California Delete Act Data Broker Friction Audit

Statutory Grounding (SB 362 / Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.99.80 et seq.): California's Delete Act mandates that data brokers provide accessible deletion mechanisms, annually disclose request metrics, and integrate with the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) centralized deletion mechanism. A landmark empirical audit led by Jennifer King (Stanford HAI) and the Stanford RegLab uncovered that the vast majority of registered brokers employ deliberate friction loops, omit mandatory annual metrics, or demand excessive identity verification.

1. Data Broker Profile & Practice Selection

Interactive Audit

Broker Archetype Preset

Broker Legal Entity Name

CPPA Registry & Reporting Status

Formally Registered on CPPA Registry (§ 1798.99.82) Publishes Annual Deletion Request Metrics (§ 1798.99.85)

Observed Consumer Friction Tactics (Stanford HAI Empirical Taxonomies)

CPPA Enforcement Standard Reference

Under SB 362, data brokers face penalties of $200/day for failure to register, plus statutory fees and mandatory compliance orders. Dark patterns that impair consumer autonomy or require disproportionate identity proofs to delete previously unverified scraped data constitute violations of Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.185.

2. Compliance Score & Journey Simulation

Live Evaluation

Consumer Deletion Journey Flow Tester

Step-by-step rendering of what an ordinary Californian experiences when attempting to exercise Delete Act rights at this broker:

Statutory Disclosure Audit

Reporting Obligation	Observed Status	Delete Act Mandate

Policy Solution: Stanford HAI Centralized Single-Request Impact

When the CPPA Accessible Deletion Mechanism (SB 362 DROP platform) is fully enacted, all 3 active broker-side obstructions will be bypassed entirely via an authenticated single-registry signal.

Saved audit score arithmetic

Your browser does not support video.

Read the explanation

Source assigns thirty-five points when the registration checkbox is false and fifteen when annual metrics checkbox is false. Together they sum fifty. Bars compare registration penalty and combined flag penalty at ten pixels per score point. These arbitrary labels and weights do not establish legal compliance or facts about a broker. Four saved tactic penalties twenty, twenty-five, thirty-five and fifteen sum ninety-five before other flags. Bars compare hypothetical maximum one hundred and this sum at six pixels per point. This explains the source score, not a validated measure of obstruction or applicable law. A hypothetical fifty points from two flags plus ninety-five from these four tactics makes one hundred forty-five before clamping. Source maximum caps the score at one hundred. Bars compare fifty-point starting score and one-hundred final capped score at four pixels per point. Distinct high totals therefore become the same output. Complete native raw audit JSON/reset preserved; statutory and compliance claims unverified.