California’s SB 383 (Jackson) passed the Senate earlier this year, which addresses the Apple v. Superior Court decision. This bill would extend Song-Beverly protections to online retailers and prohibit them from collecting certain types of personal information when consumers purchase “electronically downloadable content” unless for fraud detection and prevention purposes. A pretty narrow bill, to address a pretty narrow ruling.
Consumers can’t be required to provide their email addresses, unless for an “incidental but related purpose,” when shopping at a brick and mortar store any longer, a result of Capp v. Nordstrom.
Why might might consumers be spooked about giving out their email addresses or zip codes at the point of sale? If you haven’t read this article in Forbes, it explains why very simply.
Not Song-Beverly related, but more in following up on data breaches and their aftermath as some consumers try to figure out how to dig out from identity theft or try to keep their financial lives from being wrecked. Brian Krebs has confirmed that credit monitoring services are not helpful in his recent post, “Are Credit Monitoring Services Worth It.”