A business organization has legal responsibilities when it comes to data access, control, and management. The government has recently issued an opinion regarding disclosure requirements for the so-called “inferred data” which comprise of internally generated inferences within the context of a consumer’s right of access request. California Civil Code Section 1798.140(v)(1)(K) defines “inferred data” as inferences drawn from a consumer’s personal information to create a profile which reflects the consumer’s preferences, characteristics, psychological trends, predispositions, behaviors, attitudes, intelligence, abilities and aptitudes.
Under California Civil Code Section 1798.110(a)(1), consumers have the right to know the specific pieces of personal information a business organization has collected about them. The California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) did not address inferred data in its provisions and only implied that businesses should disclose personal data they collected from consumers. However, the Attorney General’s Office issued Opinion No. 20-303 to address whether business organizations that are subject to the CCPA should include inferred data when a consumer submits a Data Subject Access Request (“DSAR”). In short, with limited exceptions (e.g., trade secret protection), the answer was affirmative.
The question is whether inferred data elements fall under trade secret protection rules. In his opinion, the state Attorney General stated that the CCPA only mandates a business to share the product of its internal algorithms even though the algorithms themselves are protected trade secrets. In fact, internal algorithms fall under the classic definition of trade secrets because they’re not publicly accessible to competitors, they confer a competitive advantage, their secrecy is maintained from external disclosure. See California Civil Code § 3426.1(d)(2) for more information about trade secrets. In fact, trade secrets include customer lists, processes, and software or commercial methods. It is conceivable, and probably foreseeable that, a business may withhold inferences because they’re protected trade secrets but it has the burden of proof. So, in short, a business has two options when it comes to disclosing inferred data. First, it can fulfill the DSAR according to the most recent opinion and face the risk of exposing its internal algorithm. Second, it can withhold the data inferences and face the risk of receiving a non-compliance notice from the state Attorney General’s office.
The California Consumer Privacy Act can be amended to require businesses to destroy inferred data instead of disclosing them as a solution to this dilemma. It can also be amended to require consumers to choose as to whether they want access to specific data elements or inferred data elements within a specified timeline. In conclusion, the government should not interfere with how business organizations can protect their trade secrets. Therefore, any opinion regardless of its intention should properly address this issue before formal publication.
Our law firm has managed legal actions related to big data rules or regulations in state and federal courts. We are ready to assist our clients in matters related to internet, technology, and cyberspace laws. Please contact our law firm to speak with an internet attorney at your earliest convenience.