Reports of sophisticated cyberattacks and ransomware threats dominated 2021 headlines, along with evolving state data privacy laws in the absence of comprehensive federal data protection regulation. Cross-border data transfers between the EU and US still lack a clear, streamlined mechanism while national authorities continue to negotiate an EU-US Privacy Shield…

The FTC indicated that it will use its rulemaking authority under the FTC Act’s Section 18 to create a new rule that will likely seek to rein in broad data collection and use.

In October 2021, FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter made two speeches in which she expressed a desire to move beyond the FTC’s “notice-and-consent” framework to address broader surveillance practices that underlie the digital advertising economy, specifically by applying “bright-line purpose and use restrictions that minimize the data that can be collected and how it can be deployed.”

The UK Supreme Court handed down its much-anticipated decision in the Lloyd v Google LLC [2021] UKSC 50 case on 10 November 2021 restricting claimants’ ability to bring data privacy class actions in the UK under the (now repealed) Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA 1998). This decision will be persuasive (though not binding) with respect to similar class actions brought under the (in-force) UK General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018 (collectively, the UK GDPR). This decision will not directly impact litigation brought under the EU General Data Protection Regulation in EU member states.

Earlier this year, we reported on the potential breeding ground for litigation under Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”).  A recent decision from an Illinois state appellate panel on the different limitations periods that apply to BIPA provides guidance for companies faced with a BIPA lawsuit and the arguments they…

In the recent and significant Warren v DSG Retail Ltd [2021] EWHC 2168 (QB) decision the High Court in England clarified the limited circumstances in which claims for breach of confidence, misuse of private information and the tort of negligence might be advanced by individuals for compensation for distress relating to a cyber-security breach where the proposed defendant was itself a victim of a third-party cyber-attack. The decision has made it harder to bring free standing/non-statutory cyber-security breach claims in England and Wales where the proposed defendant has not positively caused the breach, and has also brought into question how such claims may be funded going forward (particularly, via “After-the-Event insurance” (“ATE insurance”)).