Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions

IAPP Exam CIPP-US Topic 4 Question 72 Discussion

Actual exam question for IAPP's CIPP-US exam
Question #: 72
Topic #: 4
[All CIPP-US Questions]

SuperMart is a large Nevada-based business that has recently determined it sells what constitutes ''covered information'' under Nevada's privacy law, Senate Bill 260. Which of the following privacy compliance steps would best help SuperMart comply with the law?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: A

Nevada's privacy law, Senate Bill 260 (SB 260), is an amendment to the existing Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 603A that was enacted in June 2021 and will take effect on October 1, 2021. SB 260 expands the scope and definition of ''covered information'' under NRS 603A to include any information that identifies, relates to, describes, or is capable of being associated with a consumer, such as name, address, email, phone number, social security number, biometric data, geolocation data, and online identifiers. SB 260 also grants Nevada consumers the right to opt out of the sale of their covered information by an operator of a website or online service that collects and maintains such information.

Under SB 260, an operator is defined as a person who owns or operates a website or online service for commercial purposes, collects and maintains covered information from consumers who reside in Nevada and use or visit the website or online service, and purposefully directs its activities toward Nevada. A sale is defined as the exchange of covered information for monetary consideration by the operator to a person for the person to license or sell the covered information to additional persons. However, there are some exceptions to the definition of a sale, such as:

If the consumer has consented to the sale after being provided with clear and conspicuous notice of the sale and the opportunity to opt out.

If the sale is to a person who processes the covered information on behalf of the operator.

If the sale is to a person with whom the consumer has a direct relationship for the purposes of providing a product or service requested by the consumer.

If the sale is to a person for purposes that are consistent with the reasonable expectations of the consumer considering the context in which the consumer provided the covered information to the operator.

If the sale is to a person who is an affiliate of the operator.

If the sale is to a person as an asset that is part of a merger, acquisition, bankruptcy, or other transaction in which the person assumes control of all or part of the operator's assets.

To comply with SB 260, an operator that sells covered information must provide a designated request address through which a consumer may submit a verified request to opt out of the sale. The designated request address may be an email address, a toll-free telephone number, or an Internet website. The operator must respond to the verified request within 60 days, and may extend the response period for an additional 30 days if reasonably necessary. The operator must also provide a notice to the consumer that identifies the categories of covered information that the operator collects and the categories of third parties to whom the operator may disclose the covered information.

Therefore, the best privacy compliance step for SuperMart to comply with SB 260 is to provide a mechanism for consumers to opt out of sales, as this is the core requirement of the law. Option A is the correct answer.

Option B is incorrect, as SB 260 does not grant consumers the right to access or delete their covered information, unlike other state privacy laws such as the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) or the Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act (VCDPA).

Option C is incorrect, as SB 260 does not require operators to provide a notice of financial incentive for any loyalty programs offered to their customers, unlike the CCPA.

Option D is incorrect, as SB 260 does not impose service provider restrictions on the vendors of the operators, unlike the CCPA or the VCDPA.


[IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide], Chapter 10: State Data Security Laws, pp. 229-230.

CIPP/US Practice Questions (Sample Questions), Question 33.

Contribute your Thoughts:

Christiane
7 days ago
Option A is the way to go, no doubt. Giving customers the power to opt out of sales is the foundation of any good privacy law compliance strategy.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lamar
8 days ago
This is a real head-scratcher, but I'd have to say B is the best choice. Gotta have those internal protocols in place, you know?
upvoted 0 times
...
Kris
12 days ago
Option C is the way to go! Preparing a notice of financial incentive for loyalty programs is a must-have for any company dealing with 'covered information'.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ollie
17 days ago
I see your point, Deonna. It's essential to have protocols in place to handle consumer requests regarding their data.
upvoted 0 times
...
Deonna
23 days ago
I believe option B) Implementing internal protocols for handling access and deletion requests is also important for compliance.
upvoted 0 times
...
Chuck
24 days ago
I agree with Julian. Giving consumers the choice to opt out is crucial for privacy compliance.
upvoted 0 times
...
Julian
1 months ago
I think option A) Providing a mechanism for consumers to opt out of sales would be the best step.
upvoted 0 times
...
France
1 months ago
Hmm, I'm torn between B and D. Both seem like important steps, but I'd go with D just to be extra safe.
upvoted 0 times
Mozell
11 days ago
User 2: I agree, but D is also important to make sure vendors comply with the law.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lourdes
15 days ago
User 1: I think B is crucial for handling customer requests.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Melvin
1 months ago
Definitely option D. Reviewing vendor contracts to ensure service provider restrictions are in place is crucial for staying compliant.
upvoted 0 times
Clemencia
3 days ago
Preparing a notice of financial incentive for loyalty programs is necessary for transparency.
upvoted 0 times
...
Virgina
16 days ago
Providing a mechanism for consumers to opt out of sales is a good step to take.
upvoted 0 times
...
Hayley
17 days ago
I think implementing internal protocols for handling access and deletion requests is also important.
upvoted 0 times
...
Gracia
21 days ago
I agree, reviewing vendor contracts is essential for compliance.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Deeanna
1 months ago
I think option B is the way to go. Implementing protocols for handling access and deletion requests sounds like the most straightforward way to comply with the law.
upvoted 0 times
Kaycee
7 days ago
Reviewing vendor contracts is essential to ensure compliance with service provider restrictions.
upvoted 0 times
...
Belen
8 days ago
True, but preparing a notice of financial incentive for loyalty programs could also be crucial.
upvoted 0 times
...
Shannan
9 days ago
I think providing a mechanism for consumers to opt out of sales is also important.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kaycee
23 days ago
I agree, option B seems like a practical step to take.
upvoted 0 times
...
...

Save Cancel