There's no citizen enforcement clause for most of these laws and therefore this mostly means nothing - and where there is it just turns into a money grab/shakedown by bottom feeding lawyers (see existing FAL & P65 suits). Suits get settled, lawyers get paid, plaintiff gets a cut, no wrongdoing is admitted, and nothing changes.
It's not about claiming ignorance. It's about not caring about CA viral laws and CA's inability to effectively enforce them around the world.
Much like how most companies laugh when some EU citizens tries to flex GDPR in the US... hilarious unless you're Google...
People lock-in on the intent and names of these things and believe they've "won" the privacy war. Just like the "Inflation Reduction Act" these laws do very little if anything for their namesake.
It’s really odd to me that you are telling me that my lived experience is false and impossible. Every subscription I have made since this law passed, I have been able to cancel online. This includes newspapers, store club memberships, random podcasts and other online entertainment, educational software, and more.
Sometimes the government really does work for the people. It is actually possible.
Overwhelming majority of those things you listed could already be cancelled online.
You can read the laws yourself. There's not a lot of teeth for small businesses to comply.
Go look at the state AG website for P65 complaints (they are all by law published). 99% are privately settled without wrongdoing (you can see this on AG website too), and some fee is paid to the plaintiff's attorneys. Sometimes the math says it's cheaper to comply, but often not. Small (and even big) businesses around the country freely ignore P65 despite the law having citizen enforcement. If you search on the AG website you will find many repeat offenders. P65 laws have been around for decades...
There's a difference between what people believe should happen and what actually happens. If you believe these laws have "won" the privacy war - you are mistaken.
Why are you conflating right-to-unsubscribe with P65? They are different laws with different enforcement mechanisms. Also consumers don't find P65 useful whereas we see benefit from unsubscribing.
The point was we have these sort of consumer protection laws and nothing has changed. The enforcement mechanisms are weak and designed to make lawyers money more than actually gain compliance.
Given the decades of P65 enforcement - and given the prevalence of "harmful" chemicals imported into this state every day, we have no reason to believe this unsubscribe law will be any different.
Having this law makes people feel like something was accomplished, despite reality.
It's not about claiming ignorance. It's about not caring about CA viral laws and CA's inability to effectively enforce them around the world.
Much like how most companies laugh when some EU citizens tries to flex GDPR in the US... hilarious unless you're Google...
People lock-in on the intent and names of these things and believe they've "won" the privacy war. Just like the "Inflation Reduction Act" these laws do very little if anything for their namesake.
reply