On November 7, 2024, the Commission Implementing Regulation 2024/2690 laying down rules for the application of the NIS2 Directive as regards technical and methodological requirements of cybersecurity risk-management measures and further specification of the cases in which an incident is considered to be significant with regard to certain digital service providers entered into force.
Last month, the UK government resurrected previous attempts to reform UK data protection law and introduced the draft Data (Use and Access) Bill into the House of Lords. This blog entry provides a link to read more about the Bill.
On November 20, 2024, Regulation (EU) 2024/2847 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2024 on horizontal cybersecurity requirements for products with digital elements was published in the Official Journal of the EU.
On November 7, 2024, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office released a report exploring data privacy concerns in genomic technology.
On November 6, 2024, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office published a report following consensual audit engagements conducted between August 2023 and May 2024 with developers and providers of artificial intelligence powered sourcing, screening, and selection tools used in recruitment.
On November 4, 2024, the European Data Protection Board adopted its first report under the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework.
On October 31, 2024, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office published its response to the draft Data (Use and Access) Bill.
On October 24, 2024, the Irish Data Protection Commission announced that it had issued a fine of 310 million euros against LinkedIn Ireland Unlimited Company for breaches of the EU GDPR related to transparency, fairness and lawfulness in the context of the company’s processing of its users’ personal data for behavioral analysis and targeted advertising.
On October 4, 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) issued its judgment in case KNLTB (C‑621/22). In this judgment, the CJEU was called upon to clarify the concept of “legitimate interests” and, in particular, whether purely commercial interests can be considered as legitimate under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”).
On October 23, 2024, the UK government introduced the draft Data (Use and Access) Bill to the House of Lords.
On October 21, 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice National Security Division issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking implementing Executive Order 14117 that will restrict certain transactions with high-risk countries.
On October 16, 2024, the European Data Protection Board announced it had adopted Guidelines 2/2023 on Technical Scope of Art. 5(3) of ePrivacy Directive following a public consultation.
On October 10, 2024, the Council of the European Union adopted the EU’s new regulation on horizontal cybersecurity requirements for products with digital elements.
October 17, 2024, is the final day for EU Member States to implement the necessary measures for transposing the NIS2 Directive into their national laws.
On October 4, 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union issued its judgment in case C‑446/21 to assess whether the GDPR imposes limits to Meta Platforms Ireland’s use of personal data collected outside of the Facebook social network for advertising purposes.
On September 30, 2024, the State Council of China published the Regulations on Administration of Network Data Security (the “Regulations”), which will take effect on January 1, 2025. The Regulations cover multiple dimensions of network data security, including personal information protection, security of important data, cross-border transfers, network platform service providers’ obligations, and regulatory supervision and administration. Certain of the key provisions are summarized below. In general, most of the provisions under the Regulations can be found in other existing laws and regulations of China.
On October 9, 2024, the European Data Protection Board adopted an Opinion on certain obligations following from the reliance on processor(s) and sub-processor(s), and Guidelines on the processing of personal data based on legitimate interest.
On October 7, 2024, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office announced the launch of a new audit framework designed to help organizations assess and improve their compliance with key requirements of UK data protection law.
On September 18, 2024, the National Technical Committee 260 on Cybersecurity Standardization Administration of China released the Cybersecurity Standard Practice Guideline – Sensitive Personal Information Identification Guideline.
On September 27, 2024, the Irish Data Protection Commission announced it had issued a fine of 91 million euros and a reprimand against Meta Ireland for inadvertently storing passwords of certain users in plaintext on its internal systems.
In August 2024, the Guangzhou Internet Court in China published its final decision in the case No. (2022) Yue 0192 Minchu 6486 regarding the cross-border transfer of personal information under the Personal Information Protection Law (“PIPL”), which was originally issued on September 8, 2023. It is the first case explaining the reliance on necessity for performance of contract in cross-border data transfer activities.
New ANPD resolution establishes rules and procedures for international data transfers. Brazilian firm Mattos Filho reports on the new rules.
On September 10, 2024, the European Commission and the European Data Protection Board issued a press release stating that they would be cooperating to develop guidance regarding the interplay between the Digital Markets Act and the General Data Protection Regulation.
On September 10, 2024, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office announced that it signed a memorandum of understanding with the UK National Crime Agency related to cyber resilience.
On August 30, 2024, the Beijing Municipal Internet Information Office, Beijing Municipal Commerce Bureau and Beijing Municipal Government Services and Data Administration Bureau jointly issued the Data Export Management List (Negative List) of China (Beijing) Pilot Free Trade Zone (Version 2024) and the Administrative Measures for the Negative List.
On September 3, 2024, the Dutch Data Protection Authority announced a €30.5 million fine against Clearview AI for the processing of personal data related to its biometric data database.
On September 4, 2024, the Irish High Court dismissed proceedings against X related to X’s use of personal data for its AI tool Grok.
On August 28, 2024, the FCC announced that it signed a Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperation in the Enforcement of Laws Protecting Personal Information in the Private Sector with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.
On August 26, 2024, the Dutch Data Protection Authority as lead supervisory authority announced it has imposed a fine of 290 Million Euros on Uber related to a violation of international transfer requirements under the EU General Data Protection Regulation.
On August 7, 2024, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office announced its provisional decision to fine Advanced Computer Software Group Ltd £6.09 million following an initial finding that the company, which acted as a data processor, had failed to implement sufficient measures to protect personal information.
The U.S. Department of Commerce’s International Trade Administration recently published a notice indicating it is considering revisions to the fee schedule for the Data Privacy Framework Program and seeking public comment, which is open until August 7, 2024.
On August 1, 2024, the EU AI Act entered into force.
In June 2024, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (“FRA”) published a report on the experiences, challenges and practices of data protection authorities (“DPAs”) when implementing the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) (the “Report”). The Report was requested by the European Commission ahead of their 2024 GDPR evaluation report, which was published on July 25, 2024.
On July 17, 2024, the King’s Speech marked the start of the UK parliamentary year. In the King’s Speech, the Digital Information and Smart Data Bill and Cyber Security and Resilience Bill were announced.
On July 12, 2024, the EU Artificial Intelligence Act was published in the Official Journal of the EU.
On July 2, 2024, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) published a new set of guidelines addressing the development of artificial intelligence (“AI”) systems from a data protection perspective (the “July AI Guidelines”).
On July 1, 2024, a new agreement between the EU and Japan facilitating data flows between the two jurisdictions entered into force.
On June 7, 2024, following a public consultation, the French Data Protection Authority published the final version of the guidelines addressing the development of AI systems from a data protection perspective.
On May 23, 2024, the European Data Protection Board adopted an Opinion on the use of facial recognition technologies by airport operators and airline companies to streamline the passenger flow at airports.
On May 14, 2024, the UK National Cyber Security Centre (“NCSC”) and three major UK insurance associations (Association of British Insurers (“ABI”), British Insurance Brokers’ Association (“BIBA”) and International Underwriting Association (“IUA”)), published joint guidance on the approach to ransom payments (the “Guidance”). The Guidance was prepared for businesses experiencing a ransomware attack with the aim of reducing the overall impact of the incident on the business. The Guidance is intended, among other things, to reduce the number of ransoms paid by ransomware victims in the UK, and the size of the ransoms paid in cases where the victims do elect to pay.
On May 1, 2024, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) and the UK regulator for communications and online safety, Ofcom, issued a joint statement regarding their collaboration on the regulation of online services where online safety and data protection intersect. This statement builds on the joint statement published in 2022. The latest statement outlines several areas of collaboration between the ICO and Ofcom.
The Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) at Hunton Andrews Kurth recently released a report on Enabling Beneficial and Safe Uses of Biometric Technology Through Risk-Based Regulations (the “Report”). The Report examines global laws and regulations that target biometric data and encourages adoption of a risk-based approach. According to the Report, biometric technology applications are growing and can provide societal and economic benefits. However, there are recognized concerns over potential harms for individuals and their rights, and data protection and privacy laws are increasingly targeting the collection and use of biometric data.
On April 17, 2024, the European Data Protection Board adopted its non-binding Opinion 08/2024 on Valid Consent in the Context of Consent or Pay Models Implemented by Large Online Platforms, stating that such models generally are not compliant with the GDPR, though their use should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
On April 12, 2024, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office launched the third installment in its consultation series examining how data protection law applies to the development and use of generative AI.
On April 12, 2024, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) launched the third installment in its consultation series examining how data protection law applies to the development and use of generative AI. This installment focuses on how the data protection principle of accuracy applies to the outputs of generative AI models, and the impact that accurate training data has on the output. The two previous installments discussed the lawful basis for web scraping to train generative AI models, and purpose limitation in the generative AI lifecycle.
On April 1, 2024, the U.S. and UK signed a Memorandum of Understanding that details how the U.S. and UK will work together to develop tests for advanced AI models.
On March 26, 2024, the French data protection authority (the “CNIL”) published the 2024 edition of its Practice Guide for the Security of Personal Data (the “Guide”). The Guide is intended to support organizations in their efforts to implement adequate security measures in compliance with their obligations under Article 32 of the EU General Data Protection Regulation. In particular, the Guide targets DPOs, CISOs, computer scientists and privacy lawyers.
On March 22, 2024, the Cyberspace Administration of China (the “CAC”) issued the Provisions on Facilitation and Regulation of Cross-Border Data Flows (the “Provisions”), which were effective the same day. The CAC also held a press conference to introduce and explain the Provisions. The Provisions demonstrate that the regulation of cross-border transfers in China is focused on important data and critical information infrastructure operators (“CIIO”), and that the CAC aims to optimize business environment, stabilize foreign investment, and support the data flow between global companies with a Chinese presence.
On March 18, 2024, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) published new data protection fining guidance on how the ICO determines penalties and calculates fines. The guidance was subject to a consultation process in 2023, and covers a variety of topics and considerations relevant to penalties and fines, including:
On March 7, 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) issued its judgment in the case of Endemol Shine (Case C‑740/22). In this case, the CJEU was called upon to assess whether oral disclosure of information could be considered as processing of personal data under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) and to clarify the relationship between personal data protection and public access to documents.
On March 13, 2024, the European Parliament adopted the AI Act by a majority of 523 votes in favor, 46 votes against, and 49 abstentions. The AI Act will introduce comprehensive rules to govern the use of AI in the EU, making it the first major economic bloc to regulate this technology.
On March 7, 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) issued its judgment in the case of IAB Europe (Case C‑604/22). In this judgment, the CJEU assessed the role of the Interactive Advertising Bureau Europe (“IAB Europe”) in the processing operations associated with its Transparency and Consent Framework (“TCF”) and further developed CJEU case law on the concept of personal data under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”).
On February 28, 2024, President Biden released an Executive Order (“EO”) “addressing the extraordinary and unusual national security threat posed by the continued effort of certain countries of concern to access Americans’ bulk sensitive personal data and certain U.S. Government-related data.” In tandem with the EO, the Department of Justice’s (“DOJ’s”) National Security Division is set to issue an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (“ANPRM”) pursuant to the EO, which directs the DOJ to “establish, implement and administer new and targeted national security programming” to address the threat. The DOJ regulations will identify specific categories of “data transactions” that are prohibited or restricted due to their “unacceptable risk to national security.”
On February 28, 2024, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) announced the launch of its latest Coordinated Enforcement Framework action on the right of access. Through the course of 2024, 31 data protection authorities across the European Economic Area, including seven German state-level authorities, will take part in this initiative on the implementation of the right of access. The EDPB selected the right access for its third coordinated enforcement action as it is “at the heart of data protection,” is a right that is very frequently exercised by individuals, and one that is often the basis of complaints to authorities.
On March 1, 2024, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) announced that it had issued an enforcement notice and a warning to the UK Home Office for failing to sufficiently assess the privacy risks posed by the electronic monitoring of people arriving in the UK via unauthorized means. The Home Office is the ministerial department of the UK government responsible for immigration, security, and law and order.
On February 20, 2024, The Centre for Information Policy Leadership at Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP (“CIPL”) and Theodore Christakis, Professor of International, European and Digital Law at University Grenoble Alpes, released a comprehensive study titled The “Zero Risk” Fallacy: International Data Transfers, Foreign Governments’ Access to Data and the Need for a Risk-Based Approach. In the study, Prof. Christakis makes the case that the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and EU law, more generally, allow a more nuanced and risk-based approach to data transfers than the restrictive approach often applied. CIPL and Prof. Christakis provide an approach that outlines data protection measures that are proportionate to the risks at hand, and takes into account the nature of the data, the likelihood of access by foreign governments, and the severity of the potential harm.
On February 23, 2024, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (the “ICO”) reported that it had ordered public service providers Serco Leisure, Serco Jersey and associated community leisure trusts (jointly, “the Companies”) to stop using facial recognition technology (“FRT”) and fingerprint scanning (“FS”) to monitor employee attendance.
On January 24, 2024, the European Commission announced that it had published the Commission Decision establishing the European AI Office (the “Decision”). The AI Office will be established within the Commission as part of the administrative structure of the Directorate-General for Communication Networks, Content and Technology, and subject to its annual management plan. The AI Office is not intended to affect the powers and competences of national competent authorities, and bodies, offices and agencies of the EU in the supervision of AI systems, as provided for by the forthcoming AI Act. The Decision details the functions and tasks of the AI Office, such as:
On February 16, 2024, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (the “ICO”) published its first piece of guidance on content moderation. The ICO defines content moderation in the guidance as the analysis of user-generated content to assess whether it meets certain standards, and any action a service takes as a result of this analysis. This process includes the processing of personal data and, according to the ICO in its statement, “can cause harm if incorrect decisions are made,” for example content being incorrectly defined as illegal.
Recent developments in the Shanghai Pilot Free Trade Zone to facilitate cross-border data transfers are expected to provide greater flexibility in exporting data from China, which has been stymied by the Cyberspace Administration of China (“CAC”)’s strict cross-border data transfer regulations proposed in December 2023. In recent years, the legal framework and practical enforcement for cross-border data transfers in China have undergone significant developments, especially with respect to the CAC’s cross-border data transfer security reviews and standard contractual clauses. The lack of clarity around the CAC’s strict rules for security assessment reviews appears to have caused significant delays in the approval process for cross-border data transfers and concern among international companies who regularly transfer data outside of China. However, it appears that the Shanghai government is likely to permit international companies to transfer data offshore by leveraging its sprawling free trade zones. Shanghai, for example, has recently unveiled new measures aimed at accelerating cross-border data transfers.
On February 13, 2024, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) adopted Opinion 04/2024 on the notion of the main establishment of a controller in the Union under Article 4(16)(a) of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) (the “Opinion”).
On February 9, 2024, Hunton Andrews Kurth attorneys, David Dumont and Laura Léonard, and Centre for Information Policy Leadership Director of Privacy and Data Policy, Natascha Gerlach, published an op-ed discussing the implications of the European Commission’s proposal for a Regulation laying down additional procedural rules relating to the enforcement of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (the “Draft GDPR Procedural Regulation”) and the draft report on the Draft GDPR Procedural Regulation by the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (the “Draft LIBE Report”).
On February 8, 2024, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) announced the priority topics for its inspections in 2024.
On February 6, 2024, the UK government published a response to the consultation on its AI Regulation White Paper, which the UK government originally published in March 2023. The White Paper set forth the UK government’s “flexible” approach to regulating AI through five cross-sectoral principles for the UK’s existing regulators to interpret and apply within their remits (read further details on the White Paper). A 12-week consultation on the White Paper was then held and this response summarizes the feedback and proposed next steps.
In November 2023, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) wrote to organizations operating 53 of the UK’s biggest websites regarding their compliance with data protection laws when using cookies. On January 31, 2024, the ICO released a statement on such action noting that it received “an overwhelmingly positive response” with 38 of those organizations having changed their cookie banners in order to come into compliance. Others have either committed to ensuring compliance within a month, or are exploring other solutions such as contextual advertising.
On January 22, 2024, a draft of the final text of the EU Artificial Intelligence Act (“AI Act”) was leaked to the public. The leaked text substantially diverges from the original proposal by the European Commission, which dates back to 2021. The AI Act includes elements from both the European Parliament’s and the Council’s proposals.
On January 18, 2024, the European Data Protection Board published a thematic one-stop-shop (“OSS”) case digest titled, “Security of Processing and Data Breach Notification” (the “Digest”). The Digest analyzes a selection of decisions adopted by EU data protection authorities on data security and data breaches.
On January 18, 2024, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) published an updated Opinion on age assurance for the Children’s Code (the “Opinion”). The Children’s Code is a statutory code of practice setting out how information society services likely to be accessed by children should protect children’s information rights online.
On January 15, 2024, the European Commission released its “report on the first review of the functioning of the Adequacy Decisions adopted pursuant to Article 25(6) of Directive 95/46/EC” (the “Report”). The Report details the results of the European Commission’s assessment of whether 11 jurisdictions (Andorra, Argentina, Canada, the Faroe Islands, Guernsey, the Isle of Man, Israel, Jersey, New Zealand, Switzerland and Uruguay) that benefit from Adequacy Decisions adopted under the repealed Directive 95/46/EC still offer sufficient guarantees to maintain adequacy status under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”).
On January 15, 2024, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) announced that it has launched a consultation series on generative AI. The series will examine how aspects of UK data protection law should apply to the development and use of the technology, with the first chapter of the series focusing on when it is lawful to train generative AI models on personal data scraped from the web. The ICO invites all stakeholders with an interest in generative AI to respond to the consultation, including developers and users of generative AI, legal advisors and consultants working ...
On January 8, 2024, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) opened a consultation on its draft guidance for the use of transfer impact assessments (“Guidance”). In describing the Guidance, the CNIL references the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Schrems II and states that exporters relying on tools listed in Article 46(2) and Article 46(3) of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) for personal data transfers are required to assess the level of protection in the designated third country and the need to put in place additional safeguards (i.e., conduct a transfer impact assessment (“TIA”)). The Guidance is intended to assist data exporters in carrying out TIAs.
On December 21, 2023, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) issued its judgment in the case of Krankenversicherung Nordrhein (C-667/21) in which it clarified, among other things, the rules for processing special categories of personal data (hereafter “sensitive personal data”) under Article 9 of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) and the nature of the compensation owed for damages under Article 82 of the GDPR.
On December 18, 2023, the updated response from UK Information Commissioner John Edwards to the Data Protection and Digital Information (No 2) Bill (the “Bill”) was published on the website of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The Commissioner’s original response was published in March 2023. In the latest response, the Commissioner states that he is “pleased to note that government made some changes…in response to my comments,” specifically with regards the definition of “vexatious requests” in respect of requests made to the Information Commissioner’s Office, and the drafting of the changes to the safeguards for processing for research purposes. However, the Commissioner goes on to state that the majority of his comments currently remain unaddressed, including with regards the definition of high risk processing.
On December 14, 2023, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) issued its judgment in the case of VB v. Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite (C‑340/21), in which it clarified, among other things, the concept of non-material damage under Article 82 of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) and the rules governing burden of proof under the GDPR.
On December 7, 2023, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) ruled that credit scoring constitutes automated decision-making, which is prohibited under Article 22 of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) unless certain conditions are met. In a case stemming from consumer complaints against German credit bureau SCHUFA, the CJEU found that the company’s reliance on fully automated processes to calculate creditworthiness and extend credit constitutes automated decision-making which produces a legal or similarly significant effect within the meaning of Article 22 of the GDPR.
On December 12, 2023, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) announced that it is producing an online resource relating to employment practices and data protection. The ICO also announced that it would be releasing draft guidance on the different topic areas to be included in the resource in stages, and adding to it over time. The ICO provided draft guidance on “Keeping employment records” and “Recruitment and selection” for consultation. The former draft guidance aims to provide direction on compliance with data protection law when keeping records ...
On December 8, 2023, the European Parliament and the Council reached a political agreement on the EU’s Regulation laying down harmonized rules on Artificial Intelligence (the “AI Act”).
The AI Act will introduce a risk-based legal framework for AI. Specifically, the AI Act will state that: (1) certain AI systems are prohibited as they present unacceptable risks (e.g., AI used for social scoring based on social behavior or personal characteristics, untargeted scraping of facial images from the Internet or CCTV footage to create facial recognition databases, etc.); (2) AI systems presenting a high-risk to the rights and freedoms of individuals will be subject to stringent rules, which may include data governance/management and transparency obligations, the requirement to conduct a conformity assessment procedure and the obligation to carry out a fundamental rights assessment; (3) limited-risk AI systems will be subject to light obligations (mainly transparency requirements); and (4) AI systems that are not considered prohibited, high-risk or limited-risk systems will not be under the scope of the AI Act.
On November 22, 2023, the Artificial Intelligence (Regulation) Bill was introduced into the UK Parliament’s House of Lords. The purpose of the Bill is to make provision for the regulation of AI and for connected purposes.
On November 23, 2023, the UK government’s National Cyber Security Centre (“NCSC”) and the Republic of Korea’s National Intelligence Service (“NIS”) issued a joint advisory detailing techniques and tactics used by cyber actors linked to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (“DPRK”) that are carrying out software supply chain attacks. The publication follows the recent announcement of a new Strategic Cyber Partnership between the UK and the Republic of Korea where the two nations have committed to work together to tackle common cyber threats.
On November 27, 2023, the UK government announced the first global guidelines to ensure the secure development of AI technology (the “Guidelines”), which were developed by the UK National Cyber Security Centre (“NCSC”) and the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (“CISA”), in cooperation with industry experts and other international agencies and ministries. The guidelines have been endorsed by a further 15 countries, including Australia, Canada, Japan, Nigeria, and certain EU countries (full list here).
On November 21, 2023, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) issued a statement explaining that it has recently written to companies operating some of the UK’s most visited websites regarding their compliance with data protection laws when using cookies. The ICO noted that certain websites are not providing users with fair choices as to whether or not they are tracked for personalized marketing purposes, and referred to its guidance on making it simple for users to “Reject All” advertising cookies.
On November 16, 2023, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) published its Guidelines 2/2023 on the Technical Scope of Art. 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive (the “Guidelines”).
On November 9, 2023, the European Parliament adopted, by a majority of 481 votes in favor, 31 votes against and 71 abstentions, the final text of the Data Act. As explained in our previous blog, the Data Act aims to “ensure fairness in the digital environment, stimulate a competitive data market, open opportunities for data-driven innovation and make data more accessible for all” and was initially proposed by the European Commission on February 23, 2022.
On November 8, 2023, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) and the European Data Protection Supervisor (“EDPS”) announced they have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) intended to reinforce their “common mission to uphold individuals’ data protection and privacy rights, and cooperate internationally to achieve this goal”. The MOU sets out broad principles of collaboration between the ICO and EDPS and the legal framework governing the sharing of relevant information and intelligence. The ICO and EDPS consider that, when addressing similar issues, reducing divergencies in their regulatory approaches will benefit public and private organizations, individuals, and other stakeholders in the UK and EU.
On October 27, 2023, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) adopted an urgent binding decision instructing the Irish Data Protection Commissioner (the “Irish DPC”) to take final measures against Meta Ireland Limited (“Meta”) within two weeks and impose a ban on Meta’s processing of personal data for behavioral advertising based on the contractual necessity and legitimate interests legal bases. The ban would apply across the European Economic Area (“EEA”).
On November 1, 2023, 29 nations, including the U.S., the UK, the EU and China (full list available here), reached a ground-breaking agreement, known as the Bletchley Declaration. The Declaration sets forth a shared understanding of the opportunities and risks posed by AI and the need for governments to work together to meet the most significant challenges posed by the technology. The Declaration states that there is an urgent need to understand and collectively manage the potential risks posed by AI to ensure the technology is developed and deployed in a safe, responsible way. The Declaration was signed at the AI Safety Summit 2023, held at Bletchley Park in the UK.
October 12, 2023, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) announced a €600,000 fine for mass media company Groupe Canal+ for failing to comply with its commercial prospecting obligations applicable under the French Post and Electronic Communications Code and several obligations of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”).
On October 30, 2023, the G7 leaders announced they had reached agreement on a set of International Guiding Principles on Artificial Intelligence (AI) and a voluntary Code of Conduct for AI developers, pursuant to the Hiroshima AI Process. The Hiroshima AI Process was established at the G7 Summit in May 2023 to promote guardrails for advanced AI systems at a global level.
On October 26, 2023, the UK Online Safety Act (the “Act”) received Royal Assent, making it law in the UK. The Act seeks to protect children from online harm and imposes obligations on relevant organizations, including social media platforms, to prevent and remove illegal and harmful content. In a press release, the UK Government stated that the Act “takes a zero-tolerance approach to protecting children from online harm, while empowering adults with more choices over what they see online.” For example, the Act requires relevant organizations to:
On October 11, 2023, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) published a new set of guidelines addressing the research and development of AI systems from a data protection perspective (the “Guidelines”).
On October 18, 2023, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) at Hunton Andrews Kurth published an opinion piece in the leading European policy outlet, Euractiv, titled “The Time is Now: Why modernising transatlantic cooperation on cross-border law enforcement access to electronic evidence should be a priority.”
The piece argues that at a time of an increased threat of cybercrime, digital fraud, disinformation, and other illicit activities online, we need a holistic discussion between law enforcement, policymakers and privacy communities to balance societal interests and individual rights.
On September 28, 2023, the Cyberspace Administration of China (“CAC”) released the “Provisions on Regulating and Facilitating Cross-Border Data Flows” for public comment (the “Proposal”). The deadline for public comment on the Proposal was October 15, 2023.
On October 17, 2023, The First-tier Tribunal of the UK General Regulatory Chamber allowed an appeal by Clearview AI Inc. (“Clearview”) against an enforcement notice and fine issued by the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”).
On October 3, 2023, the UK Information Commissioner's Office ("ICO") published new Guidance on lawful monitoring in the workplace, designed to help employees comply with their obligations under the UK General Data Protection Regulation ("UK GDPR") and the Data Protection Act 2018 ("DPA").
On September 21, 2023, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) published an opinion on the UK Government’s assessment of adequacy for the UK Extension to the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (the “UK Extension”). The ICO provides that, while it is reasonable for the Secretary of State to conclude that the UK Extension provides an adequate level of data protection and lay regulations to that effect, there are four specific areas that could pose risks to UK data subjects if the protections identified are not properly applied. These four risks are:
On September 15, 2023, the Irish Data Protection Commission (the “DPC”) announced a fine of 345 million Euros against TikTok Technology Limited (“TikTok”) for non-compliance with GDPR rules regarding the processing of personal data of child users. This decision by the DPC reflects the binding decision of the European Data Protection Board (the “EDPB”) pursuant to Article 65 of the GDPR.
On September 21, 2023, UK Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology Michelle Donelan laid regulations in the UK Parliament, giving effect to a UK-U.S. Data Bridge. The regulations are supported by several documents, including a fact sheet and an “explainer.” The regulations are due to take effect on October 12, 2023. U.S. companies approved to join the “UK Extension to the EU-US Data Privacy Framework” will be able to receive UK personal data under the new Data Bridge.
On September 12, 2023, the UK Information Commissioner, John Edwards, and the Chief Executive of the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) of the UK, Lindy Cameron, signed a joint Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that sets forth a framework for cooperation and information sharing between the ICO and the NCSC. The MoU states the general aims “are to codify and enhance working” between the ICO and NCSC so as to “assist them in discharging their functions.”
On September 6, 2023, the European Commission designated six companies as gatekeepers under Article 3 of the Digital Markets Act (“DMA”). The new gatekeepers are Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, ByteDance, Meta and Microsoft. Jointly, these companies provide 22 core platform services, including social networks, internet browsers, operating systems and mobile app stores.
On August 24, 2023, 12 data protection authorities published a joint statement calling for the protection of personal data from unlawful data scraping. The statement was issued by the authorities of Argentina, Australia, Canada, Colombia, Hong Kong, Jersey, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland and the UK. The joint statement reminds organizations that personal data that is publicly accessible is still subject to data protection and privacy laws in most jurisdictions, and highlights the risks facing such data, including increased risk of social engineering or phishing attacks, identify fraud, and unwanted direct marketing or spam.
Search
Recent Posts
Categories
- Behavioral Advertising
- Centre for Information Policy Leadership
- Children’s Privacy
- Cyber Insurance
- Cybersecurity
- Enforcement
- European Union
- Events
- FCRA
- Financial Privacy
- General
- Health Privacy
- Identity Theft
- Information Security
- International
- Marketing
- Multimedia Resources
- Online Privacy
- Security Breach
- U.S. Federal Law
- U.S. State Law
- Workplace Privacy
Tags
- Aaron Simpson
- Accountability
- Adequacy
- Advertisement
- Advertising
- American Privacy Rights Act
- Anna Pateraki
- Anonymization
- Anti-terrorism
- APEC
- Apple Inc.
- Argentina
- Arkansas
- Article 29 Working Party
- Artificial Intelligence
- Australia
- Austria
- Automated Decisionmaking
- Baltimore
- Bankruptcy
- Belgium
- Biden Administration
- Big Data
- Binding Corporate Rules
- Biometric Data
- Blockchain
- Bojana Bellamy
- Brazil
- Brexit
- British Columbia
- Brittany Bacon
- Brussels
- Business Associate Agreement
- BYOD
- California
- CAN-SPAM
- Canada
- Cayman Islands
- CCPA
- CCTV
- Chile
- China
- Chinese Taipei
- Christopher Graham
- CIPA
- Class Action
- Clinical Trial
- Cloud
- Cloud Computing
- CNIL
- Colombia
- Colorado
- Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission
- Compliance
- Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
- Congress
- Connecticut
- Consent
- Consent Order
- Consumer Protection
- Cookies
- COPPA
- Coronavirus/COVID-19
- Council of Europe
- Council of the European Union
- Court of Justice of the European Union
- CPPA
- CPRA
- Credit Monitoring
- Credit Report
- Criminal Law
- Critical Infrastructure
- Croatia
- Cross-Border Data Flow
- Cyber Attack
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
- Data Brokers
- Data Controller
- Data Localization
- Data Privacy Framework
- Data Processor
- Data Protection Act
- Data Protection Authority
- Data Protection Impact Assessment
- Data Transfer
- David Dumont
- David Vladeck
- Delaware
- Denmark
- Department of Commerce
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Department of Homeland Security
- Department of Justice
- Department of the Treasury
- District of Columbia
- Do Not Call
- Do Not Track
- Dobbs
- Dodd-Frank Act
- DPIA
- E-Privacy
- E-Privacy Directive
- Ecuador
- Ed Tech
- Edith Ramirez
- Electronic Communications Privacy Act
- Electronic Privacy Information Center
- Elizabeth Denham
- Employee Monitoring
- Encryption
- ENISA
- EU Data Protection Directive
- EU Member States
- European Commission
- European Data Protection Board
- European Data Protection Supervisor
- European Parliament
- Facial Recognition Technology
- FACTA
- Fair Credit Reporting Act
- Fair Information Practice Principles
- Federal Aviation Administration
- Federal Bureau of Investigation
- Federal Communications Commission
- Federal Data Protection Act
- Federal Trade Commission
- FERC
- FinTech
- Florida
- Food and Drug Administration
- Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
- France
- Franchise
- Fred Cate
- Freedom of Information Act
- Freedom of Speech
- Fundamental Rights
- GDPR
- Geofencing
- Geolocation
- Georgia
- Germany
- Global Privacy Assembly
- Global Privacy Enforcement Network
- Gramm Leach Bliley Act
- Hacker
- Hawaii
- Health Data
- Health Information
- HIPAA
- HIPPA
- HITECH Act
- Hong Kong
- House of Representatives
- Hungary
- Illinois
- India
- Indiana
- Indonesia
- Information Commissioners Office
- Information Sharing
- Insurance Provider
- Internal Revenue Service
- International Association of Privacy Professionals
- International Commissioners Office
- Internet
- Internet of Things
- IP Address
- Ireland
- Israel
- Italy
- Jacob Kohnstamm
- Japan
- Jason Beach
- Jay Rockefeller
- Jenna Rode
- Jennifer Stoddart
- Jersey
- Jessica Rich
- John Delionado
- John Edwards
- Kentucky
- Korea
- Latin America
- Laura Leonard
- Law Enforcement
- Lawrence Strickling
- Legislation
- Liability
- Lisa Sotto
- Litigation
- Location-Based Services
- London
- Madrid Resolution
- Maine
- Malaysia
- Markus Heyder
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Meta
- Mexico
- Microsoft
- Minnesota
- Mobile App
- Mobile Device
- Montana
- Morocco
- MySpace
- Natascha Gerlach
- National Institute of Standards and Technology
- National Labor Relations Board
- National Science and Technology Council
- National Security
- National Security Agency
- National Telecommunications and Information Administration
- Nebraska
- NEDPA
- Netherlands
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- New Zealand
- Nigeria
- Ninth Circuit
- North Carolina
- Norway
- Obama Administration
- OECD
- Office for Civil Rights
- Office of Foreign Assets Control
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Opt-In Consent
- Oregon
- Outsourcing
- Pakistan
- Parental Consent
- Payment Card
- PCI DSS
- Penalty
- Pennsylvania
- Personal Data
- Personal Health Information
- Personal Information
- Personally Identifiable Information
- Peru
- Philippines
- Phyllis Marcus
- Poland
- PRISM
- Privacy By Design
- Privacy Policy
- Privacy Rights
- Privacy Rule
- Privacy Shield
- Protected Health Information
- Ransomware
- Record Retention
- Red Flags Rule
- Regulation
- Rhode Island
- Richard Thomas
- Right to Be Forgotten
- Right to Privacy
- Risk-Based Approach
- Rosemary Jay
- Russia
- Safe Harbor
- Sanctions
- Schrems
- Scott Kimpel
- Securities and Exchange Commission
- Security Rule
- Senate
- Serbia
- Service Provider
- Singapore
- Smart Grid
- Smart Metering
- Social Media
- Social Security Number
- South Africa
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- South Korea
- Spain
- Spyware
- Standard Contractual Clauses
- State Attorneys General
- Steven Haas
- Stick With Security Series
- Stored Communications Act
- Student Data
- Supreme Court
- Surveillance
- Sweden
- Switzerland
- Taiwan
- Targeted Advertising
- Telecommunications
- Telemarketing
- Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- Tennessee
- Terry McAuliffe
- Texas
- Text Message
- Thailand
- Transparency
- Transportation Security Administration
- Trump Administration
- United Arab Emirates
- United Kingdom
- United States
- Unmanned Aircraft Systems
- Uruguay
- Utah
- Vermont
- Video Privacy Protection Act
- Video Surveillance
- Virginia
- Viviane Reding
- Washington
- Whistleblowing
- Wireless Network
- Wiretap
- ZIP Code