[elliekelly]

I don’t think it’s intended as a veiled threat of a lawsuit so much as a statement of the compliance requirements. Unfortunately it seems they misunderstood the scope which makes the it inaccurate. But if the statement was true and accurate I would just take it as a helpful reminder of the timeframe.

[Ansil849]

> But if the statement was true and accurate I would just take it as a helpful reminder of the timeframe.

No. Absolutely not. A helpful reminder of the timeframe would be "the deadline for our study is ..., please try to send your response by then if you wish to be included."

Quoting legal code is not at all a helpful reminder of a timeframe, but is a direct implication of legal ramifications for failure to comply.

[phkahler]

IMHO that is the most significant part of this. Any question about the intent is clearly tipped toward legal trouble by that.

[dataflow]

> if the statement was true and accurate I would just take it as a helpful reminder of the timeframe.

People don't go through the trouble of digging up the particular section number of the specific statute of the specific jurisdiction in question for the mere sake of a generic "helpful reminder of the timeframe" required by law.

And similarly for the "without undue delay" part.

[elliekelly]

I do. Every day. I provide the citation so you can read the law and if you disagree with my interpretation you can respond saying as much. This is internet outrage mob justice. I understand why people are mad but it’s far more to do with ignorance on the part of the researchers than malice.

[complypls]

The context is important: if you deal with user support (especially in the context of privacy) then someone quoting law at you is a huge red flag for an impending nightmare. I’ve dealt with irate users who actually did go as far as to file lawsuits and the email from this “study” activated my fight or flight response because of how much it (unintentionally?) mirrors the way angry litigious internet users communicate. The only worse phrase to read is “free speech”.

[detaro]

I would guess as an attorney you're more used to that style of communication than a random blogger or small entity. Citing law has very different signaling purpose and effect in different contexts.

[eli]

That's a very generous assumption. Especially in the context of an email sent under false pretenses and a false name and an anonymous domain.

It's either a veiled threat or a serious error. Either way, this study needed more oversight.

[dr_dshiv]

Calls for more oversight are calls for more bureaucratic procedures and this whole situation is already bureaucracy gone mad.

[wtallis]

> and this whole situation is already bureaucracy gone mad.

That sounds like you're referring to the CCPA itself as the bureaucracy gone mad, and probably have already made up your mind about what outcomes research like this will find. If so, that's not really a helpful attitude for this kind of discussion.

[eli]

In this specific situation it doesn’t seem like there was any bureaucracy at all

[wildrhythms]

What world do you live in that regular webmaster inquiry emails are footnoted with a reference to a law number?