privacy

Subscribe to privacy

In one of the most highly anticipated judgments in recent years, the UK Supreme Court has unanimously rejected a class-action style compensation claim under the Data Protection Act 1998. The Supreme Court decision was handed down as a result of a claim raised against Google LLC (Google) by Richard Lloyd on behalf of four million data subjects.
Continue Reading Lloyd v. Google: Supreme Court rejects compensation claim

On October 5, 2021, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law amendments to the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) via Assembly Bill 694. Businesses are eagerly awaiting clarification on many aspects of the CCPA and the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) (the CPRA is set to go into effect on January 1, 2023, with a…

California’s new enforcement agency, the Consumer Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA), recently held a meeting of its Board of Directors (Board), where they discussed the possible need to extend the July 1, 2022 CPRA rulemaking deadline and estimated that the updated privacy law, which takes effect in 2023, may require doubling the existing body of CCPA regulations. Key rulemaking topics discussed at the board meeting included rules covering new topics such as rules related to automated decision-making and the CPRA’s new data protection assessment and auditing requirements.

CPPA executive director and staff to be appointed

With a little over nine months until the CPRA regulations are supposed to be finalized, the CPPA is still working on making key staff and leadership appointments. The Board recently held an all-day closed session to review and discuss the applications for the executive director post, indicating it may be close to making a decision on that leadership post. In the preceding open session, members discussed the Chief Privacy Auditor role and the requirements for that new position. As for staff, the Board noted that the Attorney General’s (AG) office already has 10 people dedicated to CCPA-related work and discussed hiring five retired state employees that are attorneys for part-time positions.

Extension of the July 1, 2022 rules deadline

With the CPRA rulemaking deadline looming on July 1, 2022, Board members expressed concern about the CPPA’s ability to draft, revise, and finalize a large number of new rules in the time that remains. Based on this concern, the Board discussed asking the legislature for an extension, enacting temporary “emergency” regulations, or adding grace periods for compliance with the new rules. Emergency rules would allow the CPPA to introduce new rules on an expedited basis while extending the final rulemaking beyond the July 1, 2022 deadline. 
Continue Reading California privacy update: New state enforcement agency leadership discuss extending CPRA rulemaking deadline and doubling the number of current CCPA regulations

Washington State legislators continue in their effort to pass only the second comprehensive privacy legislation in the U.S., the Washington Privacy Act (WPA).  Introduced on January 11, 2021, the WPA is currently making its way through committee hearings.  The debate continues, with the Washington State Senate Ways & Means Committee recently holding a public hearing to discuss the enforcement provision proposed in the WPA.  Currently, $1.4 million is proposed to the Washington State Attorney General’s office for enforcement of the WPA.  Some are calling for an increased budget, others for private right of action.
Continue Reading Washington State weighs enforcement mechanism for its comprehensive privacy bill

Many online platforms are using verification tools to address the broader concern of trustworthiness and credibility on the Internet. With a general move toward a “verified internet,” these online platforms are looking at new verification measures, including facial recognition and other biometric technology. The online adult video platform Pornhub announced last week that it will be introducing biometric technology to verify users who upload videos. In a statement, Pornhub explained that verification will be done by Yoti, a digital identity verification company, “by providing a current photo and government-approved identification document.”

Yoti advertises that it is a “privacy driven” verification solution. The company is a conduit between consumers and the platform owners, like Pornhub. Essentially, a consumer will provide Yoti with their biometric identifier, such as a video or voice recording, plus their government identification. Yoti will then verify that data for the platform owner, such as Pornhub. Pornhub will not see that information, but will rely on the verification to allow the consumer to access their site.
Continue Reading Use of biometric technology is latest trend toward a verified internet

In a Law360 article published last week, the top six media and advertising trends expected in 2021 are discussed. It is no surprise that data privacy and protection issues will likely continue to be a major focus for those operating in the media and advertising sectors. Two major themes identified include the potential for increased…

On January 6th, the first day of the New York legislature’s 2021 session, NY lawmakers proposed Assembly Bill 27 (AB 27), the Biometric Privacy Act.  The legislative purpose of AB 27 is to provide safeguards for consumers regarding their biometric identifiers, such as fingerprints, handprints, retina or iris scans, voiceprints, and other facial and hand recognition.  Effectively, the proposed Act would require private (non-governmental) organizations that possess a biometric identifier or biometric information (i.e., information “based on” a biometric identifier) (collectively “biometric data”) to develop a written retention policy  setting forth the time period for information containing biometric data, as well as guidelines for permanently destroying such biometric data either when: (i) the initial purpose for obtaining such information “has been satisfied,” or (ii) within three years of the individual’s last interaction with the private entity, whichever happens first.

AB 27 would also require organizations to obtain individuals’ express written consent for the collection of their biometric data prior to collecting or otherwise obtaining such data. In addition, the proposed Act would prohibit organizations from selling or otherwise profiting from the biometric data which they possess, and separately mandate organizations to provide technical and organizational safeguards around biometric data that are the same or more protective than the measures it maintains for other confidential and/or sensitive information.
Continue Reading New York proposes a new Biometric Privacy Act

Before the dust has even settled on many California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) compliance projects, California voters have welcomed the future of privacy by overwhelmingly approving Proposition 24: The California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA).  Building off of the CCPA framework, the CPRA expands the rights of California consumers, adds new responsibilities for both business and service providers, and creates a new state agency, the California Privacy Protection Agency (the Agency), to take over enforcement from the state Attorney General.  Here are the notable changes:

First, every business will be happy to know that the B2B and employee information sunsets have been extended until January 1, 2023 (after being extended by another year until 2022 by the legislature).
Continue Reading CPRA: The next frontier in (California) privacy

The protection afforded by attorney-client privilege brings about a candid conversation between lawyers and clients. Privilege can attach to communications covering a variety of topics, from responding to a data subject access request (DSAR) to handling a security incident or managing complex and time consuming investigations on a multinational scale. Different privilege rules may apply…

In September 2020, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) released new guidelines on the targeting of social media users (Guidelines) for consultation.

Background

The Guidelines address the privacy risks and legal issues that arise when social media services are used to direct specific messages to users based on particular criteria, such as the users’ perceived interests, preferences and socio-demographic characteristics.

 A typical example of this is when a brand (or ‘advertiser’) advertises their products or services on individuals’ social media platforms. Through programmatic advertising (the automated buying and selling of online advertising) and the process of ‘real-time bidding’ (the automated bidding of display advertising inventory in real-time) in particular, advertisers can place personalised adverts on individuals’ social media platforms (e.g. through content feeds or ‘stories’). This process usually involves processing personal data in bid requests, which can include individuals’ web browsing history, age, gender, location and network connections. Advertisers submit bids to have their adverts placed on individuals’ social media pages based on the perceived likelihood that the individual will be interested. Generally, the more detailed the bid request, the higher the bids are likely to be, so there is more incentive for the parties involved to collect as much personal data as possible through the use of tracking technologies or otherwise. Further, parties within the ad tech ecosystem (such as data brokers) may augment the data collected from the bid request with information from other sources (including offline sources), which they might sell to other stakeholders involved in the targeting process.

The Guidelines split the types of actors involved in the targeting process into four different groups, namely: (1) social media providers; (2) social media users; (3)  targeters (e.g. advertisers); and (4) ‘other actors’ which may be involved (e.g. supply side platforms (SSPs), demand side platforms (DSPs), data management platforms (DMPs), data brokers, ad networks and ad exchanges).

The Guidelines identify the potential risks of targeting for social media users, such as loss of control over personal data, potential discrimination and potential manipulation of individuals (as targeting mechanisms seek to influence individuals’ behaviour and choices).

The Guidelines also seek to clarify the roles, responsibilities and relationships between social media providers and targeters and explain the key data protection requirements and documentation that should be in place.Continue Reading EDPB releases draft guidelines on the targeting of social media users