On April 30, 2020, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) published guidance on the extraction of web users’ personal data from online public spaces by web scraping tools and re-use of such data for direct marketing (the “Guidance”). The Guidance was issued following inspections carried out by the CNIL in 2019.
Background
The CNIL regularly receives complaints about business practices consisting of extracting personal data from web pages in order to send direct marketing communications. The complaints typically concern companies that collect telephone numbers of individuals who appear on ads displayed on consumer-to-consumer websites or in online directories. This information is then used to send direct marketing communications to those individuals, who may have objected to receiving such communications in the past. Those involved include:
- Companies that create databases by consulting real estate ads and extracting the data of the individuals who published those ads. The databases are then sold to real estate agencies or other companies who send direct marketing communications to those individuals; and
- Companies that collect, for their own purposes, all the personal data from a given geographic area in online directories and then use the data to send their own direct marketing communications (e.g., an insurance company to sell insurance products).
The CNIL carried out several inspections in 2019 to determine whether companies comply with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) and the French Data Protection Act. The CNIL’s inspections revealed that a number of companies use tools such as web scraping (or data extraction) software to automatically collect web users’ data from online public spaces. The inspections further revealed several violations of the GDPR and the French Data Protection Act, such as insufficient information being provided to contacted individuals regarding the source of their data, and lack of consent for the sending of electronic direct marketing communications (e.g., emails or automated calls). The CNIL therefore decided to remind data controllers and their service providers of the best practices in this area.
Compliance with Basic Data Protection Principles
The Guidance stresses that individuals’ contact details published in online public spaces are still personal data, even if the data is publicly available. As such, companies may not freely re-use the data, and may not further process it without the individuals’ knowledge. Companies must comply with basic data protection principles. This includes:
- Obtaining individuals’ freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous consent. When individuals share their personal data with one data controller, it is not reasonably expected that they will receive direct marketing from another company - another company may re-use their data for such purposes only with the individuals’ consent. Similarly, when a company re-uses publicly available online data of individuals in order to send direct marketing communications about its products and services by e-mail or through automated calling systems, the company must obtain the individuals’ consent before sending.
- Respecting the individual’s right to object as provided for in the GDPR. When a company sends direct marketing communications by non-electronic means (e.g., by live phone calls), the web scraping tool must not collect data of individuals included in opt-out lists from telecom operators or in France’s BLOCTEL opt-out list.
Key Steps Before Using Web Scraping Tools
The Guidance also recommends taking the following steps before using web scraping tools:
- Verifying the nature and origin of the data that will be scraped: the Guidance notes that some tools extract information from websites whose terms of use prohibit the extraction and re-use of data for marketing purposes. In this case, the practice is clearly unlawful.
- Minimizing data collection: companies using web scraping tools must be particularly cautious and avoid collecting irrelevant and excessive information, particularly if that information is sensitive (e.g., health information or information relating to the religion or sexual orientation of individuals).
- Providing notice to individuals: in addition, companies using web scraping tools must provide notice to individuals whose data has been extracted for direct marketing, at the latest at the time of the first communication with those individuals. The notice must contain all the information listed in Article 14 of the GDPR, including the source of the data.
- Managing the contractual relationship with the web scraping service provider: when companies engage a web scraping service provider, they must ensure that the above measures will be complied with by the service provider. In addition, companies must ensure that they have a proper data processing agreement in place with that service provider in compliance with Article 28 of the GDPR.
- Carrying out a Data Protection Impact Assessment (“DPIA”) if necessary: in some cases, a DPIA must be carried out before implementing the data processing. Even if a DPIA is not required, the Guidance emphasizes that it is best practice to carry one out.
The Guidance also stresses that the CNIL will remain vigilant in respect of these practices to ensure that individuals’ data protection rights are guaranteed.
Search
Recent Posts
- Website Use of Third-Party Tracking Software Not Prohibited Under Massachusetts Wiretap Act
- HHS Announces Additional Settlements Following Ransomware Attacks Including First Enforcement Under Risk Analysis Initiative
- Employee Monitoring: Increased Use Draws Increased Scrutiny from Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
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