US state privacy law applicability assessment tool. Evaluates revenue thresholds, data volume thresholds, business exemptions (GLBA, HIPAA, nonprofits), employee data carve-outs, and SBA small business determinations across all enacted state privacy laws.
インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。
Determining which US state privacy laws apply to an organization requires evaluating multiple criteria: revenue thresholds, consumer/data volume thresholds, industry-specific exemptions, entity-type exemptions, and data-type exemptions. This skill provides a systematic assessment framework and Python automation tool for evaluating applicability across all major enacted state privacy laws.
For each state, determine if the organization has nexus through:
Most state laws use "conducts business in [state] OR produces products or services targeted to [state] residents" as the nexus requirement.
| State | Threshold 1 | Threshold 2 | Revenue Alternative |
|---|---|---|---|
| California | 100,000 consumers/households | 50% revenue from sale/sharing | $25,000,000 annual gross revenue |
| Virginia | 100,000 consumers | 25,000 consumers + 50% revenue from sale | None |
| Colorado | 100,000 consumers | 25,000 consumers + revenue/discount from sale | None |
| Connecticut | 100,000 consumers (excl. payment) | 25,000 consumers + 25% revenue from sale | None |
| Texas | Non-SBA small business | N/A | None (no threshold) |
| Oregon | 100,000 consumers (excl. payment) | 25,000 consumers + 25% revenue from sale | None |
| Montana | 50,000 consumers (excl. payment) | 25,000 consumers + 25% revenue from sale | None |
| Kentucky | 100,000 consumers | 25,000 consumers + 50% revenue from sale | None |
| Exemption | CA | VA | CO | CT | TX | OR | MT | KY |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Government | N/A (for-profit only) | Exempt | Exempt | Exempt | Exempt | Exempt | Exempt | Exempt |
| GLBA financial institutions | Data-level | Entity-level | Entity-level | Entity-level | Entity-level | Entity-level | Entity-level | Entity-level |
| HIPAA covered entities | Data-level | Entity-level | Entity-level | Entity-level | Entity-level | Entity-level | Entity-level | Entity-level |
| Nonprofits | Not exempt | Exempt | Exempt | Exempt | Exempt | Not exempt | Exempt | Exempt |
| Higher education | Not exempt | Exempt | Exempt | Exempt | Exempt | Not exempt | Exempt | Exempt |
| Air carriers | Not exempt | Not exempt | Not exempt | Not exempt | Not exempt | Not exempt | Exempt | Not exempt |
Data that is already governed by certain federal laws may be exempt even if the organization itself is not:
| Federal Law | Full Name | Data Type |
|---|---|---|
| GLBA | Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. §6801) | Financial data under GLBA privacy rules |
| HIPAA | Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (42 U.S.C. §1320d) | Protected health information (PHI) |
| FERPA | Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (20 U.S.C. §1232g) | Education records |
| FCRA | Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. §1681) | Consumer credit reports |
| DPPA | Driver's Privacy Protection Act (18 U.S.C. §2721) | Motor vehicle records |
| COPPA | Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (15 U.S.C. §6501) | Children's data under COPPA |
| Farm Credit Act | Farm Credit Act of 1971 (12 U.S.C. §2001) | Farm credit data |
California distinction: CCPA/CPRA exempts the data governed by these federal laws, not the entity. A GLBA-covered bank is still subject to CCPA for personal data that falls outside GLBA's scope (e.g., marketing data not related to financial products).
| State | Employee Data Status |
|---|---|
| California | Fully covered (CPRA removed prior partial exemption) |
| Virginia | Exempt from consumer rights; controller duties apply |
| Colorado | Exempt from consumer rights; controller duties apply |
| Connecticut | Exempt from consumer rights; controller duties apply |
| Texas | Exempt from consumer rights; controller duties apply |
| Oregon | Partial exemption: Rights exempt; controller duties, DPIAs, sensitive consent apply |
| Montana | Exempt from consumer rights; controller duties apply |
| Kentucky | Exempt from consumer rights; controller duties apply |
The TDPSA is the only state law that uses the SBA small business definition. Key steps:
Common SBA thresholds for technology/retail companies:
| NAICS | Industry | Revenue Threshold |
|---|---|---|
| 454110 | Electronic shopping | $40,000,000 |
| 519130 | Internet publishing and web search portals | $47,000,000 |
| 518210 | Data processing and hosting | $35,000,000 |
| 511210 | Software publishers | $47,000,000 |
| 541511 | Custom computer programming | $34,000,000 |
| State | Consumers | Revenue from Sale | Applicable | Basis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| California | 320,000 | 12% | YES | Revenue >$25M + 100K consumers |
| Virginia | 145,000 | 12% | YES | 100K+ consumers |
| Colorado | 98,000 | 12% | YES | 25K+ with revenue from sale |
| Connecticut | 87,000 | 12% | Borderline | Below 100K; below 25% revenue |
| Texas | 410,000 | 12% | YES | Non-SBA small business |
| Oregon | 72,000 | 12% | NO | Below both thresholds |
| Montana | 28,000 | 12% | NO | Below both thresholds |
| Kentucky | 68,000 | 12% | NO | Below both thresholds |
まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。
概要と使いどころ
Implements 42 CFR Part 2 protections for substance use disorder patient records. Covers written consent requirements stricter than HIPAA, re-disclosure prohibition, court order procedures, qualified service organization agreements, and 2024 amendments aligning Part 2 with HIPAA. Keywords: 42 CFR Part 2, substance use disorder, SUD records, re-disclosure, consent, Part 2 amendments.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Guides assessment of third-country adequacy decisions under GDPR Article 45 for international data transfers. Covers the current EC adequacy decisions list, adequacy assessment criteria, partial adequacy handling, and monitoring of adequacy decision reviews. Keywords: adequacy decision, Article 45, third country, adequate protection, EC adequacy list.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Implements age-gating mechanisms for online services to restrict access based on user age. Covers hard gates versus soft gates, neutral age prompts, re-verification triggers, circumvention prevention, and regulatory requirements under GDPR, COPPA, UK Online Safety Act, and DSA. Keywords: age gate, age restriction, neutral prompt, children, online services, access control.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Evaluates and implements age estimation and verification technologies for online services. Covers facial age estimation, digital ID verification, self-declaration with risk assessment, AI-based age estimation, and the accuracy versus privacy tradeoff. Includes ICO guidance and euCONSENT framework. Keywords: age verification, age estimation, facial analysis, digital ID, children, online safety.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Preparing EU AI Act compliance documentation for high-risk AI systems. Covers Annex III classification, technical documentation under Art. 11, conformity assessment, risk management systems, and CE marking requirements. Keywords: EU AI Act, high-risk AI, Annex III, conformity assessment, CE marking.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Implements GDPR Art. 22 automated decision-making and AI Act Art. 14 human oversight requirements for AI systems. Covers identification of solely automated decisions, meaningful human intervention design, logic explanation mechanisms, and contestation procedures. Keywords: Art. 22, automated decision, human oversight, AI Act, profiling, contestation.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。