What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on 1798.130(a)(5) Disclose rights and data practices in the privacy policy, refreshed yearly?

Current privacy policy with its last-updated date and version history showing at least yearly review; Mapping from the data inventory to each category list published in the policy; Sign-off record for the annual privacy policy review.

What is the most common gap auditors find on 1798.130(a)(5)?

Single combined list where the Act requires separate sold or shared and business-purpose lists

CCPA/CPRA · Privacy policy, notices and choice design

`1798.130(a)(5)` Disclose rights and data practices in the privacy policy, refreshed yearly

The online privacy policy, and any California-specific rights statement (or the website, where no policy exists), must set out the consumer rights under sections 1798.100 to 1798.125 with at least two ways to submit requests; the categories of personal information collected in the previous 12 months, their sources, the business or commercial purposes and the categories of third parties receiving it; and two separate lists of categories sold or shared and categories disclosed for business purposes during the previous 12 months, or a statement that none were. The content must be updated at least every 12 months. Categories must use the statutory terms in section 1798.140 (1798.130(c)).

Source: CCPA/CPRA, 1798.130(a)(5). The statement above is our statement of the clause, read from the published text and cited so you can check it against the official text, not the instrument verbatim. Open CCPA/CPRA in the compliance library.

Applies only to a business that meets one of the thresholds in Cal. Civ. Code 1798.140(d).

artefacts

held by a system

at each review

hard

to go live

Policy repository / GRC workspace

where the evidence lives

teal = a system already holds it · olive = produced at each review. To go live: easy when half or more of the artefacts are already held by a system, moderate from a quarter to a half, hard below a quarter.

These are the artefacts auditors commonly ask for on this requirement, our guidance rather than text from the standard. Your assessor decides what is sufficient in your context, and asks for samples across the period when a report covers one.

system holds itEvidence a system already holds

none for this control

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Sign-off record for the annual privacy policy review · Data governance / DLP tooling

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Current privacy policy with its last-updated date and version history showing at least yearly review · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Mapping from the data inventory to each category list published in the policy · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

No system holds this evidence for you: it is people and documents. Reminders and routing to the owner still save time. Put the document under version control with an owner and review date, and log each review as a record with reviewer and date.

Common gaps auditors find

Single combined list where the Act requires separate sold or shared and business-purpose lists
Policy not reviewed for more than a year
Category names that do not follow the statutory terms

Do this for your whole sheet

Paste the rows you run your controls from and get this mapping for every control at once, with the periodic-review ones flagged and a first move per row. No account for the first run.

Build my evidence sheet

1798.130(a)(2) Answer verified requests within 45 days, free of charge · 1798.135(a) Post the opt-out and limit links, or a single alternative link