On Friday, Sept. 28, 2018, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law first-in-the-nation legislation requiring that manufacturers include “reasonable security features” on any device that is “capable of connecting to the Internet”—commonly known as an “Internet of Things” (IoT) device. California Assembly Bill 1906 and Senate Bill 327, which contain identical text, won’t go into effect until Jan. 1, 2020, but most manufacturers of IoT devices are going to need that lead time (if not more) to ensure the devices they put out into the market are compliant with the new law.
What Sort of Devices Are Affected?
The new law applies to any device with internet capability and its own Internet Protocol (IP) or Bluetooth address. This means that all sorts of devices—gaming systems, children’s toys, smart door locks, Wifi-enabled fish tanks, and more—might be affected. If a product sold for the home (or office or car) of a California resident has internet capability, then it should be designed in compliance with the new law.
However, software that is sold separate from a device is exempt from the new law. These types of products typically are “add-ons” or “apps” that a consumer can download to an IoT device after purchase.
There are also additional exclusions for IoT devices that are otherwise regulated by federal law and for most devices designed for the health care industry.
Who Is Affected?
As written, the new law only applies to “manufacturers” of physical devices that are sold or offered for sale in California, or businesses that contract with a manufacturer to produce a device that will be sold in California.
Notably, the law does not apply to companies that purchase a “white-label” product for rebranding and sales only. However, any company whose business model relies on this type of arrangement should review its agreements with the original manufacturer to ensure that there is no question about who was responsible for the design and manufacture of the product.
What Does “Reasonable Security Features” Mean?
The new law is relatively vague about which types of security features will be considered “reasonable” by regulators. The onus is placed on individual manufacturers to determine what is reasonable, with the “nature and function” of the IoT device and the type of information being collected or transmitted as determining factors. Any built-in security feature should be designed to protect the device and the information stored within it from unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification or disclosure.
The law does provide some guidance relative to IoT devices that can be accessed via “authentication outside of a local area network.” For those types of devices, the authentication system must either come with a preprogrammed password that is unique to each manufactured device (meaning no “default” password for each device off the assembly line) or contain a security feature that requires the consumer to create a new means of authentication the first time it is accessed. While helpful, both of these requirements leave some questions unanswered. For example, will regulators expect that preprogrammed passwords meet a certain standard of robustness?
Who Can Enforce the Law?
One positive of the new law for manufacturers is that it does not allow for a private right of action. Instead, only the California Attorney General and local city, county and district attorneys have “exclusive” enforcement authority. It remains to be seen what, if any, guidance the Attorney General’s Office, as the only statewide regulator, will provide to local government attorneys and manufacturers on what constitutes reasonable security measures. In the meantime, manufacturers must forge ahead on their own—hopefully with the help of knowledgeable privacy counsel!
- Partner
Add a comment
Archives
- January 2022
- June 2021
- March 2020
- August 2019
- March 2019
- October 2018
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- February 2016
- November 2015
- September 2015
- July 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- July 2014
- March 2014
- July 2013
- June 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- November 2011
- September 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2006
- February 2006
Recent Posts
- Rethinking Your Cyber Insurance Needs as Your Workplace Evolves
- Data Breach Defense for Educational Institutions
- COVID-19 and the Increased Cybersecurity Risk in a Work-From-Home World
- Like Incorporating Facebook into your Website? EU Decision Raises New Issues
- Lessons Learned: Key Takeaways for Every Business from the Capital One Data Breach
- Will Quick Talks to WRAL About Privacy Issues Related to Doorbell Cameras
- About Us
- Not in My House - California to Regulate IoT Device Security
- Ninth Circuit Says You’re Going to Jail for Visiting That Website without Permission
- Ninth Circuit Interprets “Without Authorization” under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
Topics
- Data Security
- Data Breach
- Privacy
- Defamation
- Public Records
- Cyberattack
- FCC Matters
- Reporters Privilege
- Political Advertising
- Newsroom Subpoenas
- Shield Laws
- Internet
- Miscellaneous
- Digital Media and Data Privacy Law
- Indecency
- First Amendment
- Anti-SLAPP Statutes
- Fair Report Privilege
- Prior Restraints
- Education
- Wiretapping
- Access to Courtrooms
- FOIA
- HIPAA
- Drone Law
- Access to Search Warrants
- Access to Court Dockets
- Intrusion
- First Amendment Retaliation
- Mobile Privacy
- Newsroom Search Warrants
- About This Blog
- Disclaimer
- Services