• Central District of California dismisses lawsuit alleging that a third-party’s interception of communications over a website’s live chat feature violated California’s wiretapping and eavesdropping prohibitions.  
  • Important to the Court’s holding was its finding that the code used by the third party to acquire and transmit the contents of the chat communications was not necessarily used to intercept the communications while they were “in transit” but rather to store them after they were received.

Increasing oversight of tech companies, particularly in the realm of consumer privacy, has been a rare example of bipartisan agreement. Despite data privacy being a growing concern for consumers, however, there has been relatively little federal policymaking. To counteract this lack of action, some states have stepped in to fill

As the National Security Agency (NSA) noted in its 2022 cybersecurity yearly review, “[c]yberspace is dangerous.”

Reports of sophisticated cyberattacks and ransomware threats were prevalent in the past year. The government, manufacturers, and others further developed standards for securing digital infrastructure like 5G, cloud services, cryptography, internet protocols, and

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

Effective tomorrow, October 1, 2019, the existing Nevada Privacy of Information Collected on the Internet from Consumers Act will be amended to include a consumer right to opt out from the sale of personal information and to impose verification requirements on “Operators” covered by the law. The existing law requires such covered entities to post privacy notices. The new consumer opt-out right was added through Senate Bill 220 (“SB 220”), which was signed into law earlier this summer. While this addition to Nevada’s privacy framework draws comparisons to consumer rights afforded under the California Consumer Privacy Act (the “CCPA”), the act, as amended by SB 220, applies to a much narrower category of businesses and is limited to certain types of “Covered Information” that are transferred as part of a “Sale” of data.  

Unwanted robocalls reportedly totaled 26.3 billion calls in 2018, sparking more and more consumer complaints to the FCC and FTC and increased legislative and regulatory activity to combat the practice. Some automated calls are beneficial, such as school closing announcements, bank fraud warnings, and medical notifications, and some caller ID spoofing is justified, such as certain law enforcement or investigatory purposes and domestic violence shelter use.  However, consumers have been inundated with spam calls – often with spoofed local area codes – that display fictitious caller ID information or circumvent caller ID technology in an effort to increase the likelihood consumers will answer or otherwise defraud consumers. To combat the rash of unwanted calls, Congress and federal regulators advanced several measures in 2019 and states have tightened their own telecommunications privacy laws in the past year.  For example, within the last week, the Arkansas governor signed into law S.B. 514, which boosts criminal penalties for illegal call spoofing and creates an oversight process for telecommunications providers.