With the digital era ever expanding, U.S. states are stepping up to regulate how companies manage consumer data. Connecticut recently joined the strengthening ranks of state-based privacy legislation with its Connecticut Data Privacy Act (CTDPA), which took effect in July 2023. Serving as the fourth major comprehensive state privacy law after California, Virginia, and Colorado, the CTDPA reflects a growing national momentum—and signals further complexity for organizations navigating compliance. In today’s article (the fourth in our data laws series), we offer an in-depth look at the CTDPA, its obligations, enforceability, and practical steps for secure data handling, including effective solutions such as Active@ KillDisk and KillDisk Industrial.
While borrowing features from the Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act (VCDPA) and the Colorado Privacy Act (CPA), Connecticut’s approach is ultimately its own blend of robust consumer rights, moderate business obligations, and a phased approach to enforcement. The law addresses organizations conducting business in Connecticut or targeting goods/services to Connecticut residents, provided they (within a year) either:
This means a wide variety of medium-to-large-sized businesses, as well as data brokers and advertising technology companies, must pay close attention to the law.
One of the CTDPA’s defining features is its grant of broad opt-out rights to Connecticut residents. Consumers can direct businesses not to:
These rights must be easily exercised and clearly presented. After January 1, 2025, companies must honor opt-outs using a universal mechanism—such as browser-based privacy controls or “do not sell” signals—further raising the bar for technical compliance.
Businesses are required to uphold clear principles of data minimization—collecting only the amount of personal data reasonably necessary for disclosed purposes. Overcollection is not only discouraged, but may be penalized if it deviates from disclosed purposes.
Equally important is the duty to protect personal data. The CTDPA mandates companies implement reasonable administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to protect information from unauthorized access, loss, or theft. Risk-based security assessments and regular reviews are strongly encouraged, especially when dealing with sensitive information.
Much like its Virginian and Coloradan counterparts, the CTDPA treats “sensitive data” as a special category. Processing of data related to racial or ethnic origin, religious beliefs, health status, sexual orientation, biometric or genetic information, and children (under 13) requires affirmative, opt-in consent from the consumer.
Connecticut consumers benefit from a suite of data privacy rights, including:
Businesses must respond to verified requests promptly—within 45 days, extendable in complex cases.
The CTDPA compels transparency in practices. Companies must plainly disclose in their privacy notice what data they collect, how it is used, how consumers can exercise their rights, and whom their data is shared with. Using personal data for new (undisclosed) purposes is not allowed without fresh consent.
Unlike California’s CPRA, the CTDPA does not grant a private right of action. Instead, all enforcement power rests with the Connecticut Attorney General (AG). The AG may investigate, request documentation, and issue civil penalties (up to $5,000 per violation) for non-compliance.
A distinguishing feature of the law is its “cure period,” currently set through December 31, 2024. If the AG identifies a violation, businesses have 60 days to address and remedy the problem without penalty. This buffer underscores Connecticut's commitment to education-first enforcement—but it will sunset in 2025, after which violations may incur direct fines without a grace period.
The CPA requires heightened transparency—particularly about profiling and automated decision-making. If a business uses profiling in furtherance of decisions with legal or other significant effects (such as loan approvals, employment decisions, etc.), it must clearly disclose:
This level of specificity is both a compliance challenge and an opportunity to build consumer trust via clear, forthcoming communication.
Regulatory compliance goes beyond policies and privacy notices. Technical, repeatable processes for data minimization and deletion are critical, because ultimately, the best way to mitigate breach risks (and prove compliance) is to ensure that data no longer required is permanently erased.
Incomplete or improper deletion of consumer information, especially if hardware is disposed of or repurposed, is a common source of data exposure. Recent enforcement trends (and newsworthy data breaches) highlight the importance of certified sanitization.
To solve these challenges, businesses should employ reliable deletion solutions such as Active@ KillDisk and KillDisk Industrial. These tools allow organizations to permanently erase sensitive or personal data from hard drives, SSDs, and other storage media—whether dealing with a single laptop or a warehouse of devices.
Incorporating these solutions ensures that personal data is truly eliminated—protecting both your reputation and compliance posture, especially given the CTDPA’s focus on security and consumer rights fulfillment.
The Connecticut Data Privacy Act is the latest sign that robust consumer data protection is now a business imperative—not merely a regional concern. Its moderate yet clear requirements, phased enforcement, and broad opt-out rights signal increasing regulatory expectation, with more states likely to follow this pragmatic template. Start preparing now by reviewing your privacy programs, strengthening technical safeguards, and standardizing secure data deletion with proven solutions like Active@ KillDisk and KillDisk Industrial.
In our ongoing series, we will next explore the implications of international privacy regulations and how U.S. businesses should respond. Stay tuned for practical, actionable guidance as the privacy landscape evolves.
References:
Connecticut Data Privacy Act (CTDPA)
Software mentioned in the article: