Privacy & Information Security Law Blog

On July 1, 2022, the California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA”) sent U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi a memo outlining how H.R. 8152, the bipartisan American Data Privacy and Protection Act (“ADPPA” or the “Act”), would lessen privacy protections for Californians, and California Democrats have joined the cause.

The CPPA’s memo asserts that the ADPPA, by preempting the California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”) and other state privacy laws, proposes to eliminate:

On June 30, 2022, the New York Office of the Attorney General (“NYOAG”) announced a $400,000 agreement with Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. (“Wegmans”) in connection with a cloud storage security issue. The NYOAG alleges that Wegmans exposed the personal information of three million consumers by storing the data in misconfigured cloud storage containers.

On July 11, 2022, the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection issued a business alert on businesses’ handling of sensitive data, with a particular focus on location and health data. The alert describes the “opaque” marketplace in which consumers’ location and health  data is collected and exchanged amongst businesses and the concerns and risks associated with the processing of such information. The alert specifically focuses on the “potent combination” of location data and user-generated health and biometric data (e.g., through the use of wellness and fitness apps and the sharing of face and other biometric data for app/device authentication purposes). According to the alert, the combination of location and health data “creates a new frontier of potential harms to consumers.”

On June 30, 2022, the Cyberspace Administration of China (the “CAC”) issued a draft Provision on the Standard Contract for Cross-border Transfer of Personal Information (“Draft Provisions”) and a draft of the Standard Contract for Cross-border Transfer of Personal Information (“Standard Contract”) for public comments. Per Article 38 of the Personal Information Protection Law (“PIPL”), if the data handler is not required to conduct a government security assessment, it may choose either to conduct certification by a qualified third institution or to execute the Standard Contract for cross-border transfer of personal information. Certification might be more commonly used for cross-border transfer within a group, whereas the Standard Contract may be more popular under other scenarios of cross-border transfers.

On July 8, 2022, the California Privacy Protection Agency Board (“CPPA Board”) began the formal rulemaking process to establish regulations promulgating the amendments made to the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) by the California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”) (collectively, the “CCPA/CPRA”). The CPPA Board issued a formal Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Initial Statement of Reasons, and released the proposed regulations. The 45-day public comment period has now begun.

On May 29, 2022, the Maryland legislature enacted House Bill 962, which amends Maryland’s Personal Information Protection Act (the “Act”). The amendments update and clarify various aspects of the Act, including, but not limited to, the timeframe for reporting a data breach affected individuals, and content requirements for providing notice to the Maryland Attorney General.

On June 16, 2022, Industry Minister François-Philippe Champagne and Justice Minister David Lametti introduced the Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2022 (Bill C-27), a bill that would overhaul Canada’s existing legal framework for personal information protection in the private sector. In the Canadian government’s news release, Industry Minister Champagne stated that Bill C-27, if enacted, will “give businesses clear rules to support their efforts to innovate with data and will introduce a new regulatory framework for the responsible development of artificial intelligence systems, while recognizing the need to protect young people and their information.” Bill C-27 is similar to former Bill C-11, which died in the 2021 legislative session. 

On June 10, 2022, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership at Hunton Andrews Kurth published a white paper entitled “Local Law Assessments and Online Services – Refining the Approach to Beneficial and Privacy-Protective Cross-Border Data Flows A: Case Study from British Columbia.” The paper discusses recent developments in British Columbia that demonstrated a recognition by law- and policy-makers of the importance of cross-border data flows to an efficient and effective public sector.

On April 29, 2022, the National Information Security Standardization Technical Committee of China issued a draft version of the Cybersecurity Standard Practice Guidelines – Technical Specification on Certification of Personal Information Cross-border Transfer Activities (the “Guidelines”). The public comment period for the Guidelines closed May 13, 2022. The Guidelines establish the basic requirements for personal information protection certifications, which are one of four cross-border transfer mechanisms permitted under Article 38 of China’s Personal Information Protection Law (“PIPL”).

On May 25, 2022, Twitter reached a proposed $150 million settlement with the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Federal Trade Commission to resolve allegations that the company deceptively used nonpublic user contact information obtained for account security purposes to serve targeted ads to Twitter users. In a complaint filed in federal court, the government alleged that Twitter violated both the FTC Act and a 2011 FTC Order by misrepresenting the extent to which the company maintained and protected users’ nonpublic contact information. The proposed settlement would require Twitter to pay $150 million in civil penalties and implement a comprehensive privacy and information security program “with extensive procedures to safeguard user information and assess internal and external data privacy risks.”

On May 10, 2022, Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont signed An Act Concerning Personal Data Privacy and Online Monitoring, after the law was previously passed by the Connecticut General Assembly in April. Connecticut is now the fifth state to enact a consumer privacy law.

On April 11, 2022, Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan spoke at the opening of the International Association of Privacy Professionals’ Global Privacy Summit. This speech marks Khan’s first major privacy address since her appointment last June.

On April 8, 2022, the New York Bar issued an opinion to protect “confidential” client identity information stored on an attorney’s smartphone. In particular, the opinion prohibits an attorney who stores “confidential” (as defined under Rule 1.6 of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct) client identity information in the attorney’s “contacts” folder on the attorney’s smartphone from consenting to share their “contacts” with a smartphone app, unless certain criteria are met.

On March 29 and March 30, 2022, the California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA”) held via video conference two public pre-rulemaking informational sessions regarding the California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”). During the sessions, members of the California Attorney General’s Office and various privacy and cybersecurity experts led discussions on topics such as the sale and sharing of personal information, dark patterns, data privacy impact assessments, cybersecurity audits and automated decision-making. The CPPA Board has not at this time responded to the views expressed by the experts at the meetings.

On March 18, 2022, Indiana Governor Eric Holcomb signed into law an amendment to Indiana’s data breach notification statute. The amendment requires notification of a data breach to affected individuals and the Indiana Attorney General without unreasonable delay, but no later than forty-five (45) days after discovery of the breach. The amendment will take effect on July 1, 2022.

On January 18, 2022, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed into law Assembly Bill No. 3950, requiring employers to provide written notice to employees prior to the use of tracking devices in vehicles used by employees (the “Act”). The Act will go into effect on April 18, 2022.

On March 29 and March 30, 2022, the California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA”) will hold public pre-rulemaking informational sessions regarding the California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”) via video conference. As we previously reported, the CPPA, which has rulemaking authority under the CPRA and will be responsible for implementing and enforcing the CPRA, recently estimated that it will not publish final CPRA regulations until the third or fourth quarter of 2022.

On March 15, 2022, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a proposed settlement with custom merchandise platform CafePress in connection with the company’s alleged failure to implement reasonable security measures, and its alleged attempt to cover up a 2019 data breach. The proposed settlement would require CafePress to implement a comprehensive data security program and pay $500,000 in redress to affected individuals.

On March 24, 2022, Utah became the fourth state in the U.S., following California, Virginia and Colorado, to enact a consumer data privacy law, the Utah Consumer Privacy Act (the “UCPA”). The UCPA resembles Virginia’s Consumer Data Protection Act (“VCDPA”) and Colorado’s Consumer Privacy Act (“CPA”), and, to a lesser extent, the California Consumer Privacy Act (as amended by the California Privacy Rights Act) (“CCPA/CPRA”). The UCPA will take effect on December 31, 2023.

On November 14, 2021, the Cyberspace Administration of China (“CAC”) released for public comment its draft Regulations on Network Data Security Management (the “Draft Regulations”). The Draft Regulations are intended to implement portions of three existing laws – the Cybersecurity Law (“CSL”), the Data Security Law (“DSL”) and the Personal Information Protection Law (“PIPL”) (together, the “Three Laws”) – by providing guidance on certain provisions and establishing specific requirements for implementing certain principles contemplated in the Three Laws. In addition, the Draft Regulations add new requirements related to data processing activities. Once effective, the Draft Regulations will impose even greater compliance obligations on companies than the PIPL.

On January 6, 2022, the Federal Trade Commission reached a $1.5 million settlement with loan application company ITMedia Solutions LLC (“ITMedia”) over alleged violations of the FTC Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). The FTC alleged that ITMedia deceptively acquired and indiscriminately shared consumers’ sensitive personal information under the guise of connecting them with lenders.

On November 22, 2021, according to India Today, the Indian Joint Parliamentary Committee (the “JPC”) responsible for reviewing the Personal Information Protection Bill 2019 (“PDPB”) issued its report on the proposed law. The report comes nearly two years after the bill was first referred to the JPC. The JPC’s report will likely be presented with the PDPB 2019 in the Winter Session of Parliament, which begins on November 29, 2021. If passed, the PDPB would constitute the first comprehensive data protection law in India ...

On October 29, 2021, the Cyberspace Administration of China (“CAC”) released for public comment “Draft Measures on Security Assessment of Cross-border Data Transfer” (“Draft Measures”). The CAC, in its third legislative attempt to build a cross-border data transfer mechanism in China, issued the Draft Measures three days before the November 1, 2021 effective date of the Personal Information Protection Law (“PIPL”).

During the week of October 4, 2021, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law bills amending the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (“CPRA”), California’s data breach notification law and California’s data security law. Additional bills, amending the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (“CMIA”) and the California Insurance Code, also were also signed into law. The Governor also signed into law a bill protecting the privacy and security of genetic data processed by direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies and a bill designed to prevent the sale, purchase and use of data obtained by illegal means.

On October 12, 2021, the Oxford County Court determined that a homeowner had breached the Data Protection Act 2018 (“DPA”) and UK General Data Protection Regulation (“UK GDPR”) by using Ring security cameras around his property. In Dr Mary Fairhurst v Mr Jon Woodard, Fairhurst claimed harassment, nuisance and breach of UK data protection law based on her former neighbor, Woodard’s, use of security cameras and lights around his property. While the claim in nuisance failed, the judge found for the claimant on the claims of harassment and breach of data protection law.

On October 1, 2021, Connecticut’s two new data security laws become effective. As we previously reported, the new laws modify Connecticut’s existing breach notification requirements and establish a safe harbor from certain Connecticut Superior Court assessed damages for businesses that create and maintain a written cybersecurity program.

On September 22, 2021, the California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA” or “Agency”) issued an Invitation for Preliminary Comments on Proposed Rulemaking Under the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (“CPRA”). The CPPA was established by the CPRA, which vested the Agency with full administrative power, authority and jurisdiction to implement and enforce the CCPA. The Agency’s responsibilities include updating existing regulations and adopting new regulations.

On August 29, 2021, a New York City Council bill amending the New York City Administrative Code to address customer data collected by food delivery services from online orders became law after the 30-day period for the mayor to sign or veto lapsed. Effective December 27, 2021, the law will permit restaurants to request customer data from third-party food delivery services and require delivery services to provide, on at least a monthly basis, such customer data until the restaurant “requests to no longer receive such customer data.” Customer data includes name, phone number, email address, delivery address and contents of the order.

On September 1, 2021, the South Korean Personal Information Protection Commission (“PIPC”) issued fines against Netflix and Facebook for violations of the Korean Personal Information Protection Act (“PIPA”).

Connecticut recently passed two cybersecurity laws that will become effective on October 1, 2021. The newly passed laws modify Connecticut’s existing breach notification requirements and establish a safe harbor for businesses that create and maintain a written cybersecurity program that complies with applicable state or federal law or industry-recognized security frameworks.

On July 29, 2021, U.S. Representative Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Florida), a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, reintroduced the Protecting the Information of our Vulnerable Children and Youth Act (the “Bill”). The Bill would update the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA”) to, among other requirements: (1) cover teens ages 13-17; (2) expand the categories of information considered to be “personal” (to include physical characteristics, biometric information, health information, education information, contents of messages and calls, browsing and search history, geolocation information, and latent audio or visual recordings); (3) prohibit companies from targeting online advertising to children and teens based on their personal information and behavior; (4) require opt-in consent to process personal information collected from all individuals under age 18; (5) strengthen Federal Trade Commission enforcement of COPPA; (6) provide a private right of action to parents of children and teens; and (7) eliminate the FTC’s recognition of self-regulatory COPPA safe harbor programs.

On June 14, 2021, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed HB 3746, a bill amending Texas’s data breach notification law. Texas’s breach notification law requires notice to affected residents in the event of a data breach affecting certain sensitive personal data, including Social Security numbers, driver’s license or other government-issued ID numbers, account numbers or payment card numbers in combination with any required security code, access code or password, or certain information about an individual’s health or medical condition or treatment. The law also requires businesses to notify the Texas Attorney General of any data breach affecting at least 250 Texas residents.

On May 25, 2021, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights handed down its judgement in the case of Big Brother Watch and Others v. the United Kingdom, determining that the former surveillance regime in the UK violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”), i.e., the right to respect for private and family life.

On May 25, 2021, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) at Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP submitted its response (in English and in Mandarin) to the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (“NPC”) of the People’s Republic of China on the updated version of the Draft Personal Information Protection Law (“PIPL”).

On May 18, 2021, New York Attorney General (“AG”) Letitia James announced a settlement agreement with Filters Fast LLC (“Filters Fast”) over a data breach that compromised personal information of approximately 324,000 consumers nationwide, including over 16,500 New York state residents. The breach affected purchases made on Filters Fast website for almost a year – from July 16, 2019 to July 10, 2020.

On March 12, 2021, the Cyberspace Administration of China released Provisions on the “Scope of Necessary Personal Information Required for Common Types of Mobile Internet Applications” (the “Provisions”) (available here in Chinese).

As reported on the Hunton Insurance Recovery blog, on February 4, 2021, the New York Department of Financial Services (“NYDFS”), which regulates the business of insurance in New York, has issued guidelines, in the Insurance Circular Letter No. 2 (2021) regarding “Cyber Insurance Risk Framework” (the “Guidelines”), calling on insurers to take more stringent measures in underwriting cyber risks. In the Guidelines, NYDFS cites the 2020 SolarWinds attack as an example of how managing growing cyber risk is “an urgent challenge for insurers.”

On February 16, 2021, the New York Department of Financial Services (“NYDFS”) issued a Cyber Fraud Alert (the “Alert”) to regulated entities in light of a growing campaign to steal Nonpublic Information (“NPI”), as defined under New York law, from public-facing websites that provide instant quotes for products like auto insurance (“Instant Quote Websites”).

On February 8, 2021, Pinellas County, Florida officials announced that a hacker had remotely gained access to the City of Oldsmar's water treatment system on two separate occasions and was able to change the setting for sodium hydroxide in the water supply. The incident highlights the danger to local government information systems and the dangers of remote access vulnerabilities.

On January 12, 2021, in Wengui v. Clark Hill, PLC, et al., the United States District Court for the District of Columbia rejected a law firm defendant’s assertions of the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine for forensic reporting and other related information associated with its outside counsel’s data breach investigation.

As reported on the Hunton Retail Law Resource blog, the Federal Trade Commission settled charges with mobile advertising company Tapjoy, Inc., on allegations that the company failed to provide promised rewards in exchange for completed activities such as the payment of money, disclosure of sometimes-sensitive personal information or registration for “free trial” marketing offers.

On January 10, 2021, New York City enacted a new biometrics ordinance that regulates the commercial use and sale of biometric identifier information.

On December 14, 2020, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it had issued orders to nine social media and video streaming companies, requesting information on how the companies collect, use and present personal information, their advertising and user engagement practices and how their practices affect children and teens. The orders will assist the FTC in conducting a study of these policies, practices and procedures. The FTC issued the orders pursuant to Section 6(b) of the FTC Act, which allows the agency to undertake broad studies separate from its law enforcement activities.

Hunton attorneys Dora Luo and Yanchen Wang recently published a new Guidance Note for OneTrust DataGuidance on China’s data protection laws.

On December 1, 2020, the Cyberspace Administration of China released draft rules on the “Scope of Necessary Personal Information Required for Common Types of Mobile Internet Applications” (the “Draft Rules”) (in Chinese).

On November 27, 2020, New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in the lawsuit it brought against Google on February 20, 2020, regarding alleged violations of the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA”) in connection with G-Suite for Education (“GSFE”). As we previously reported, the U.S. District Court of New Mexico had granted Google’s motion to dismiss, in which it asserted that its terms governed the collection of data through GSFE and that it had complied with COPPA by using schools both as “intermediaries” and as the parent’s agent for parental notice and consent, in line with Federal Trade Commission Guidance.

On November 24, 2020, a multistate coalition of Attorneys General announced that The Home Depot, Inc. (“Home Depot”) agreed to pay $17.5 million and implement a series of data security practices in response to a data breach the company experienced in 2014. The $17.5 million payment will be divided among the 46 participating states and the District of Colombia. We previously reported on a settlement Home Depot reached in 2017 to resolve a putative class action brought by financial institutions impacted by the 2014 data breach.

On November 18, 2020, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) at Hunton Andrews Kurth submitted its response to the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (“NPC”) of the People’s Republic of China on the Draft Personal Information Protection Law (“PIPL”).

On November 19, 2020, Hunton Andrews Kurth will host a webinar examining the recently approved California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”) and how it revises the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”).

On October 27, 2020, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) published a report following its investigation into data protection compliance in the direct marketing data broking sector, alongside its enforcement action against Experian. During the investigation, the ICO conducted audits of the direct marketing data broking businesses of the UK’s three largest credit reference agencies (“CRAs”) – Experian, Equifax and TransUnion – and found “significant data protection failures at each” that were “deeply embedded” within the businesses.

On November 3, 2020, California voters approved California Proposition 24, the California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”). As we previously reported, the CPRA significantly amends and expands upon the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, which became enforceable earlier this year. The new and modified obligations under the CPRA will become operative on January 1, 2023, and, with the exception of access requests, will apply to personal information collected by businesses on or after January 1, 2022. Notably, the CPRA establishes the California Privacy Protection Agency ...

On Wednesday, July 22, the New York Department of Financial Services (the “NYDFS”) announced that it had filed administrative charges against First American Title Insurance Co. under the NYDFS Cybersecurity Regulation, marking the agency’s first enforcement action since the rules went into effect in March 2017.

The Civil Code of China (the “Civil Code”) was approved by the National People's Congress of China on May 28, 2020 and will take effect January 1, 2021. Part Four of the Civil Code explicitly stipulates that the “Right of Privacy” is one of the “Rights of Personality” covered therein and includes a chapter on “Privacy and Personal Information Protection,” which contains detailed provisions to protect privacy and personal information.

Zeyn Bhyat of ENSafrica reports that on June 22, 2020, it was announced that South Africa’s comprehensive privacy law known as the Protection of Personal Information Act, 2013 (the “POPIA”) will become effective on July 1, 2020. POPIA acts as the more detailed framework legislation supporting South Africa’s constitutional right to privacy.

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced its latest Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA”) settlement with California-based app developer HyperBeard and its individual principals. According to the FTC, since at least 2016, HyperBeard has offered a number of child-directed mobile apps, with names like BunnyBuns, KleptoCats and NomNoms that featured brightly colored, animated characters, such as cats, dogs, bunnies, chicks, monkeys and other cartoon characters, and that are described in child-friendly terms like “super cute” and “silly.” These apps are free to download and play, but they generate revenue through in-app advertising and purchases. The FTC alleges that the defendants were aware that children were using their apps, and that they promoted them to child audiences on a kids’ entertainment website, through children’s books and through the merchandizing of officially licensed plush stuffed animals and toys. Defendants allowed third-party ad networks to collect persistent identifiers from children in order to serve them with interest-based ads without parental notice or consent, in violation of COPPA.

The Global Privacy Assembly (“GPA”), a forum for data protection and privacy authorities, has established a COVID-19 Taskforce (“the Taskforce”) to advise on best practices, provide insight and drive practical responses regarding privacy issues raised by the pandemic. It aims to provide a balance between enabling governmental responses to the crisis and protecting individuals’ privacy.

We previously posted about the Tapplock, Inc. (“Tapplock”) settlement with the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) over allegations that the company violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by falsely claiming that its “smart locks” were secure. Earlier this month, the FTC voted 5-0 to approve the settlement.

On May 4, 2020, Californians for Consumer Privacy (the group behind the ballot initiative that inspired the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”)) announced that it had collected over 900,000 signatures to qualify the California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”) for the November 2020 ballot. The group announced that it was taking steps to submit the CPRA for inclusion on the November ballot in counties across California. The CPRA would amend the CCPA to create new and additional privacy rights and obligations in California, including the following:

On April 14, 2020, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) adopted a letter concerning the European Commission's (the “Commission”) draft Guidance on apps supporting the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. This letter was written to the Commission following the Commission’s adoption of a recommendation to develop a common European approach to using mobile applications and mobile location data in response to the pandemic on April 8, 2020.

On April 9, 2020, the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “Belgian DPA”) released guidance and a set of frequently asked questions (“FAQs”) regarding the use of cookies and other tracking technologies.

A Canadian maker of Internet-connected padlocks, Tapplock, Inc. (“Tapplock”), settled Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) allegations that the company violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by falsely claiming that its “smart locks” were secure. The FTC alleged that Tapplock “did not take reasonable measures to secure its locks, or take reasonable precautions or follow industry best practices for protecting consumers’ personal information.” The FTC further alleged that Tapplock did not have a security program in place prior to security researchers discovering vulnerabilities in the design and function of the smart locks.

On April 9, 2020, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) issued guidance under the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA”) for operators of educational technology (“EdTech”) used both in school settings and for virtual learning. The FTC’s guidance stresses that, while COPPA generally requires companies that collect personal information online from children under age 13 to provide notice of their data collection and use practices, and obtain verifiable parental consent, in the educational context and under certain conditions, schools can consent on behalf of parents to the collection of student personal information.

On March 31, 2020, the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “Belgian DPA”) published a short statement on its website (the “Statement”) regarding health-related apps. The Belgian DPA indicated that the Statement is in response to numerous questions regarding the use of personal data in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

On March 31, 2020, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced that it will hold a workshop on data portability on September 22, 2020. Data portability allows consumers to obtain a copy of the data an organization holds about them (e.g., emails, photos, contacts, calendar, social media content), in a format that can easily be downloaded and transferred to another entity or to themselves. Data portability has been embraced as a consumer right in the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”), and several recent privacy bills at both the state and federal level.

On April 1, 2020, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) released guidance for employers on how to implement teleworking (the “Guidance”) as well as best practices for their employees in this context (the “Best Practices”).

On March 26, 2020, Washington D.C. enacted bill number B23-0215, amending D.C.’s data breach notification law (the “Bill”). Among other requirements, the Bill requires the provision of identity theft prevention services in certain data breaches, establishes a new regulatory reporting requirement in the event of a cognizable data breach affecting 50 or more residents of D.C., and imposes certain data security requirements on covered businesses.

The Conference of German Data Protection Authorities (“DSK”), the body of the federal and state Data Protection Authorities (“DPAs”) in Germany, recently issued joint recommendations regarding employers’ processing of employee personal data in the context of the coronavirus (“COVID-19”) pandemic. The DSK makes it clear that data protection does not hinder measures to fight COVID-19. According to DSK, employers can collect personal data of employees in order to prevent the spreading of the virus at the workforce. Employers also may process personal data of workplace visitors for COVID-19 related purposes. However, all measures must be proportionate.

On March 12, 2020, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) at Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP submitted formal comments to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (“OPC”) in response to its proposals for ensuring appropriate regulation of artificial intelligence (“AI”).

On March 18, 2020, Washington Governor Jay Inslee signed into law a bill amending Washington State’s Agency Breach Notification Law (“Agency Breach Law”). The Agency Breach Law applies to all state and local agencies, including state and municipal offices, departments, bureaus and commissions.

On March 13, 2020, the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “Belgian DPA”) released a statement regarding workplace-related processing of personal data in the context of the COVID-19 crisis (the “Statement”).

The French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) recently issued guidance for employers relating to the processing of employee and visitor personal data in the context of the COVID-19 outbreak (the “Guidance”). The Guidance outlines some of the principles relating to those data processing activities.

On March 12, 2020, the Washington State Legislature passed SB 6280, which establishes safeguards for the use of facial recognition technology by state and local government agencies. Its stated goal is to allow the use of facial recognition services in ways that benefit society, but prohibit uses that put freedoms and civil liberties at risk.

On March 17, 2020, the Executive Committee of the Global Privacy Assembly (“GPA”) issued a statement giving their support to the sharing of personal data by organizations and governments for the purposes of fighting the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. The GPA brings together data protection regulators from over 80 countries and its membership currently consists of more than 130 data protection regulators around the world, including the UK Information Commissioner’s Office, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, and the data protection regulators for all EU Member States.

On March 10, 2020, the Vermont Attorney General filed a lawsuit against Clearview AI (“Clearview”), alleging that Clearview violated Vermont’s consumer protection law and data broker law. We previously reported on Vermont’s data broker law, which was the first data broker legislation in the U.S.

On March 12, 2020, Senator Jerry Moran (KS) introduced a comprehensive federal privacy bill entitled the Consumer Data Privacy and Security Act of 2020 (the “Act”).

On March 3, 2020, the Dutch Data Protection Authority (Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens, the “Dutch DPA”) announced that it had imposed a €525,000 fine on the Royal Dutch Tennis Association (De Koninklijke Nederlandse Lawn Tennisbond, “KNLTB”) for an illegal sale of personal data.

On February 19, 2020, the European Commission (the “Commission”) released a suite of documents including its White Paper on Artificial Intelligence (“AI”), entitled “a European approach to excellence and trust.” In addition, the Commission published two communications—its European strategy for data and a Digital Strategy document entitled “Shaping Europe’s Digital Future.”

On February 9, 2020, amidst the ongoing coronavirus outbreak ("2019-nCoV”) in China, in order to protect personal information collected during the fight against coronavirus, such as the personal data of diagnosed patients, suspected patients and individuals who have been in close contact with diagnosed patients, the Cyberspace Administration of China released a Circular on Ensuring Effective Personal Information Protection and Utilization of Big Data to Support Joint Efforts for Epidemic Prevention and Control (the “Circular”) to emphasize the protection of relevant personal data.

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (“OCIE”) recently announced the publication of a report entitled “Cybersecurity and Resiliency Observations.” The report summarizes the observations gleaned from OCIE’s cybersecurity examinations of broker-dealers, investment advisers, clearing agencies, national securities exchanges and other SEC registrants.

Facebook disclosed on January 29, 2020, that it has agreed to pay $550,000,000 to resolve a biometric privacy class action filed by Illinois users under the Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”). BIPA is an Illinois law enacted in 2008 that governs the collection, use, sharing, protection and retention of biometric information. In recent years, numerous class action lawsuits have been filed under BIPA seeking statutory damages ranging from $1,000 per negligent violation to $5,000 per reckless or intentional violation.

As reported on our Hunton Retail Law Resource blog, on January 7, 2020, the Federal Trade Commission announced a settlement with Mortgage Solutions FCS, Inc., d/b/a Mount Diablo Lending, and its sole principal, Ramon Walker, to resolve allegations that the lender violated the FTC Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley (“GLB”) Act, by improperly disseminating consumers’ personal information on Yelp in response to consumers’ negative reviews posted to that site.

On January 8, 2020, the Information Commissioner's Office (“ICO”) launched a consultation on its draft direct marketing code of practice (the “Draft Code”), as required by section 122 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (“DPA 18”). The Draft Code is open for public consultation until March 4, 2020.

According to MLex, on January 6, 2020, the Seoul Eastern District Court found Kim Jin-Hwan, a privacy officer of the South Korean travel agency Hana Tour Service Inc., guilty of negligence in failing to prevent a 2017 data breach that affected over 465,000 customers of the agency and 29,000 Hana Tour employees.

The U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released joint guidance on the application of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”) and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) Privacy Rule to student records. This is the first update to the agencies’ guidance since it was issued in 2008. The 27-page document includes FAQs clarifying for schools, health care professionals and families how FERPA and HIPAA apply to student education and health records. The FAQs answer which rule ...

On October 22, 2019, the drafting group of China’s National Information Security Standardization Technology Committee (“NISSTC”) released a third set of draft amendments to the Information Security Technology - Personal Information Security Specification (GB/T 35273 – 2017) (the “Updated Draft Specification”). The original Specification, first issued on December 29, 2017, became effective May 1, 2018, and saw earlier draft amendments on February 1, 2019 and June 25, 2019. The NISSTC received more than 400 public comments on the proposed June amendments. The latest draft amendment was issued without a public comment period.

On October 30, 2019, Facebook reached a settlement with the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) under which it agreed to pay (without admission of liability) the £500,000 fine imposed by the ICO in 2018 in relation to the processing and sharing of its users’ personal data with Cambridge Analytica.

On October 11, 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law AB 1130, which expands the types of personal information covered by California’s breach notification law to include, when compromised in combination with an individual’s name: (1) additional government identifiers, such as tax identification number, passport number, military identification number, or other unique identification number issued on a government document commonly used to verify the identity of a specific individual; and (2) biometric data generated from measurements or technical analysis of human body characteristics (e.g., fingerprint, retina, or iris image) used to authenticate a specific individual. Biometric data does not include a physical or digital photograph unless used or stored for facial recognition purposes.

On October 1, 2019, China’s Provisions on Cyber Protection of Children’s Personal Information (“Provisions”) became effective. The Cyberspace Administration of China had released the Provisions on August 23, 2019, and they are the first rules focusing on the protection of children’s personal information in China.

On September 27, 2019, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership at Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP submitted comments on Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada’s Proposals to Modernize the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (“PIPEDA”) (the “Comments”).

California marked the end of the 2019 legislative session this past Friday, September 13, by passing five out of six pending bills to amend the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”). The bills – AB-25, AB-874, AB-1146, AB-1355 and AB-1564 – now head to California Governor Newsom’s desk for signature, which must occur by October 13 for the bills to be signed into law. The only pending bill not to pass was AB-846, which would have addressed the law’s application to customer loyalty programs; it was ordered to the inactive file at the request of Senator Jackson.

On August 29, 2019, the Maryland Insurance Administration issued new breach notification requirements for entities that provide health insurance or related services. The new requirements will apply to insurers, non-profit health plans, HMOs, third-party administrators, and certain other managed care entities. The new rules will take effect on October 1, 2019.

On August 8, 2019, the FTC announced that Unrollme Inc. (“Unrollme”), an email management company, agreed to settle allegations the company deceived consumers about how it accesses and uses their personal emails. Unrollme offered users a service whereby the company would help unsubscribe users from unwanted subscription emails. In connection with this service, Unrollme required users to provide the company with access to their email accounts. The FTC alleged that Unrollme falsely told consumers it would not “touch” their personal emails. In fact, the FTC alleged, Unrollme shared its users’ email receipts (“e-receipts”) (i.e., emails sent to consumers following a completed transaction) with its parent company, Slice Technologies, Inc. The FTC’s complaint alleged that the parent company used information from the e-receipts (such as the user’s name, address, and information about products or services the individual purchased) for purposes of its own market research analytics products.

On July 25, 2019, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law Senate Bill S5575B (the “Bill”), an amendment to New York’s breach notification law (the “Act”). The Bill expands the Act’s definition of “breach of the security of the system” and the types of information (i.e., “private information”) covered by the Act, and makes certain changes to the Act’s requirements for breach notification.

On July 17, 2019, the Federal Trade Commission published a notice in the Federal Register announcing an accelerated review of its Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (“COPPA Rule” or “Rule”), seeking feedback on the effectiveness of the 2013 amendments to the Rule, and soliciting input on whether additional changes are needed. Citing questions regarding the Rule’s application to the educational technology sector, voice-enabled connected devices, and general audience platforms that host child-directed content, the FTC indicated that it was moving up its review from a standard 10-year timeframe. The Commission vote to conduct the Rule review was unanimous, 5-0.

Given the value of personal information as a significant corporate asset, companies seeking to acquire or merge with another business should focus carefully on the data they will obtain as a result of the transaction. In addition, as cybersecurity attacks continue unabated, companies must carefully evaluate how personal information maintained by a potential target is protected. In a recent article published by Bloomberg Law, Hunton Andrews Kurth partner Lisa J. Sotto and counsel Ryan P. Logan discuss how legal frameworks involving U.S. federal and state law, the EU General Data Protection Regulation, antitrust law and other relevant legal regimes may affect how a company can use personal information following a transaction. The article also addresses key questions companies should ask during the due diligence process, how answers to those questions impact the deal documents and offers post-closing strategies companies should consider.

On June 13, 2019, the Cyberspace Administration of China (the “CAC”) released Draft Measures on Security Assessment of Cross-Border Transfer of Personal Information (“Draft Measures”) for public comment, the window for which ends July 13, 2019.

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich recently announced a settlement with healthcare software provider Medical Informatics Engineering Inc. (“MIE”) and its wholly owned subsidiary NoMoreClipboard, LLC. The settlement resolves a multistate litigation arising out of a May 2015 data breach in which hackers infiltrated WebChart, a web application run by MIE, and stole the electronic Protected Health Information (“ePHI”) of over 3.9 million individuals. Arizona and 15 other states (the “Multistate AGs”) filed the suit in December 2018, asserting claims under the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability (“HIPAA”) as well as various applicable state data protection laws. Notably, the lawsuit was the first-ever multistate litigation alleging claims under HIPAA.

Maryland Governor Larry Hogan recently signed into law House Bill 1154 (the “Bill”), which amends the state’s data breach notification law. Among other obligations, the amendments expand the required actions a business must take after becoming aware of a data security breach.

On May 31, 2019, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (“APEC”) endorsed Schellman & Company as the second U.S. “Accountability Agent” overseeing the APEC Cross-Border Privacy Rules (“CBPR”) and Privacy Recognition for Processors (“PRP”) systems. Along with TrustArc, Schellman & Company will now be able to independently assess and certify the compliance of U.S. companies under the APEC CBPR and PRP systems.

On May 31, 2019, the Cyberspace Administration of China (the “CAC”) published Draft Regulations on Network Protection of Minor’s Personal Information (the “Draft Regulations”), timing the release to coincide with International Children’s Day. The Draft Regulations, based on the existing Cybersecurity Law of China (the “Cybersecurity Law”), is more protective of minors’ information than the Information Security Technology — Personal Information Security Specification (GB/T 35273 – 2017) (the “Specification”) and its draft amendment, which also address some limited provisions on network operators’ use and treatment of minors’ information.