Privacy & Information Security Law Blog

As reported in BNA Privacy Law Watch, on July 1, 2017, a new law took effect in Russia allowing for administrative enforcement actions and higher fines for violations of Russia's data protection law. The law, which was enacted in February 2017, imposes higher fines on businesses and corporate executives accused of data protection violations, such as unlawful processing of personal data, processing personal data without consent, and failure of data controllers to meet data protection requirements. Whereas previously fines were limited to 300 to 10,000 rubles ($5 to $169 USD), under the new law, available fines for data protection violations range from 15,000 to 75,000 rubles ($254 to $1,269 USD) for businesses and 3,000 to 20,000 rubles ($51 to $338 USD) for corporate executives.

On June 21, 2017, in the Queen’s Speech to Parliament, the UK government confirmed its intention to press ahead with the implementation of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) into national law. Among the announcements on both national and international politics, the Queen stated that, “A new law will ensure that the United Kingdom retains its world-class regime protecting personal data, and proposals for a new digital charter will be brought forward to ensure that the United Kingdom is the safest place to be online.” The statement confirms the priority ...

On June 5, 2017, an Illinois federal court ordered satellite television provider Dish Network LLC (“Dish”) to pay a record $280 million in civil penalties for violations of the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”), the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) and state law. In its complaint, the FTC alleged that Dish initiated, or caused a telemarketer to initiate, outbound telephone calls to phone numbers listed on the Do Not Call Registry, in violation of the TSR. The complaint further alleged that Dish violated the TSR’s prohibition on abandoned calls and assisted and facilitated telemarketers when it knew or consciously avoided knowing that telemarketers were breaking the law.

On June 1, 2017, the new Cybersecurity Law went into effect in China. This post takes stock of (1) which measures have been passed so far, (2) which ones go into effect on June 1 and (3) which ones are in progress but have yet to be promulgated.

With just under one year to go before the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) becomes law across the European Union, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) has continued its efforts to help businesses prepare for the new law. The ICO also has taken steps to address its own role post-Brexit.

On May 23, 2017, various attorneys general of 47 states and the District of Columbia announced that they had reached an $18.5 million settlement with Target regarding the states’ investigation of the company’s 2013 data breach. This represents the largest multi-state data breach settlement achieved to date.

On May 5, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a default judgment in favor of the SEC against three Chinese defendants accused of hacking into the nonpublic networks of two New York-headquartered law firms and stealing confidential information regarding several publicly traded companies engaged in mergers and acquisitions. The defendants allegedly profited illegally by trading the stolen nonpublic information. After the defendants failed to answer the SEC’s complaint, the court entered a default judgment against them, imposing a fine ...

On May 12, 2017, a massive ransomware attack began affecting tens of thousands of computer systems in over 100 countries. The ransomware, known as “WannaCry,” leverages a Windows vulnerability and encrypts files on infected systems and demands payment for their release. If payment is not received within a specified time frame, the ransomware automatically deletes the files. A wide range of industries have been impacted by the attack, including businesses, hospitals, utilities and government entities around the world.

On May 2, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a summary order affirming dismissal of a putative data breach class action against Michaels Stores, Inc. (“Michaels”). The plaintiff’s injury theories were as follows: (1) the plaintiff’s credit card information was stolen and twice used to attempt fraudulent purchases; (2) the risk of future identity fraud and (3) lost time and money resolving the attempted fraudulent charges and monitoring credit. The plaintiff, however, quickly cancelled her card after learning of the unauthorized charges and did not allege that she was held responsible for any of those charges.

On April 24, 2017, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) announced that it had entered into a resolution agreement with CardioNet, Inc. (“CardioNet”) stemming from gaps in policies and procedures uncovered after CardioNet reported breaches of unsecured electronic protected health information (“ePHI”). CardioNet provides patients with an ambulatory cardiac monitoring service, and the settlement is OCR’s first with a wireless health services provider.

On April 12, 2017, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) entered into a resolution agreement with Metro Community Provider Network (“MCPN”) that stemmed from MCPN’s lack of a risk analysis and risk management plan that addressed risks and vulnerabilities to protected health information (“PHI”).

On April 6, 2017, New Mexico became the 48th state to enact a data breach notification law, leaving Alabama and South Dakota as the two remaining states without such requirements. The Data Breach Notification Act (H.B. 15) goes into effect on June 16, 2017.

On April 4, 2017, the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office announced a settlement with Copley Advertising LLC (“Copley”) in a case involving geofencing.

On April 4, 2017, the Article 29 Working Party (“Working Party”) adopted its draft Guidelines on Data Protection Impact Assessment and determining whether processing is “likely to result in a high risk” for the purposes of Regulation 2016/679 (the “Guidelines”). The Guidelines aim to clarify when a data protection impact assessment (“DPIA”) is required under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). The Guidelines also provide criteria to Supervisory Authorities (“SAs”) to use to establish their lists of processing operations that will be subject to the DPIA requirement.

On April 4, 2017, the Article 29 Working Party (the “Working Party”) adopted an Opinion on the Proposed Regulation of the European Commission for the ePrivacy Regulation (the “Proposed ePrivacy Regulation”). The Proposed ePrivacy Regulation is intended to replace the ePrivacy Directive and to increase harmonization of ePrivacy rules in the EU. A regulation is directly applicable in all EU Member States, while a directive requires transposition into national law. 

On March 17, 2017, the Federal Trade Commission announced that Upromise, Inc., (“Upromise”) agreed to pay $500,000 to settle allegations (the “Settlement”) that it violated the terms of a 2012 consent order (the “2012 Order”) that required Upromise to provide notice to consumers regarding its data collection and use practices, and obtain third-party audits.

On March 2, 2017, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) published draft guidance regarding the consent requirements of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). The guidance sets forth how the ICO interprets the GDPR’s consent requirements, and its recommended approach to compliance and good practice. The ICO guidance precedes the Article 29 Working Party’s guidance on consent, which is expected in 2017.

On March 1, 2017, Hunton & Williams senior consultant attorney Rosemary Jay presented evidence on the data protection reform package and the impact of Brexit to the UK Parliament’s House of Lords EU Home Affairs Sub-Committee meeting. 

On March 1, 2017, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”), under the new leadership of Chairman Ajit Pai, voted 2-1 to issue a temporary stay of the data security obligations of the FCC’s Broadband Consumer Privacy Rules (the “Rules”), which were to go into effect March 2, 2017. The temporary stay will remain in place until the FCC is able to act on pending petitions for reconsideration.

On February 20, 2017, the Article 29 Working Party (“Working Party”) issued a template complaint form and Rules of Procedure that clarify the role of the EU Data Protection Authorities (“DPAs”) in resolving EU-U.S. Privacy Shield-related (“Privacy Shield”) complaints.

On February 16, 2017, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) entered into a resolution agreement with Memorial Healthcare System (“Memorial”) that emphasized the importance of audit controls in preventing breaches of protected health information (“PHI”). The $5.5 million settlement with Memorial is the fourth enforcement action taken by OCR in 2017, and matches the largest civil monetary ever imposed against a single covered entity.

On February 6, 2017, the FTC announced that it has agreed to settle charges that VIZIO, Inc. (“VIZIO”), installed software on about 11 million consumer televisions to collect viewing data without consumers’ knowledge or consent. The stipulated federal court order requires VIZIO to pay $2.2 million to the FTC and New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs. 

On January 18, 2017, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) entered into a resolution agreement with MAPFRE Life Insurance Company of Puerto Rico (“MAPFRE”) relating to a breach of protected health information (“PHI”) contained on a portable storage device. This is the second enforcement action taken by OCR in 2017, following the action taken against Presence Health earlier this month for failing to make timely breach notifications.

On January 7, 2017, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) entered into a resolution agreement with Presence Health stemming from the entity’s failure to notify affected individuals, the media and OCR within 60 days of discovering a breach. This marks the first OCR settlement of 2017 and the first enforcement action relating to untimely breach reporting by a HIPAA covered entity.

On January 3, 2017, Bloomberg Law: Privacy and Data Security reported that Chilean legislators are soon expected to consider a new data protection law (the “Bill”) which would impose new privacy compliance standards and certain enforcement provisions on companies doing business in Chile. 

On December 21, 2016, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) announced that it had fined 12 financial institutions a total of $14.4 million for improper storage of electronic broker-dealer and customer records. Federal securities law and FINRA rules require that business-related electronic records be kept in “write once, read many” (“WORM”) format, which prevents alteration or destruction. FINRA found that the 12 sanctioned firms had failed to store such records in WORM format, in many cases for extended periods of time.

On December 27, 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) announced charges against three Chinese traders who allegedly made almost $3 million in illegal profits by fraudulently trading on nonpublic information that had been hacked from two New York-based law firms. This is the first action in which the SEC has brought charges in connection with an incident involving hacking into a law firm’s computer network.

On December 14, 2016, the FTC announced that the operating companies of the AshleyMadison.com website (collectively, the “Operators”) have settled with the FTC and a coalition of state regulators over charges that the Operators deceived consumers and failed to protect users’ personal information. The FTC worked with a coalition of 13 states, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada and the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner to resolve this matter, which was initiated in the wake of the website’s July 2015 data breach.

On December 12, 2016, Politico reported that the European Commission intends to replace the e-Privacy Directive with a Regulation. The planned shift from a Directive to a Regulation has important legal consequences under EU law, as it means that instead of creating a floor upon which EU Member States may base the creation of their own versions of the law, a Regulation will create a harmonized set of requirements at the EU level that are directly applicable in the Member States.

On November 19, 2016, the French government enacted a bill creating a legal basis for class actions against data controllers and processors resulting from data protection violations. The bill, which aims to facilitate access to justice for French citizens, establishes a general class action regime and includes specific provisions regarding data protection violations. These provisions go beyond the class action provisions already in place for consumers by adding, within the context of the French Data Protection Act of 1978 (“Loi Informatique et Libertés”), a right to class actions for data protection violations regardless of industry sector.

On November 22, 2016, the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”)  announced a $650,000 settlement with University of Massachusetts Amherst (“UMass”), resulting from alleged violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) Privacy and Security Rules. 

On November 21, 2016, against the backdrop of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) and Brexit, UK Information Commissioner Elizabeth Denham delivered a keynote speech at the Annual Conference of the National Association of Data Protection and Freedom of Information Officers. During the address, Denham discussed the UK ICO’s ongoing preparations for the GDPR, reiterating the government’s position that the GDPR will be implemented in the UK. 

On November 23, 2016, Bloomberg BNA reported that the Hague Administrative Court in the Netherlands upheld a decision by the Dutch Data Protection Authority that WhatsApp was in breach of the Dutch Data Protection Act (the “Act”) on account of its alleged failure to identify a representative within the country responsible for compliance with the Act, despite the processing of personal data of Dutch WhatsApp users on Dutch smartphones. WhatsApp reportedly faces a fine of €10,000 per day up to a maximum of €1 million ...

This post has been updated. 

On November 10, 2016, the Court of Appeal for Moscow’s Taginsky District upheld an August 2016 decision by the district’s lower court that LinkedIn had violated Russian data protection laws. Access to the professional networking site is now set to be blocked across Russia.

On October 25, 2016, the United States Department of Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) issued an advisory entitled Advisory to Financial Institutions on Cyber-Events and Cyber-Enabled Crime (the “Advisory”), to help financial institutions understand how to fulfill their Bank Secrecy Act obligations with regard to cyber events and cyber-enabled crime. The Advisory indicates that SAR reporting is mandatory for cyber events where the financial institution “knows, suspects or has reason to suspect a cyber-event was intended, in whole or in part, to conduct, facilitate, or affect a transaction or a series of transactions….” Implementing this new guidance will require increased collaboration between AML and cybersecurity or IT departments in large institutions, and may create challenges for smaller banks that are more likely to outsource their cybersecurity functions.

On October 7, 2016, the French Digital Republic Bill (the “Bill”) was enacted after a final vote from the Senate. The Bill aligns the French legal data protection framework with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) requirements before the GDPR becomes applicable in May 2018.

This post has been updated. 

On October 27, 2016, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) announced the adoption of rules that require broadband Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) to take steps to protect consumer privacy (the “Rules”). According to the FCC’s press release, the Rules are intended to “ensure broadband customers have meaningful choice, greater transparency and strong security protections for their personal information collected by ISPs.” 

On October 13, 2016, Elizabeth Denham, the UK Information Commissioner, suggested that directors of companies who violate data protection laws should be personally liable to pay fines at a House of Commons Public Bill Committee meeting when discussing the latest draft of the Digital Economy Bill (the “Bill”). The Bill is designed to enable businesses and individuals to access fast, digital communications services, promote investment in digital communications infrastructure and support the “digital transformation of government.” Measures to improve the digital landscape contained in the Bill include the introduction of a new Electronic Communications Code and more effective controls to protect citizens from nuisance calls. More controversially, however, the Bill also contains provisions both enabling and controlling the sharing of data between public authorities and private companies.

On October 4, 2016, the U.S. Department of Defense (“DoD”) finalized its rule implementing the mandatory cyber incident reporting requirements for defense contractors under 10 U.S.C. §§ 391 and 393 (the “Rule”). The Rule applies to DoD contractors and subcontractors that are targets of any cyber incident with a potential adverse impact on information systems and “covered defense information” on those systems.

In September, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) held its second GDPR Workshop in Paris as part of its two-year GDPR Implementation Project. The purpose of the project is to provide a forum for stakeholders to promote EU-wide consistency in implementing the GDPR, encourage forward-thinking and future-proof interpretations of key GDPR provisions, develop and share relevant best practices, and foster a culture of trust and collaboration between regulators and industry.  

On September 23, 2016, the European Data Protection Supervisor (the “EDPS”) released Opinion 8/2016 (the “Opinion”) on the coherent enforcement of fundamental rights in the age of big data. The Opinion updates the EDPS’ Preliminary Opinion on Privacy and Competitiveness in the Age of Big Data, first published in 2014, and provides practical recommendations on how the EU’s objectives and standards can be applied holistically across the EU institutions. According to the EDPS, the Digital Single Market Strategy presents an opportunity for a coherent approach with respect to the application of EU rules on data protection, consumer protection, antitrust enforcement and merger control. In addition, the EDPS calls for greater dialogue and cooperation between data protection, consumer and competition authorities in order to protect the rights and interests of individuals, including the rights to privacy, freedom of expression and non-discrimination.

On August 4, 2016, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) entered into a resolution agreement with Advocate Health Care Network (“Advocate”), the largest health care system in Illinois, over alleged HIPAA violations. The $5.5 million settlement with Advocate is the largest settlement to date against a single covered entity.

On July 29, 2016, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced that it had issued an opinion and final order concluding that LabMD, Inc. (“LabMD”) violated the unfairness prong of Section 5 of the FTC Act by failing to maintain reasonable security practices to protect consumers’ sensitive personal information. The unanimous decision reverses a November 2015 administrative law judge’s initial decision that, as we previously reported, dismissed the FTC’s charges against LabMD for failing to show that LabMD’s allegedly unreasonable data security practices caused, or were likely to cause, substantial consumer injury.

On July 25, 2016, the Article 29 Working Party (the “Working Party”) and the European Data Protection Supervisor (“EDPS”) released their respective Opinions regarding the review of Directive 2002/58/EC on privacy and electronic communications (the “ePrivacy Directive"). Both the Working Party and the EDPS stressed that new rules should complement the protections available under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”).

On July 12, 2016, after months of negotiations and criticism, the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield (“Privacy Shield”) was officially adopted by the European Commission and the Department of Commerce. Similar to the Safe Harbor, companies must certify their compliance with the seven principles comprising the Privacy Shield to use the Shield as a valid data transfer mechanism. Hunton & Williams partner Lisa J. Sotto and associate Chris D. Hydak recently published an article in Law360 entitled “The EU-U.S. Privacy Shield: A How-To Guide.” In the article, Lisa and Chris detail the ...

This post has been updated. 

On July 14, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) cannot be compelled to turn over customer emails stored abroad to U.S. law enforcement authorities.

On July 14, 2016, the Federal Trade Commission issued warning letters to 28 companies relating to apparent false claims of participation in the APEC Cross-Border Privacy Rules (“CBPR”).

The warning letters state that the companies’ websites represent APEC CBPR certification even though the companies do not appear to have undertaken the necessary steps to claim certification, such as a review and approval process by an APEC-recognized Accountability Agent.

On July 6, 2016, the Bavarian Data Protection Authority (“DPA”) issued a short paper on video surveillance under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”).

This paper is part of a series of papers that the Bavarian DPA will issue periodically on specific topics of the GDPR to inform the public about what topics are being discussed within the DPA. The DPA emphasized that these papers are non-binding.

On June 29, 2016, the Federal Trade Commission announced that, to account for inflation, it is increasing the civil penalty maximums for certain violations of the FTC Act effective August 1, 2016. The FTC’s authority for issuing these adjustments comes from the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015. The Federal Register Notice indicates which sections of the FTC Act the adjustments will apply to, and the corresponding increases. For example, the FTC has increased the maximum fine from $16,000 to $40,000 for certain violations of Section 5 of ...

On June 22, 2016, the Federal Trade Commission announced a settlement with Singaporean-based mobile advertising network, InMobi, resolving charges that the company deceptively tracked hundreds of millions of consumers’ locations, including children, without their knowledge or consent. Among other requirements, the settlement orders the company to pay $950,000 in civil penalties. 

On June 15, 2016, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) jointly issued final guidance on the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015 (“CISA”). Enacted in December 2015, CISA includes a variety of measures designed to strengthen private and public sector cybersecurity. In particular, CISA provides protections from civil liability, regulatory action and disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) and other open government laws for “cyber threat indicators” (“CTI”) and “defensive measures” (“DM”) that are shared: (1) among businesses or (2) between businesses and the government through a DHS web portal. Congress passed CISA in order to increase the sharing of cybersecurity information among businesses and between businesses and the government, and to improve the quality and quantity of timely, actionable cybersecurity intelligence in the hands of the private sector and government information security professionals.

On June 8, 2016, the Federal Trade Commission announced that Practice Fusion, an electronic health records company, agreed to settle FTC charges that the company misled consumers about the privacy of doctor reviews submitted to the company.

As we previously reported, the Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo v. Robins has been nearly universally lauded by defense counsel as a new bulwark against class actions alleging technical violations of federal statutes. It may be that. But Spokeo also poses a significant threat to defendants by defeating their ability to remove exactly the types of cases that defendants most want in federal court. The decision circumscribes the federal jurisdiction, with all its advantages, that defendants have enjoyed under Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) for the past decade.

Recently, Aegerion Pharmaceuticals announced that it will enter into several settlements and plead guilty to two misdemeanors in connection with alleged violations of HIPAA, drug marketing regulations and securities laws. The criminal charges stem from the company’s marketing of a cholesterol drug called Juxtapid. Aegerion allegedly failed to comply with risk evaluation and management strategies and marketed Juxtapid (which is labeled with a warning about liver toxicity) without proper directions for use. 

On May 16, 2016, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in Spokeo Inc. v. Thomas Robins, holding 6-2 that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling applied an incomplete analysis when it failed to consider both aspects of the injury-in-fact requirement under Article III. Writing for the Court, Justice Samuel Alito found that a consumer could not sue Spokeo, Inc., an alleged consumer reporting agency that operates a “people search engine,” for a mere statutory violation without alleging actual injury.

On May 4, 2016, the Federal Trade Commission issued a press release announcing its recent settlement with the hand-held vaporizers manufacturer, Very Incognito Technologies, Inc. (“Vipvape”). The FTC had charged Vipvape with falsely claiming that it was a certified company under the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (“APEC”) Cross-Border Privacy Rules (“CBPR”) framework. The settlement prohibits Vipvape from misleading consumers about its participation in any privacy and security certification program, including the APEC CBPR framework. This is the first CBPR-related case taken up by the FTC.

On May 4, 2016, the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) was published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Following the European Parliament’s vote to adopt the GDPR on April 14, 2016, and the signing of the final draft on April 27, 2016, the GDPR will enter into force 20 days following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. Its provisions will be directly applicable in all EU Member States two years after this date, on May 25, 2018.

After four years of drafting and negotiations, the GDPR finally replaces and harmonizes the existing EU ...

On March 23, 2016, the Chairwoman of the French Data Protection Authority (“CNIL”) opened proceedings that will lead to the release of a compliance pack on connected vehicles.

The CNIL announced that the compliance pack will contain guidelines regarding the responsible use of personal data for the next generation of vehicles. It will assist various stakeholders in the industry prepare for the General Data Protection Regulation.

On March 16, 2016, and March 17, 2016, respectively, the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) announced resolution agreements with North Memorial Health Care of Minnesota (“North Memorial”) and The Feinstein Institute for Medical Research (“Feinstein Institute”) over potential violations of the HIPAA Privacy Rule.

On March 21, 2016, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) announced that it has commenced Phase 2 of the HIPAA Audit Program. Phase 1 of the HIPAA Audit Program ran from 2011-2012 and produced several notable findings, including that two-thirds of covered entities had not performed a risk assessment as required by the HIPAA Security Rule.

On March 17, 2016, the Council of the European Union (the “Council”) published a Draft Statement (the “Statement”) regarding the Council’s position at first reading with respect to the adoption of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). The Statement follows a political agreement on the draft GDPR reached by the Council on February 12, 2016.

On March 14, 2016, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) published a guide, Preparing for the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) – 12 Steps to Take Now. The guide, which is a high-level checklist with accompanying commentary, sets out a number of points that should inform organizations’ data privacy and governance programs ahead of the anticipated mid-2018 entry into force of the GDPR.

On March 9, 2016, Hunton & Williams’ Global Privacy and Cybersecurity practice lawyers released a management guide on the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), entitled “Overview of the EU General Data Protection Regulation,” addressing the key impacts the new law will have on businesses. This high-level management guide is intended to provide companies with a roadmap to the Regulation, focusing on topics such as expanded territorial scope, data breach notification rules, the One-Stop Shop concept and the right to be forgotten.

On March 2, 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) reached a settlement with Dwolla, Inc. (“Dwolla”), an online payment system company, to resolve claims that the company made false representations regarding its data security practices in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act. Among other things, the consent order imposes a $100,000 fine on Dwolla. This marks the first data security-related fine imposed by the CFPB.

On February 25, 2016, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (“APEC”) issued a press release announcing the decision by the Joint Oversight Panel of the APEC Electronic Commerce Steering Group to approve the Japan Institute for Promotion of Digital Economy and Community (“JIPDEC”) as a new “Accountability Agent” under the APEC Cross-Border Privacy Rules (“CBPR”) system. Along with TRUSTe, JIPDEC will now be able to independently assess the compliance of companies under the APEC CBPR system. With this approval, Japan is now a fully operational participant in the APEC CBPR system.

On February 29, 2016, the European Commission issued the legal texts that will implement the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield. These texts include a draft adequacy decision from the European Commission, Frequently Asked Questions and a Communication summarizing the steps that have been taken in the last few years to restore trust in transatlantic data flows.

The agreement in support of the new EU-U.S. transatlantic data transfer framework, known as the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield, was reached on February 2, 2016, between the U.S. Department of Commerce and the European Commission. Once adopted, the adequacy decision will establish that the safeguards provided when transferring personal data pursuant to the new EU-U.S. Privacy Shield are equivalent to the EU data protection standards. In addition, the European Commission has stated that the new framework reflects the requirements that were set forth by the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) in the recent Schrems decision.

On February 24, 2016, President Obama signed the Judicial Redress Act (the “Act”) into law. The Act grants non-U.S. citizens certain rights, including a private right of action for alleged privacy violations that occur in the U.S. The Act was signed after Congress approved an amendment that limits the right to sue to only those citizens of countries which (1) permit the “transfer of personal data for commercial purposes” to the U.S., and (2) do not impose personal data transfer policies that “materially impede” U.S. national security interests.

On February 23, 2016, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it reached a settlement with Taiwanese-based network hardware manufacturer ASUSTeK Computer, Inc. (“ASUS”), to resolve claims that the company engaged in unfair and deceptive security practices in connection with developing network routers and cloud storage products sold to consumers in the U.S.

On February 19, 2016, the French Data Protection Authority (“CNIL”) made public its new Single Authorization Decision No. 46 (“Single Authorization AU-46”). This decision relates to the data processing activities of public and private organizations with respect to the preparation, exercise and follow-up regarding disciplinary or court actions, and the enforcement of those actions.

On February 16, 2016, California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris released the California Data Breach Report 2012-2015 (the “Report”) which, among other things, provides (1) an overview of businesses’ responsibilities regarding protecting personal information and reporting data breaches and (2) a series of recommendations for businesses and state policy makers to follow to help safeguard personal information.

On February 16, 2016, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), in collaboration with other federal agencies, released a series of documents outlining procedures for both federal and non-federal entities to share and disseminate cybersecurity information. These documents were released as directed by the Cybersecurity Act of 2015 (the “Act”), signed into law on December 18, 2015. The Act outlines a means by which the private sector may enjoy protection from civil liability when sharing certain cybersecurity information with the federal government and private entities. These documents represent the first steps by the executive branch to implement the Act.

On February 3, 2016, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) announced that an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) ruled that Lincare, Inc. (“Lincare”) violated the HIPAA Privacy Rule and ordered the company to pay $239,800 to OCR.

On February 2, 2016, a new EU-U.S. transatlantic data transfer agreement was reached. Věra Jourová, European Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality, presented the new agreement to the European Commission (the “Commission”) today. According to the Commission’s press release, the new agreement will be called the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield.

On February 1, 2016, Věra Jourová, European Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality, told the European Parliament that an agreement on a new U.S.-EU Safe Harbor agreement has not yet been reached. Jourová indicated that an agreement is close, but additional work is needed to finalize it.

According to Bloomberg BNA, Paul F. Nemitz, Director for Fundamental Rights and Union Citizenship at the Directorate-General Justice of the European Commission, said at a privacy conference that he hoped a new U.S.-EU Safe Harbor agreement would be reached by the evening of Monday, February 1, 2016.

On December 30, 2015, Taiwan’s Office of the President issued an order to promulgate certain amendments (the “Amendments”) to Taiwan’s Personal Data Protection Law (the “PDPL”). The Amendments revise 12 articles in the PDPL. The Amendments concern the collection and use of sensitive personal data, the form of consent for the collection and use of non-sensitive personal data, and the imposition of criminal liability for violations of certain provisions of the PDPL. The Amendments are expected to become effective in the first half of 2016 on a date to be determined by the Executive Yuan.

On January 5, 2016, the Federal Trade Commission announced that dental office management software provider, Henry Schein Practice Solutions, Inc. (“Schein”), agreed to settle FTC charges that accused the company of falsely advertising the level of encryption it used to protect patient data. The proposed Agreement Containing Consent Order (“Consent Order”) stems from an FTC complaint that alleged the company engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices by falsely representing that the Dentrix G5 software used industry-standard encryption and helped dentists protect patient data in accordance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”).

On January 6, 2015, the Federal Trade Commission released its report on big data entitled Big Data: A Tool for Inclusion or Exclusion? Understanding the Issues. The report is a compilation of a seminar on alternative scoring products, the discussions at a big data public workshop held on September 15, 2014, and other recent research and public commentary on the issue.

On January 1, 2016, a Dutch law became effective that (1) includes a general obligation for data controllers to notify the Data Protection Authority (“DPA”) of data security breaches, and (2) authorizes the DPA to impose direct fines for violations of the Data Protection Act.

On December 27, 2015, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China published the P.R.C. Anti-Terrorism Law. The law was enacted in response to a perceived growing threat from extremists and terrorists, particularly in regions in Western China, and came into effect on January 1, 2016.

On December 30, 2015, the Department of Defense (“DoD”) issued a second interim rule (80 F. R. 81472) that extends the deadline by which federal contractors must implement the new cybersecurity requirements previously issued by the agency.  This extension pushes back the compliance deadline to December 31, 2017.

Late last year the Federal Trade Commission issued enforcement guidance on “native advertising” — ads that purposely are formatted to appear as noncommercial and are integrated into surrounding editorial content. The agency’s guidance took two parts: an Enforcement Policy Statement on deceptively formatted ads, and a Guide for Business on native advertising. These long-awaited guidance documents follow on the FTC’s December 2013 “Blurred Lines” workshop on native advertising. Importantly, the FTC notes that its policy statement does not apply just to advertisers but also to other parties that help create the content: ad agencies, ad networks and potentially, publishers.

On December 15, 2015, the California Attorney General announced an approximately $25 million settlement with Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (“Comcast”) stemming from allegations that Comcast disposed of electronic equipment (1) without properly deleting customer information from the equipment and (2) in landfills that are not authorized to accept electronic equipment. The settlement must be approved by a California judge before it is finalized.

On December 17, 2015, the Federal Trade Commission announced that LifeLock, Inc. (“LifeLock”) has agreed to pay $100 million to settle contempt charges for deceptive advertising. According to the FTC, “[t]his is the largest monetary award obtained by the Commission in an order enforcement action.” Under the terms of the settlement, $68 million of the settlement amount will be paid to class action consumers who were injured by the identity theft protection company’s violation of a 2010 settlement with the FTC that required LifeLock to protect consumer information. The rest of the money will be used for settlements with state attorneys general, and any remaining money will go to the FTC. The case is Federal Trade Commission v. LifeLock Inc., et al. (2:10-cv-00530), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.

On December 17, 2015, the FTC announced a pair of COPPA settlements against operators of child-directed mobile apps available for download in the major app stores. These cases are the FTC’s first COPPA actions involving the collection of persistent identifiers, and no other personal information, from children since the FTC’s updated COPPA Rule went into effect in 2013. The FTC levied civil penalties, totaling $360,000, in both cases.

On December 9, 2015, the Federal Trade Commission announced that Wyndham Worldwide Corporation (“Wyndham”) settled charges brought by the FTC stemming from allegations that the company unfairly failed to maintain reasonable data security practices. The case is FTC v. Wyndham Worldwide Corporation, et al. (2:13-CV-01887-ES-JAD) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

On November 30, 2015, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) announced that Triple-S Management Corporation ("Triple-S"), an insurance holding company based in San Juan, Puerto Rico, agreed on behalf of certain of its subsidiaries to settle potential violations of the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules with HHS’s Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”).

On November 5, 2015, the Enforcement Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) entered into a Consent Decree with cable operator Cox Communications to settle allegations that the company failed to properly protect customer information when the company’s electronic data systems were breached in August 2014 by a hacker. The FCC alleged that Cox failed to properly protect the confidentiality of its customers’ proprietary network information (“CPNI”) and personally identifiable information, and failed to promptly notify law enforcement authorities of security breaches involving CPNI in violation of the Communications Act of 1934 and FCC’s rules.

On November 13, 2015, Chief Administrative Law Judge D. Michael Chappell dismissed the FTC’s complaint against LabMD Inc. (“LabMD”) for failing to show that LabMD’s allegedly unreasonable data security practices caused, or were likely to cause, substantial consumer injury. The law judge did not address LabMD’s claim that the FTC does not have jurisdiction to enforce data security standards under the unfairness prong of Section 5 of the FTC Act, and LabMD has reserved its jurisdictional challenge for an anticipated appeal to the federal court. The action is In the Matter of LabMD Inc., Docket No. 9357.

On November 13, 2015, the French Data Protection Authority (“CNIL”) announced its decision in a case against Optical Center, imposing a fine of €50,000 on the company for violations related to the security and confidentiality of its customers’ personal data.

As reported in the Hunton Employment & Labor Law Perspectives Blog:

On October 27, 2015, the Ninth Circuit held in EEOC v. McLane Co., Inc. that the EEOC has broad subpoena powers to obtain nationwide private personnel information, including Social Security numbers (“SSNs”), in connection with its investigation of a sex discrimination charge.

On October 27, 2015, David Smith, the UK Deputy Commissioner of the Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”), published a blog post commenting on the ongoing Safe Harbor compliance debate in light of the Schrems v. Facebook decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union. His key message to organizations was, “Don’t panic.”

On October 23, 2015, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, in large part, upheld Target’s assertion of the attorney-client privilege and work-product protections for information associated with a privileged, internal investigation of Target’s 2013 data breach.

On October 2, 2015, California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris announced that her office settled a lawsuit against home design website, Houzz Inc. (“Houzz”). Houzz was charged with secretly recording incoming and outgoing telephone calls for training and quality assurance purposes without notifying its customers, employees or call recipients, in violation of California eavesdropping and wiretapping laws. As part of the settlement, the Attorney General required Houzz to destroy the recordings, pay a fine of $175,000 and hire a Chief Privacy Officer to supervise its compliance with privacy laws and conduct privacy risk evaluations to assess Houzz’s privacy practices. This is the first time that the Attorney General has required the hiring of a Chief Privacy Officer as part of a settlement.

On September 25, 2015, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (the “ICO”) issued a fine of £200,000 (approximately $303,000) to Home Energy & Lifestyle Management Ltd. (“HELM”) for making a large number of automated marketing calls in violation of the UK’s direct marketing laws. This is the largest fine that the ICO has issued to date in connection with automated marketing calls.

On September 11, 2015, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) announced that Lyft Inc. (“Lyft”) and First National Bank Corporation (“FNB”) violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) by forcing their users to consent to receive automated text messages as a condition of using their services. The FCC warned that these violations could result in fines if they continue.

On September 22, 2015, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) announced a settlement order (the “Order”) with an investment adviser for failing to establish cybersecurity policies and procedures, and published an investor alert (the “Alert”) entitled Identity Theft, Data Breaches, and Your Investment Accounts.

On September 8, 2015, representatives from the U.S. Government and the European Commission initialed a draft agreement known as the Protection of Personal Information Relating to the Prevention, Investigation, Detection and Prosecution of Criminal Offenses (the “Umbrella Agreement”). The European Commission’s stated aim for the Umbrella Agreement is to put in place “a comprehensive high-level data protection framework for EU-U.S. law enforcement cooperation.” The Umbrella Agreement has been agreed upon amid the ongoing uncertainty over the future of the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor, and was drafted shortly before the release of the September 23 Advocate General’s Opinion in the Schrems v. Facebook litigation. The content of the Umbrella Agreement is in its final form, but its implementation is dependent upon revisions to U.S. law that are currently before Congress.

On September 15, 2015, the Office of Compliance, Inspections and Examinations (“OCIE”) at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) issued a Risk Alert outlining its latest cybersecurity examination priorities for SEC-registered broker-dealers and investment advisers.

On August 20, 2015, the Bavarian Data Protection Authority (“DPA”) issued a press release stating that it imposed a significant fine on a data controller for failing to adequately specify the security controls protecting personal data in a data processing agreement with a data processor.