Kristen J. Mathews

Subscribe to Kristen J. Mathews's Posts

On June 25, 2014, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that police must first obtain a warrant before searching the cell phones of arrested individuals, except in “exigent circumstances.” Chief Justice John Roberts authored the opinion, which held that an individual’s Fourth Amendment right to privacy outweighs the interest of law enforcement in conducting searches of cell phones without a warrant. The decision resolved a split among state and federal courts on the search incident to arrest doctrine (which permits police to search an arrested individual without a warrant) as it applies to cell phones.

The case of Riley v. California as heard before the Supreme Court combined two cases, one involving a smartphone and the other involving a flip phone. In the first case, Riley v. California, the police arrested David Leon Riley, searched his smartphone, and found photographs and videos potentially connecting him to gang activity and an earlier shooting. In the second case, United States v. Wurie, Brima Wurie was arrested for allegedly dealing drugs, and incoming calls on his flip phone helped lead the police to a house used to store drugs and guns.

On July 3, 2012, Orange County Superior Court Judge Nancy Wieben Stock issued a ruling dismissing a California “Shine the Light” consumer protection law case without leave to amend, making it the first “Shine the Light” case to come to a final decision in a trial court. Judge Stock dismissed the case against XO Group Inc. by filing a ruling sustaining demurrers to both of the plaintiff’s two causes of action in the initial Complaint without leave to amend. The ruling holds that, based on the facts that the plaintiff admitted in her Complaint and that her attorney confirmed at oral argument, there is no possibility of showing that XO Group violated the Shine the Light law.

On February 22, 2012, California’s Attorney General, Kamala D. Harris, entered into an agreement with several leading providers of mobile devices and app stores to increase consumer privacy protection for mobile applications or “apps.” Under the agreement’s terms, these companies have agreed to redesign their app stores to provide a location for app developers to display their privacy policies.
…

On February 23, 2012, the White House issued a proposal to adopt a Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights. The new proposal is part of the Administration’s efforts to adopt a comprehensive consumer data privacy framework that applies to all personal data, defined as any data that can be linked to a specific individual or device. The Administration’s efforts are also intended to bring about conformity with the privacy principles that have become the norm in other countries such as in Europe, thereby increasing interoperability between the U.S. privacy framework and that which has arisen in the rest of the world.

For now, the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights is still a blueprint and does not include enforceable rules, but the Administration is pursuing implementation through legislation and a multistakeholder rule-making process.

"Do I really have to obtain consent from all my customers to make a change to my privacy policy?  No one else seems to be following that rule."

We get this question all the time.  It is understandable, given that we often watch Web-based companies expand their usage of consumer data without the affirmative consent of their users.  (In other words, they add a new offering to their service that expands their use or sharing of consumer data, and they default their users into the new offering.) Sometimes they back off temporarily when faced with media backlash or Congressional or regulatory scrutiny, but the pattern nonetheless persists in the long term.  Sometimes we scratch our heads in wonder, since the FTC has taken the position in countless actions for over a decade that if you make a material, adverse, retroactive change to your privacy policy, you need to obtain consent from consumers to apply your new policy to the data you collected under your old policy.