Privacy & Information Security Law Blog

The Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) at Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP recently published a Q&A document on organizational accountability in data protection (the “Q&A”).

While CIPL has written extensively about the concept of organizational accountability over many years, the Q&A is designed to clarify frequently raised questions about accountability and provide greater context and understanding of the concept, including for law and policy makers considering data privacy legislation around the globe.

On July 9, 2019, the European Data Protection Board (the “EDPB”) adopted Opinion 8/2019 on the Competence of a Supervisory Authority in Case of a Change in Circumstances Relating to the Main or Single Establishment (the “Opinion”) at the request of the French and the Swedish data protection authorities (“DPAs”).

Background – The French and Swedish DPAs’ Initial Request

The Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) at Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP recently published a white paper on Organizational Accountability’s Existence in U.S. Regulatory Compliance and its Relevance for a Federal Data Privacy Law (the “White Paper”).

A number of bills to amend the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”) are still pending before the California legislature. Of particular interest to many businesses is AB 25. AB 25 would exempt from the CCPA’s application “[p]ersonal information collected by a business about a natural person in the course of the natural person acting as a job applicant to, an employee of, owner of, director of, officer of, medical staff member of, or contractor of that business” if the personal information is collected and used by the business solely within the context of the person’s role or former role as a job applicant to, an employee of, owner of, director of, officer of, medical staff member of, or a contractor of that business. The bill also would exempt from the CCPA’s application emergency contact information of these exempted categories of individuals and information necessary to administer benefits for persons related to such individuals.  Notably, AB 25 does not appear to exempt business-to-business customer representatives or representatives of other third-party business partners.  AB 25 also would authorize a business to require authentication of a consumer that is reasonable in light of the nature of the personal information requested. The bill further would authorize a business to require a consumer to submit the consumer’s verifiable request through the consumer’s account, where the consumer maintains an account with the business.

According to media reports, the Federal Trade Commission has approved a roughly $5 billion settlement with Facebook, Inc. to resolve a privacy probe investigating whether Facebook had violated a prior FTC consent decree requiring the company to better protect user privacy. The investigation followed reports that Cambridge Analytica improperly accessed the personal data of 87 million Facebook users.

Simon McDougall, Executive Director for Technology Policy and Innovation for the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”), has stated that “change is needed” in the adtech sector. In a speech delivered on July 11, 2019, at the Westminster Media Forum, focusing on the future of online advertising regulation, McDougall commented that “heads are still firmly in the sand” in some pockets of the digital advertising industry, and that many real-time bidding practices are currently being conducted in an unlawful manner, whether or not industry players are aware of it.

On July 11, 2019, Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson announced that his office had entered into a consent decree and $10 million settlement with Premera Blue Cross (“Premera”) that stems from a 2014-2015 breach that affected more than 11 million individuals. The settlement, which includes a payment of roughly $5.4 million to Washington state and $4.6 million to a coalition of 29 other state Attorneys General (the “Multistate AGs”), is one of the largest ever for a breach involving protected health information (“PHI”) and comes just one month after another notable HIPAA settlement involving a similar coalition of state AGs.

On July 9, 2019, the hearing in the so-called Schrems II case (case C-311/18) took place at the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) in Luxembourg. The main parties involved in the proceedings, the Irish Data Protection Commissioner (“Irish DPA”), Facebook Ireland Ltd. and the Austrian activist Max Schrems, presented their arguments to the court. In addition, a number of other stakeholders intervened during the hearing, including representatives of the European Parliament, the European Commission, the European Data Protection Board, several EU Member States (including Austria, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and the UK) and the U.S. government, as well as a number of industry lobby groups and the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

On July 4, 2019, the European Commission published a factsheet on artificial intelligence (“AI”) for Europe (the “Factsheet”). In the Factsheet, the European Commission underlines the importance of AI and its role in improving people’s lives and bringing major benefits to the society and economy. In addition, the Factsheet also describes the EU’s role in AI and the financial investments the Commission is planning to make in AI. The factsheet also includes some examples of projects conducted by the Commission in AI (including in agriculture, data and eHealth, public administration and services, and transport and manufacturing).

On July 9, 2019, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) announced its intention to fine Marriott International, Inc. (“Marriott”) £99,200,396 (approximately $124 million) for infringements of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). The ICO’s announcement followed Marriott’s notification of the proposed fine to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”).