78 | 2024 Cal-Peculiarities ©2024 Seyfarth Shaw LLP www.seyfarth.com 99 Civ. Code § 1786.16(a)(2). 100 California employers procuring a report must also disclose the website of the investigative consumer reporting agency. Civ. Code § 1786.16(a)(2)(B)(vi). If the investigative consumer agency does not have a website, then the consumer must receive a telephone number to learn about the investigative consumer agency’s privacy practices, including whether the consumer’s personal information will be sent outside the United States or its territories. Civ. Code § 1786.16(a)(2)(B)(vi). 101 Civ. Code § 1786.22(b). 102 Gilberg v. Cal. Check Cashing Stores, LLC, 913 F.3d 1169, 1176 (9th Cir. 2019). 103 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(b)(3). 104 Civ. Code § 1786.18(a)(7) (investigative consumer reporting agency may not report records of convictions that from date of disposition, release, or parole antedate report by more than seven years). Section 1786.18(b)(2) exempts reports for employers explicitly required by government regulatory agencies to check for certain records. 105 Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 18890 et seq. 106 Id. § 18890.2(a), (b). 107 Id. § 18890.2(c). 108 Civ. Code § 1786.16(c). 109 Civ. Code § 1786.53(a)(3). 110 Civ. Code § 1786.53(b)(4). 111 Moran v. Murtaugh, Miller, Meyer & Nelson, 126 Cal. App. 4th 323 (2005) (holding—in opinion that superseded the lower court decision and that did not reach the ICRRA issues—that trial court could look beyond the pleadings and weigh evidence when deciding how likely a “vexatious litigant” was to prevail), aff’d on other grounds, 40 Cal. 4th 780 (2007). 112 Id., 126 Cal. App. 4th at 336. 113 Id. 114 Civ. Code § 1786.53(b)(1)-(3). Copies of the records must be provided within seven days. Id. 115 Moran v. The Screening Pros, LLC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158598 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2012), rev’d, 923 F.3d 1209 (9th Cir. 2019). The plaintiff sued Screening Pros for issuing a background check report on him that contained his criminal history, in violation of the ICRAA. Screening Pros moved to dismiss, successfully arguing that ICRAA is unconstitutionally vague as to criminal history information, leaving persons of reasonable intelligence unable to tell whether that information is “character” information that ICRAA governs or “creditworthiness” information that the CCRAA governs. This distinction matters because ICRAA imposes stricter duties and more severe penalties—such as the option to seek $10,000 in statutory damages in lieu of damages. Following the California Supreme Court’s decision in Connor v. First Student, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court and remanded for further proceedings. 116 Connor v. First Student, Inc., 5 Cal. 5th 1026, 1035-36 (2018). 117 Gov’t Code § 12940(e). 118 Soroka v. Dayton Hudson Corp., 235 Cal. App. 3d 654 (1991) (decision not officially published), rev. dismissed, 862 P.2d 148 (1993). 119 Lab. Code § 1051. 120 Id. See also Young v. Kenco Logistic Servs., LLC, No. A153023, 2019 WL 5654520, at *8 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2019) (unpublished) (finding no section 1051 violation where the plaintiff failed to allege transmission of video recordings by the employer to a third party). 121 See Lab. Code § 401. 122 Civ. Code § 52.7. 123 Civ. Code § 52.7(h)(1), (3). 124 See City of Ontario v. Quon, 560 U.S. 746, 760 (2010) (assuming, in arguendo, that a police officer “had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the text messages sent on the pager provided to him by the City”). 125 Holmes v. Petrovich Dev. Co., 191 Cal. App. 4th 1047, 1068 (2011); see also Militello v. VFARM 1509, 89 Cal. App. 5th 602, 613–14 (2023) (“presumptively confidential communications sent from and received on a company-owned computer will not be protected from disclosure as privileged if the computer-user had been ‘warned that it was to be used only for company business, that e-mails were not private, and that the company would randomly and periodically monitor its technology resources to ensure compliance with the policy.’”). 126 Civ. Code § 1798.140(i). 127 A covered business is any for-profit business that collects California consumers’ personal information and meets any one of the following criteria: (1) had an annual gross revenue of above $25 million in the prior calendar year, (2) annually collects, stores, analyzes, discloses, or otherwise uses the personal information of 100,000 or more California consumers or households, or (3) derives at least 50% of its annual revenue from selling or sharing the personal information of California consumers. Civ. Code § 1798.140(d). 128 Civ. Code § 1798.185. 129 Civ. Code § 1798.140(d). 130 Civ. Code § 1798.140(i). 131 Civ. Code § 1798.110. 132 Civ. Code § 1798.106.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4