On Tuesday, November 12, 2019, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) announced a proposed settlement with InfoTrax Systems, L.C. (“InfoTrax”), a third-party service provider, regarding multiple data security failures. As a result of these security shortcomings, a hacker accessed about one million consumers’ sensitive personal information after more than twenty intrusions into InfoTrax’s network. This settlement marks one of the first instances in which the FTC has alleged a violation of the FTC Act predicated solely upon the failure to maintain reasonable security measures by a third-party service provider. The settlement is also notable for a Commissioner’s concurring statement criticizing the settlement’s standard twenty-year term.
Continue Reading
Be Prepared: How to Proactively Account for Data Privacy
Have the right policies in place
– Ensure clear, readily accessible, and (where necessary) country-specific policies are in place indicating the permitted uses of company devices and other IT equipment, including messaging services. If you allow employees to use their own devices to perform work, make sure your policies adequately address issues of access in the context of investigations.
Continue Reading
Incorporating Data Privacy Considerations Into Investigations
Many investigations, particularly those that are cross-border in nature, are likely to present data privacy issues, and managing these issues is frequently a key consideration in an investigation. By keeping data privacy laws in mind as soon as an investigation starts, an organization will avoid the risk that it has failed to satisfy certain requirements, thereby exposing itself to the possibility of a fine or sanction from a regulator.
Continue Reading
The CCPA Takes Shape with Proposed Regulations, as Companies are Encouraged to Comply by January 1
The final version of the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 is coming into view.
On October 10, California’s Attorney General released the long-anticipated draft regulations to implement the CCPA, and on October 12, the Governor signed into law five amendments to the CCPA passed during the 2019 legislative session. (We previously discussed the CCPA
United Kingdom and United States Governments Sign First-Ever CLOUD Act Agreement
On October 3, 2019, the governments of the United Kingdom and United States signed the first-ever executive agreement governing cross-border data requests (the “Agreement”) pursuant to the US Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act (“CLOUD Act”).[1] As contemplated by the CLOUD Act, the Agreement provides a mechanism for the governments to access and share data stored abroad by electronic communications services providers (“CSP”) in their respective countries in a timely manner. The Agreement will enter into effect following a 180 day Congressional review period required by the CLOUD Act and a similar review by the UK Parliament.
Continue Reading
RTBF Stops at the Border: CJEU Sides with Google on the Scope of De-Referencing
On September 24, 2019[1], the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) handed down its much anticipated follow-on judgment[2] in connection with an individual’s right to have links removed from search results displayed following a search of that individual’s name on Google’s search engine.
Building on its recognition of a “right to de-referencing” in its landmark 2014 Google Spain judgment[3] (establishing the so-called “right to be forgotten” or “RTBF”), the CJEU now further clarified the territorial scope of such right, and limited the de-referencing obligation to Google’s search engine websites corresponding to EU Member States, as opposed to all domain name extensions (e.g., the obligation applies to domain names with top-level domain (“TLDs”) corresponding to EU Member States, such as “google.fr” for France or “google.be” for Belgium). The Court added that Google may need to use, “where necessary”, measures effectively preventing or seriously discouraging an internet user from accessing (on other versions of the search engine, which are not subject to the de-referencing obligation) the links at issue from an EU Member State. As a consequence, Google has no obligation to remove the links at issue on all Google websites worldwide (such as on “google.com”), but may need to implement sufficiently effective measures to prevent Internet users from accessing the links from the EU.
Continue Reading
Before You Press Send: Protecting Privilege and Complying With Limitations on Data Dissemination When Responding to an Investigative Request
One critical issue to consider in responding to an investigative request is whether by producing the requested data, the company will be waiving a privilege or violating legal confidentiality obligations, including data privacy restrictions.
Continue Reading
California Consumer Privacy Act Amendments Offer Relief, but Challenges Remain
California’s 2019 legislative session has drawn to a close with passage of five amendments to the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) during the final days of the session. Assuming that the bills are timely signed by the Governor before the October 13 deadline, businesses will finally have the complete version of the statute that will
Can the GDPR Tip the Scales in U.S. Discovery – Finjan v. Zscaler
While the EU General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 (the “GDPR”) has grabbed headlines due to its extraterritorial reach and administrative fining regime (which permits fines for non-compliance up to the higher of €20 million or 4% of global, annual turnover),[1] a recent decision in the Northern District of California – Finjan v. Zscaler (“Finjan”)[2] – suggests that U.S. Courts won’t view the EU data protection legislation as an absolute obstacle to domestic discovery. Finjan, as the first post-GDPR ruling of its kind, suggests that it will be business as usual navigating between U.S. civil discovery and EU law, at least from the U.S. courts’ perspective.
Continue Reading
German Court Divorces GDPR and Competition Law in Facebook Appeal
In February of this year the German antitrust agency, the Federal Cartel Office (“FCO”), issued a decision against Facebook regarding their handling of user data. Please see our previous blog-post detailing the FCO’s arguments here
Facebook appealed and on August 26, 2019, the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal (“DCA”) in an interim decision granted suspensive effect to Facebook’s appeal against the FCO decision.
The DCA can order suspensive effect to an appeal if it has serious doubts whether the prohibition decision is legally valid. Despite the preliminary character of the DCA’s decision, this could represents a significant setback for the FCO and have signaling effect beyond the German borders,. The DCA made certain important points on issues of law, which it will likely not revers during its main proceedings.
Continue Reading