Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

From the Golden State to the Silver State – Privacy Law in Nevada

By Chiara Portner on September 12, 2019
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
ALqKhnDzSF-8-unsplash

Similar to the months before the GDPR went into effect at the end of May 2018, companies are now actively preparing for compliance with the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA).  As California leads the pack of states in terms of privacy and technology laws, other states have followed suit, including Nevada.

The Nevada statute (SB 220) is an amendment to Nevada’s existing law, which requires website operators to have a privacy policy with certain disclosures.Although recently passed, the Nevada statute (SB 220) quickly goes into effect October 1, 2019, three months before the CCPA’s January 1, 2020 effective date.  SB 220’s scope of coverage is much narrower in some aspects yet much broader as to other issues.  The law applies to any website operator that collects information about Nevada consumers.  In contrast, the CCPA applies to businesses that meet certain thresholds of revenue, collection of certain amounts of personal information, and a percent of revenue from personal information sales.

While the Nevada statute applies broadly to various website operators, its requirements regarding opt-out rights for sales of personal information are narrower.  The Nevada law defines “sale” as the sale or license of personal information for “monetary consideration” to a company or individual to then “license or sell the covered information to additional persons.”  Under the CCPA, a sale is considered any transfer of personal information for any type of consideration, monetary or otherwise (e.g. a promise to do something).  The second prong of the sale definition is more akin to an aggregator or reseller that will further sell the personal information, rather than a disclosure or sale to any third party like the CCPA.

So, even if one meets the operator definition under the Nevada law they must ensure their privacy policy includes the appropriate disclosures.  They also need to consider if they “sell” according to the Nevada law definition.  If they do, the company will need to include the opt-out right.  If the company does not “sell” according to the Nevada law definition, they will need to consider offering the opt-out or not, or including alternative language.

The Nevada law does not include a private right of action (with a great risk of class actions) as does the CCPA.  Rather, under the Nevada law, the Nevada Attorney General can seek an injunction or impose a penalty of up to a maximum of $5,000 per violation.  As with many of these new privacy laws, we do not yet have guidance or case law as to how to interpret some of the language.  So, “per violation” could be construed broadly as per violation, per individual, or per violation period (aggregated for all individuals affected).  With the ever-changing privacy and data security landscape, companies need to pay attention to these new privacy laws and keep up to date on how to address them.

Photo of Chiara Portner Chiara Portner

Chiara holds the certificate for CIPP/US for U.S. private-sector privacy from the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP), the global standard in privacy certification.

Read more about Chiara PortnerEmailChiara's Linkedin Profile
  • Posted in:
    Privacy and Cybersecurity
  • Blog:
    The Privacy Hacker
  • Organization:
    Hopkins & Carley
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo