personal information

Subscribe to personal information via RSS

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 eye on new privacy laws on the horizon in order to avoid last-minute scrambles for compliance as effective dates near. Foremost among these new laws is the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018. The Act was introduced and signed quickly in order to prevent voters from facing a similar ballot initiative in the November election. This post provides an overview of the new law, which will go into effect beginning January 1, 2020.

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 of digital books (“e-books”).  The law grants the state’s Consumer Protection Unit of the Department of Justice the authority to investigate and prosecute violations of the law. This new Delaware law is substantially similar to three existing California laws that regulate the same practices. Given the similarities in language, DOPPA was clearly drafted with the California laws in mind.

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 the U.S. government regarding the so-called Safe Harbor 2.0 within three months.  This timeline dovetails with the Article 29 Working Party’s grace period, which continues until the end of January 2016.

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 to data transfers from the EU to the U.S. may be difficult to achieve.

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 online educational services and applications, which are designed to track individual student progress and use the data gathered to deliver an individualized learning experience to each user. However, while online educational services and applications hold significant potential, the gathering of massive amounts of data has also sparked fears about what data will be collected, from whom, how it will be used, and whether, if at all, it will be deleted. This fear is especially prevalent when it comes to online educational services and applications targeted at children.

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 Harbor for the transfer of user data in what many see as an important test case; this lawsuit will be the topic of a future blog post.

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 and answer that would permit access to an online account.”  Additionally, new notification options have been added to address a breach of this type of information.

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 this publication, California joins the FTC and the GSMA as entities that have published non-binding guidance with respect to mobile privacy (which we blogged about here and here, respectively).