Today, the California Attorney General announced the first settlement agreement under the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”).  The Attorney General alleged that online retailer Sephora, Inc. failed to disclose to consumers that it was selling their information and failed to process user requests to opt out of sale via user-enabled global privacy controls.  The Attorney General also alleged that Sephora did not cure these violations within the cure period. 

The meaning of the CCPA’s “sale” definition has been controversial and unclear. The CCPA statute defines the term to require an exchange of personal information for “monetary or other valuable consideration.”  The Attorney General previously declined to clarify whether the term covered various advertising practices in its earlier rulemakings, and the CPRA voted on by the California electorate clarifies that “sales” are distinct from “cross-context behavioral advertising.”  However, the Attorney General’s complaint suggests that Sephora’s relationships with certain ad tech partners met the definition of “sale” “because “Sephora gave companies access to consumer personal information in exchange for free or discounted analytics and advertising benefits. . . . Both the trade of personal information for analytics and the trade of personal information for an advertising option constituted sales under the CCPA.”  However, the complaint also acknowledges that maintaining a valid service provider contract with a vendor is an exception to the “sale” definition.

The complaint also reveals that, in June, the Attorney General conducted “an enforcement sweep of large retailers to determine whether they continued to sell personal information when a consumer signaled an opt-out via the GPC.”  The Attorney General’s press release on the settlement suggests that “businesses must treat opt-out requests made by user-enabled global privacy controls the same as requests made by users who have clicked the ‘Do Not Sell My Personal Information’ link.”  Without recognizing open questions about the GPC and its status under the CPRA, the press release also states, “Technologies like the Global Privacy Control are a game changer for consumers looking to exercise their data privacy rights [and businesses must] process opt-out requests made via user-enabled global privacy controls.”

The settlement requires Sephora to pay $1.2 million in penalties and comply with injunctive terms, including adding a representation that it sells data in its online disclosures and privacy policy, creating mechanisms for consumers to opt out of sale (including via the GPC), editing its service provider agreements to conform with CCPA requirements, and providing reporting to the Attorney General on its compliance with these requirements.

In addition to announcing the Sephora settlement today, the Attorney General also sent notices to a number of businesses alleging non-compliance related to a failure to process consumer opt-out requests made via user-enabled global privacy controls.  The Attorney General also released additional enforcement case examples, including an enforcement sweep of loyalty programs and allegations of noncompliance due to confusing or non-functional CCPA request mechanisms.

Photo of Lindsey Tonsager Lindsey Tonsager

Lindsey Tonsager is a recognized leader in representing companies before federal and state regulators, and is renowned for advising on minor protection, AI, and state comprehensive privacy laws.

Lindsey chairs the firm’s global Data Privacy and Cybersecurity practice. She advises clients in their…

Lindsey Tonsager is a recognized leader in representing companies before federal and state regulators, and is renowned for advising on minor protection, AI, and state comprehensive privacy laws.

Lindsey chairs the firm’s global Data Privacy and Cybersecurity practice. She advises clients in their strategic and proactive engagement with the Federal Trade Commission, the U.S. Congress, the California Privacy Protection Agency, and State Attorneys General on proposed changes to data protection laws, and regularly represents clients in responding to investigations and enforcement actions involving their privacy and information security practices.

Lindsey’s practice focuses on helping clients launch new products and services that implicate the laws governing the use of artificial intelligence; data processing for robotics, autonomous vehicles, and other connected devices; biometrics; online advertising; the collection of personal information from children, teens, and students online; e-mail marketing; disclosures of video viewing information; and new technologies.

Lindsey also assesses privacy and data security risks in complex corporate transactions where personal data is a critical asset or data processing risks are otherwise material. In light of a dynamic regulatory environment where new state, federal, and international data protection laws are always on the horizon and enforcement priorities are shifting, she focuses on designing risk-based global privacy programs for clients that can keep pace with evolving legal requirements and efficiently leverage the clients’ existing privacy policies and practices. She conducts data protection assessments to benchmark against legal requirements and industry trends and proposes practical risk mitigation measures.

Photo of Libbie Canter Libbie Canter

Libbie Canter represents a wide variety of multinational companies on managing privacy, cyber security, and artificial intelligence risks, including helping clients with their most complex privacy challenges and the development of governance frameworks and processes to comply with U.S. and global privacy laws.

Libbie Canter represents a wide variety of multinational companies on managing privacy, cyber security, and artificial intelligence risks, including helping clients with their most complex privacy challenges and the development of governance frameworks and processes to comply with U.S. and global privacy laws. She routinely supports clients on their efforts to launch new products and services involving emerging technologies, and she has assisted dozens of clients with their efforts to prepare for and comply with federal and state laws, including the California Consumer Privacy Act, the Colorado AI Act, and other state laws. As part of her practice, she also regularly represents clients in strategic transactions involving personal data, cybersecurity, and artificial intelligence risk and represents clients in enforcement and litigation postures.

Libbie represents clients across industries, but she also has deep expertise in advising clients in highly-regulated sectors, including financial services and digital health companies. She counsels these companies — and their technology and advertising partners — on how to address legacy regulatory issues and the cutting edge issues that have emerged with industry innovations and data collaborations.

Chambers USA 2026 ranks Libbie in Band 2 Nationwide for both Privacy & Data Security: Privacy and Privacy & Data Security: Healthcare.Chambers USA notes, Libbie is “incredibly sharp and really thorough. She can do the nitty-gritty, in-the-weeds legal work incredibly well but she also can think of a bigger-picture business context and help to think through practical solutions.”

Photo of Jayne Ponder Jayne Ponder

Jayne Ponder counsels companies on the intersection of privacy, AI, and emerging technology regulation, and routinely represents clients in regulatory inquiries, investigations, and enforcement matters before federal and state agencies.

Jayne counsels clients across industries to launch and enhance products, services, and governance…

Jayne Ponder counsels companies on the intersection of privacy, AI, and emerging technology regulation, and routinely represents clients in regulatory inquiries, investigations, and enforcement matters before federal and state agencies.

Jayne counsels clients across industries to launch and enhance products, services, and governance programs involving their collection and use of data and emerging technologies. Her experience spans U.S. comprehensive privacy, automated decisionmaking, AI governance, biometric privacy, surveillance and algorithmic pricing, and AI transparency, disclosure, and safety frameworks. She partners with clients to design products and governance programs that keep pace with the dynamic regulatory environment, including in connection with digital and online advertising, social media, AI-powered and agentic services, connected devices, and robotics.

In addition, she advises companies on engagement with federal and state regulators, including through enforcement and rulemaking. Jayne analyzes privacy and security risks in complex corporate transactions. She also provides strategic input on the legislative, regulatory, and policy developments shaping the privacy and AI landscape.

Jayne maintains an active pro bono practice, focusing on assisting nonprofits with their privacy programs and elder estate planning.