because it will increase demand for our services. Despite that, we oppose the proposition. Those of us in California are voting NO on Prop. 24, and all of us encourage Californians to vote NO as well (any listed affiliations are for identification purposes only).”

Signatories were given the opportunity to explain their perspectives. Some of the comments they shared:

  • “I do not believe that a complex privacy law, which will have the effect of regulating most US websites and which severely restricts amendments, should be enacted based on a three-sentence summary. That is the job of the legislature.”
  • “We are currently only four months into the period of enforcement of the CCPA. We are, realistically, only beginning to see the effects of what that law has done. At least under the CCPA, we have the ability to make changes via the legislature as needed in a timely fashion. Codifying what is essentially the same text and then making it harder to fix known and unknown issues, when we still haven’t gotten the existing law working correctly, is a path that will create more substantial harm to the very people it is supposed to help.”
  • “There has been insufficient time to assess the impact of CCPA enforcement starting earlier this year to completely rewrite the California’s privacy laws again and add additional complex regulations to this area. Such hurried legislation, especially in a ballot proposition, is irresponsible, and a poor way to treat those who spent significant time and energy over the last couple years making their businesses comply with the CCPA.”
  • “Vote NO on Prop 24! Prop 24 is very poorly written and will make a mess of an already very hastily written California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). The CCPA hasn’t even been in effect for a year, and already, individuals seek to amend it with Prop 24. We should understand the impacts of the CCPA and seek feedback on the loopholes, failures, and issues with the CCPA through a public process before we pursue amending it. Privacy laws and amendments to privacy laws should be passed by the California legislature through a transparent and thoughtful process that solicits feedback from the public, including consulting with privacy experts. Instead, Prop 24 significantly limits the legislature’s ability to amend and improve California privacy law. Prop 24 was written behind closed doors, without a transparent and open conversation with the public or experts. The issues with Prop 24 are even more apparent when you realize that major privacy civil liberties groups like the ACLU oppose Prop 24 as well. Californians deserve a better, thoughtful, more comprehensive privacy law. Please, please vote NO on Prop 24.”
  • “This is not how law should be made.”

For more on why I personally oppose Prop. 24, see this post. As I explained there, the “CPRA is the wrong policy approach, at the wrong time, via the wrong process.”


The statement signatories. Notes:

  • Signatories had the option to include an affiliation or not
  • All listed affiliations are for identification purposes only and not a reflection of their employer’s views
  • 2/3 of signatories have an IAPP certification
  • Over 3/4 of signatories have a job that includes a substantial privacy component

Angelo Alcid
Heather Antoine, Partner, Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP
Emily Ashley
Liudmyla Balke
Ian Ballon, Co-Chair, Global Intellectual Property & Technology Practice Group, Greenberg Traurig LLP
Margaret Barreto
David W. Bertoni, Partner, Brann & Isaacson
Prof. Anupam Chander, Georgetown University
Vanessa Chang
Iris Chiu
James Czerniawski, Policy Analyst, Tech and Innovation, Libertas Institute
Eric Davis, CIPM, CIPP/E
Michelle Finneran Dennedy
Margaret A. Eason
Melanie Ensign, CEO, Discernible Inc.
Ray Everett, co-author “Internet Privacy for Dummies”
Prof. Eric Goldman, Santa Clara University School of Law
Catherine R. Gellis, attorney in private practice
Daniel Goldberg, Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz
Katherine Grout
Ganka Hadjipetrova, Privacy Counsel, Axiom
Michael Hellbusch, Partner, Rutan & Tucker, CIPP/US/E, CIPM
Benjamin Isaacson, CIPP/US, CIPP/E
Shaq Katikala
Bennet G. Kelley, Internet Law Center
Irene Koulouris
Alan P. Kyle
Amy Lawrence
Christian Lee
Prof. Jack I. Lerner, UC Irvine School of Law (no endorsement by UCI)
Kathleen Lu
William Marshall, CIPP/E, Partner, UBM Law Group, LLP
Whitney Merrill, Privacy Advocate and Attorney
Joshua Metayer, CIPP/US
Jess Miers, CIPP/US, Legal Policy Specialist at Google
Michael Moore
Alma Murray
Raji Nagarkar
Jake Nousomme, CIPP/US, CIPP/E, CIPM, CIPT
Max P. Ochoa
Derek Palmer
Jessie Reeves
Michael G. Rhodes
Michael Scapin, CIPP/US
Scott Shipman
Josh Srago, CIPP/US
Alaric Stein, Esq., CIPP/US
John Alec Stouras, Law Under Lock blog
Qian Sun
Berin Szóka, TechFreedom
Brent Tuttle
Day Wade, Privacy Attorney, Privacy PGM at Google
Kim Wallace
Jamie Williams
Randy Wilson
Shane Witnov
Casey Yang
Phillip Yin
Emily S. Yu, Senior Privacy Director and Secretary of the Intellectual Property section of the California Lawyers Association