How is that different than, well -- anything? In the United States all 50 states can make their own laws; it's a fundamental part of our legal system.
As for every country making their own laws - well, yeah? That's what sovereignty is all about?
As for every country making their own laws - well, yeah? That's what sovereignty is all about?
This case follows the same pattern: whatever meager privacy protections in place at the Federal level will continue to apply, but California law will take precedence in the case where it's stronger.
There are certainly exceptions, like how currently Trump and the EPA are attempting to disallow CA's higher vehicle emissions standards, but, again: exceptions. (In this case, the relevant law has specific language that makes the EPA the final authority on this sort of thing, and requires states to get waivers for going their own way. That's not a general, common thing, though.) And I expect that bit to be tied up in court for a while.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/218
That's an exception that's written into the law, while federal preemption is the usual rule.
In this case I don’t think there is a national privacy law that preempts CA, but companies are lobbying now for one to be created. I think it would be a good idea, a national sales tax and a national privacy law are a natural fit for the Internet age - needing to know different laws and regulations for 50 states is only going to hurt small businesses and startups.
FTA:
> Since the law passed, tech giants have pulled out their last card: pushing for an overarching federal bill.
> In doing so, the companies would be able to control their messaging through their extensive lobbying efforts, allowing them to push for a weaker statute that would nullify some of the provisions in California’s new privacy law