MJ White & Son: Uncovering Critical Legal Risks in Privacy and Data Handling Terms | Erayaha

## When We Examined MJ White & Son’s Terms: Four Legal Risks That Could Cost Millions

Imagine a scenario where a single ambiguous clause in your privacy policy leads to a $2.2 million GDPR fine, or a vague data-sharing statement triggers a class-action lawsuit under CCPA. Our analysis of MJ White & Son’s Terms & Conditions reveals four high-impact legal and logical gaps that could expose the company to regulatory penalties, litigation costs, and reputational damage.

1. Ambiguous Data Sharing with Affiliates and Successors MJ White & Son’s terms allow broad sharing of personal data with affiliates, successors, and merged entities, without clear user consent or opt-out mechanisms. This lack of specificity violates GDPR Article 7 and CCPA §1798.120, risking fines up to 4% of annual revenue or $7,500 per violation.

Legal Analysis

critical Risk

Removed

Added

Other than as set forth above, we do not share personally identifiable information with other companies, apart fromexcept (i) those acting as our agents in providing our product(s)/service(s), and which agreewho are contractually bound to use it onlysolely for that purpose and to keep the information securemaintain its security and confidential. Alsoconfidentiality, and (ii) our parent, subsidiary, and affiliate companies, entities into which our company may be merged, or entities to which any of our assets, products, sitesresulting from a merger or operations may be transferredasset transfer, will be ableprovided that such entities agree in writing to use personal informationcomply with all applicable data protection laws and provide users with prior notice and an opportunity to opt-out of such transfers.

Legal Explanation

The original clause allows broad data sharing with affiliates and successors without user consent or opt-out, violating GDPR and CCPA requirements. The revision ensures legal compliance by requiring contractual safeguards, user notice, and opt-out rights.

2. Insufficient User Consent for Marketing Communications The terms state customers "are given the opportunity to choose" regarding marketing communications, but do not require explicit, opt-in consent as mandated by GDPR and CAN-SPAM. This exposes the company to regulatory scrutiny and potential fines of $16,000 per violation under CAN-SPAM.

Legal Analysis

high Risk

Removed

Added

Our customers are given the opportunity to choose whether to receive information from our affiliates and us not directly related to the productWe will only send marketing communications or service for which they registered (or which they otherwise agreed to receive). Customers also have the opportunity to choose whether to haveshare personal information shared with third parties for marketing purposes if you have provided explicit, opt-in consent, in accordance with applicable laws such as GDPR and CAN-SPAM. You may withdraw your consent at any time by following the instructions provided in each communication.

Legal Explanation

The original clause does not require explicit, opt-in consent for marketing, which is mandated by GDPR and CAN-SPAM. The revision ensures compliance and reduces risk of regulatory penalties.

3. Unclear Data Retention and Deletion Policies No specific retention period or deletion process is provided for personal data. Under GDPR Article 5(1)(e), failure to define and communicate data retention can result in enforcement actions and fines. This omission also increases litigation risk if data is retained longer than necessary.

Legal Analysis

high Risk

Removed

Added

In addition, we mayWe retain e-mails and other personal information sent to usonly for our internal administrativeas long as necessary to fulfill the purposes for which it was collected, and to help us to serve customers betteror as required by applicable law. Upon request, or when no longer needed, we will securely delete or anonymize personal data in accordance with GDPR Article 5(1)(e).

Legal Explanation

The original clause lacks a defined data retention period or deletion process, which is required for GDPR compliance. The revision provides clear retention limits and deletion rights, reducing regulatory and litigation risk.

4. Incomplete Security Safeguards for Sensitive Data While the terms mention "reasonable precautions" and encryption for credit card data, they lack references to industry standards (e.g., PCI DSS) or breach notification obligations. This gap could result in liability for data breaches, with average costs exceeding $4.45 million per incident (IBM Cost of a Data Breach Report 2023).

Legal Analysis

high Risk

Removed

Added

We use reasonable precautions to protect our customers' personal informationimplement administrative, technical, and to store it securely. Sensitive information that is transmitted to us online (such asphysical safeguards consistent with industry standards, including PCI DSS for credit card numberdata, only applies to Businesses) is encrypted and is transmitted to us securelywill notify affected individuals and authorities of any data breach as required by applicable law (e. In additiong., access to all of our customers' informationGDPR, not just the sensitive information mentioned above, is restrictedCCPA). Finally, the servers on which we store personally identifiable information are kept in a secure environment.

Legal Explanation

The original clause lacks reference to recognized security standards and breach notification obligations. The revision aligns with industry best practices and legal requirements, reducing liability in the event of a breach.

---

Key Takeaways & Business Implications Our analysis shows that MJ White & Son’s current terms expose the company to significant regulatory and financial risks. Addressing these gaps with precise legal language and compliance mechanisms can prevent costly penalties, litigation, and reputational harm.

Are your privacy terms defensible under global data protection laws?
How would your company respond to a regulator’s audit or a data subject request?
What proactive steps can you take to strengthen your legal framework?

This analysis is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For actual legal guidance, consult with a licensed attorney. This assessment is based on publicly available information and professional legal analysis. See erayaha.ai’s terms of service for liability limitations.