13 LAWS & STATUTORY PARTS
Compare privacy laws.
Who needs consent? What can a person ask for? And when can they sue? Compare the rules, then open the source.
Loading comparison…
Open “Details & sources” for qualifications and the annotated provision. On narrow screens, scroll the table sideways.
What this comparison covers
Thirteen entries drawn from the readers on Law Vision: Colorado and Connecticut privacy laws, their additional assigned excerpts, GDPR, CCPA/CPRA, COPPA, FCRA, FISA, and ECPA Titles I, II and III. Colorado’s CPA rules are included with the CPA; CCPA and COPPA rules are included with their statutes. GPC is a mechanism, not a separate law.
These are editorial summaries, not substitute statutory text. Coverage, exceptions, procedural requirements and effective dates matter. “No private action” under one statute does not rule out another legal theory. A statutory remedy does not by itself establish standing or a successful claim. The comparison uses the readers’ identified editions, checked October 8, 2026.
Cases & bills.
Public metadata from the existing CourtListener and LegiScan monitor. Filing matches need complaint review; related bills need an amendment check. Neither is a finding that a law was violated or changed.
Choose a law to explore the public snapshot.
Filing candidates
Related U.S. bills
Matches require a topic tag and a relevant phrase in the public title or summary, not a verified amendment to the selected law. “Pending” is the monitor’s reported status; older sessions may have ended. Session years come from LegiScan URLs. Enacted bills appear only when that filter is selected.
Where the data comes from—and what a match means
The local monitor’s existing nightly publication pipeline exports an allowlist of public court and bill metadata. This page reads that public feed; it does not connect to the private database. If the feed cannot load, a dated saved snapshot is shown. Private notes, scores, outreach data and complaint text are excluded.
Direct case feeds currently cover screened CCPA and federal Wiretap Act matches only. A CourtListener docket link may lead to RECAP documents where available; it is not a promise that the complaint has been acquired. Search tags have not been verified against individual counts or allegations. The export covers a one-year filing window, capped at 200 matches per tracked tag.
A reviewed connection would distinguish a direct statutory claim, government enforcement, a related legal theory, or a citation only—and record the document, provision and page supporting it. All current matches remain unreviewed. Bill candidates require both a collector topic tag and a related phrase in the public title or summary; this can still miss relevant bills or include false positives. A topical bill match is likewise not proof of an amendment, repeal or new operative duty.
Sources: CourtListener / RECAP · LegiScan · Public metadata feed.