As summer nears its end, uncertainty and complexity lie ahead for many companies as they evaluate how to operationalize compliance with the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), existing California employment laws and potentially the passage of a federal privacy law, the American Data Protection and Privacy Act, H.R. 8152 (ADPPA), that may preempt some but … Continue Reading
On August 24, 2022, California Attorney General (AG) Rob Bonta announced a settlement with beauty products retailer, Sephora USA, Inc. (“Sephora”), resolving claims that Sephora violated the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) for, among other things, failing to disclose to consumers that it was selling their personal information (including precise location data) and failing to … Continue Reading
On October 11, 2019, the California Governor, Gavin Newsom, signed into law five CCPA-amending bills and an additional CCPA-related bill that were awaiting his signature. The CCPA, or the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, gives California consumers certain rights to learn about and control how a business within the CCPA’s scope handles the personal … Continue Reading
The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) is a major new state law poised to affect the privacy landscape not just in California, but in the U.S. as a whole. (For a detailed overview of the CCPA, read our previous post.) On August 31, the California legislature passed several amendments to the CCPA that will have a … Continue Reading
This has been a big year in the data protection world, with the headline-grabbing General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) occupying most of the spotlight with its plethora of privacy-related requirements and potential for high fines for violators. While companies (justifiably) may be focused on the GDPR at the moment, it’s also important to keep an … Continue Reading
On January 1, 2016, the Delaware Online Privacy and Protection Act (“DOPPA”) will go into force, a law that provides strong online privacy protection for its residents. The new law targets three areas of compliance: (1) advertising to children; (2) conspicuous posting of a compliant privacy policy; and (3) enhancing the privacy protections of users … Continue Reading
Today, one month after the European Court of Justice decision that invalidated the Safe Harbor framework, the European Commission (the “Commission”) issued a Communication setting forth its position on alternative tools for the lawful transfer of personal data from the EU to the United States. The Commission also stated its objective to conclude negotiations with … Continue Reading
Over the course of the coming weeks, we will examine the various options available to companies in light of the European Court of Justice’s (CJEU) decision invalidating the US-EU Safe Harbor framework, including model contracts, binding corporate rules (BCRs), consent and reliance on derogations. News out of Germany, however, indicates that a one-size-fits all approach … Continue Reading
The past few years have seen exponential growth in the use of technology in the classroom, with applications ranging from the increased availability and use of e-books to the displacement of physical classrooms through Massive Open Online Courses (also known as MOOCs). One of the fastest growing segments of the education technology market relates to … Continue Reading
The US-EU Safe Harbor has been back in the news recently as Germany’s data protection commissioners met at the end of January and expressed impatience at the delay in implementing what many view as necessary reforms to the program. The European Court of Justice also recently heard a challenge to Facebook’s reliance on the Safe … Continue Reading
On September 27, 2013, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law an amendment to California’s breach notification law (Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.82). Effective January 1, 2014, under the amended law, the definition of “Personal Information” will be expanded to include “a user name or email address, in combination with a password or security question … Continue Reading
Ever on the forefront of consumer privacy protection, California is again making news in the privacy world with the California Attorney General’s recent publication of “Privacy on the Go: Recommendations for the Mobile Ecosystem,” which includes privacy recommendations for app developers, app platform providers, mobile ad networks, makers of operating systems and mobile carriers. With … Continue Reading
A month after the Mobile Marketing Association released its Mobile Application Privacy Policy Framework (which we blogged about here), the GSM Association (GSMA) announced the release of its Privacy Design Guidelines for Mobile Application Development. The guidelines seek to provide developers with specific design points meant to enhance mobile application users’ abilities to guard personal information … Continue Reading
The Illinois Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) requires that any “data collector”, which includes businesses, universities, governmental agencies or any other entity that deals with personal information, notify Illinois residents in the event of a data security breach. Recently, the Office of Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan issued guidance that provides tools to assist entities in … Continue Reading
On September 26, Judge William Walls of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey ruled that a putative class action lawsuit against home goods retailer Williams-Sonoma failed to state a claim under New Jersey law. In Feder v. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc., the plaintiff sought damages for purported violations of New Jersey's Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act ("TCCWNA") after a Williams-Sonoma employee allegedly required the plaintiff to provide her zip code as part of a credit card transaction. The district court's decision supports what many people hope will continue to be the case, i.e., that it will be a challenge for plaintiffs' lawyers to successfully transplant the California Supreme Court's recent decision in Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma, Inc. (see our blog post here) into other jurisdictions.
… Continue Reading
On March 28, 2011, the Massachusetts Superior Court issued a Final Judgment by Consent between the Commonwealth and Briar Group, LLC that resolves allegations that Briar Group failed to take measures to protect consumer credit and debit card information. Pursuant to the Final Judgment, Briar Group must pay $110,000 to the Commonwealth, establish a written information security program ("WISP"), and implement a number of other information security measures to help protect customer data.
… Continue Reading
On January 18, 2011, Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell announced a settlement with HealthNet, Inc. and Health Net of the Northeast, Inc. over allegations that the company violated the state's data breach notification law when the company waited over six months to notify state residents of the loss of a portable hard drive that contained their unencrypted personal information. The Attorney General's settlement is an important reminder that the unpleasantness of a security breach is only compounded by a poor response. If you have not already done so, the time for establishing a comprehensive breach response plan is now!
… Continue Reading
In a September 8, 2010 opinion, Switzerland's highest court announced that Internet Protocol (IP) addresses are personal information protected by the country's data protection laws. The Swiss Federal Supreme Court's ruling in In re Logistep AG, BGer, No. 1C-285/2009, 1C_295/2009, 9/8/10, adds to the longstanding debate over whether such information is personal information despite the fact that a single IP address can be attributed to more than one computer user. While the debate is far from over, the Logistep decision makes clear that businesses collecting information about individuals' Internet activities, particularly those with operations in Europe, must treat IP addresses with care, as they may be protected by privacy laws in some jurisdictions.
… Continue Reading
Rite Aid has agreed to pay $1 million to resolve allegations that it violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPAA") by pitching pill bottles and prescription information into publicly accessible dumpsters near Rite Aid stores. According to HHS' resolution agreement, released on July 27, Rite Aid must implement a three-year corrective action program, which includes the adoption of revised policies and procedures concerning the disposal of sensitive health-related information, employee training programs and procedures and penalties for employees that fail to comply with them. Rite Aid also entered into a separate, but related settlement with the FTC to resolve allegations that the company failed to live up to promises made in its privacy policy.
… Continue Reading
On June 25, 2010, Judge Richard Berman of the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment to The Bank of New York Mellon Corp. in Hammond v. The Bank of New York Mellon Corp., dismissing in its entirety a putative class action lawsuit arising from the loss of backup tapes containing personal information in the spring of 2008. Judge Berman's dismissal represents yet another in a long, and still growing, line of cases standing for the proposition that without more, the mere exposure of personal information is not an adequate basis for a lawsuit.
… Continue Reading
On May 28, 2010, in an unpublished decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the California district court's dismissal of a class action lawsuit against retailer Gap, Inc. because, among other things, the plaintiff failed to show that the loss of his personal information harmed him in a legally cognizable way. The Ninth Circuit's decision echoes those issued in every "identity exposure" lawsuit to date: an increased risk of identity theft does not a lawsuit make!
… Continue Reading
On January 5, 2010, Judge William Hibbler of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois became the latest federal district judge to share his views about whether an increased risk of future harm based on the inadvertent exposure of personal information is a legally cognizable harm. In Rowe v. UniCare Life & Health Insurance Co., No. 1:09-cv-2286 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 5, 2010), Judge Hibbler . . . hinted that the plaintiff's claims for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") and the Illinois Insurance Information and Privacy Act, as well as his common law claims of invasion of privacy, negligence and breach of implied contract, may ultimately be dismissed if the plaintiff failed to show a basis for damages other than his alleged increased risk of future harm, such as identity theft.
… Continue Reading
Where the only harm alleged is mere "speculation as to a possible risk of injury," a claim cannot survive a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, according to a District of Connecticut decision issued on August 31, 2009. McLoughlin v. People's United Bank, Inc., and Bank of New York Mellon, Inc., No. 3:08-cv-00944-VLB (D. Conn. Aug. 31, 2009), thus follows a long and growing line of cases which simply hold that where there is no actual harm, there can be no case.
… Continue Reading
With social networking sites proliferating across international boundaries, privacy and data protection concerns are becoming increasingly relevant. With these concerns in mind, the Article 29 Working Party, an independent European advisory body on data protection and privacy, adopted an opinion on online social networking on June 12, 2009. As noted by the Working Party, the … Continue Reading
This website uses third party cookies, over which we have no control. To deactivate the use of third party advertising cookies, you should alter the settings in your browser.
