Privacy Law Blog : Privacy Lawyers & Attorneys : Proskauer Rose Law Firm : CAN-SPAM, FCRA, FACTA

The European Commission (the “EC”) has announced its anticipated comprehensive reform of EU data protection rules, intended to strengthen online privacy rights and boost Europe's digital economy. The proposal is intended to update and modernize the principles enshrined in the 1995 Data Protection Directive. If approved, unlike the current rules which give each of the 27 member states of the EU (the “member states”) some flexibility as to how the 1995 Data Protection Directive is implemented in their jurisdiction, the new law would apply directly so that there would be an entirely uniform set of data protection standards across the EU.

Key changes include...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The deadline for compliance with a key requirement of the Massachusetts Data Security Regulations is only a month away. By March 1, 2012, contracts must require that certain service providers implement and maintain appropriate security measures to protect personal information. This alert summarizes the requirements that will become effective as of March 1, 2012.

Read the entire article.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The past month has seen a new pattern of class action lawsuits filed in California courts against businesses for allegedly violating California’s Shine the Light privacy law (the “Act”). For seven years since the Act became effective, well-intentioned businesses have understandably had the sense that their compliance approach has been sound, and we have seen no challenges to that notion. Recent class actions have alleged non-compliance on technical grounds as frivolous as the title of the privacy policy being “Privacy Policy” instead of “Your Privacy Rights.” Why should that cost a business $500 - $3,000 per California customer? We would have to ask the plaintiffs’ lawyer that question.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In an extension of the spate of litigation surrounding California’s Song-Beverly Credit Card Act and other laws like it, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Tyler v. Michaels Stores, Inc., Civ. No. 11-10920-WGY (D. Mass. Jan. 6, 2012), followed the California Supreme Court’s lead (see our blog post here) in ruling that ZIP codes are “personal identification information” within the meaning of Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 93, § 105(a). The court refused to apply the California Supreme Court’s reasoning that the term “address” in § 105(a)’s definition of PII encompassed individual components of an address, and instead relied on a shaky analogy to PIN code to conclude that “a ZIP code can indeed be PII under section 105(a).” Id. at 12. The court nonetheless dismissed the plaintiff’s putative class action because she failed to allege any legally cognizable harm as a result of Michaels’ collection of her ZIP code in connection with a credit card transaction. The decision is a strange one for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the court’s insistence on setting the stage of a David vs. Goliath type showdown at the outset of its opinion only to bounce the “little guy” right out of the arena, but here goes …

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link