Privacy & Information Security Law Blog

On March 9, 2010, the European Court of Justice ruled that the Federal Republic of Germany’s practice of “state supervision” over data protection authorities violates EU Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC.  The case, brought by the EU Commission, is a milestone which will force Germany to change the structure of its DPA system and could have ramifications in other countries as well.

The Court’s decision is based on Article 28(1) of the Directive, which requires that data protection authorities (“DPAs”) act with “complete independence.” German law makes a distinction with regard to DPA supervision depending on whether the data processing is carried out by public or non-public bodies.  There are therefore different authorities responsible for monitoring public entities’ compliance with data protection provisions versus those that monitor compliance by private parties and undertakings governed by public law which compete on the market (öffentlich-rechtliche Wettbewerbsunternehmen) outside the public sector (such as transportation and utility companies).

On March 9, 2010, the Federal Trade Commission announced that LifeLock, Inc., has agreed to pay $12 million to settle charges of deceptive advertising related to its identity theft protection services.  The FTC and the attorneys general of 35 states obtained the coordinated settlement pursuant to charges that LifeLock made false representations regarding the effectiveness of the protection its services offer consumers.  The FTC alleged that, contrary to assertions made in LifeLock’s advertisements, its products provide no protection from the most common form of identity ...

On March 3, 2010, the Senate unanimously confirmed the nominations of Julie Brill and Edith Ramirez to serve as FTC Commissioners for seven-year terms.  Most recently, Ms. Brill has served as Deputy Attorney General for Consumer Protection and Antitrust for the State of North Carolina.  She was formerly Assistant Attorney General for Consumer Protection and Antitrust for the State of Vermont and has served as Chair of the Committee on Privacy for the National Association of Attorneys General.  Edith Ramirez is a partner at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP in Los Angeles ...

Alberta’s Information and Privacy Commissioner, Frank Work, issued a news release regarding the recent Court of Appeal of Alberta decision in Alberta Teachers’ Association v. Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner).  In the case, the Court held that the Information and Privacy Commission has no authority to extend investigation time limits under the Personal Information Protection Act (“PIPA”) after the statutory time limit has expired.  Further, if the Commissioner extends the time in an inquiry process within the time limit, he must provide reasons for the extension, and his decision will be subject to judicial review.  The Court noted that “[b]lanket or routine extensions seem unlikely to be regarded as reasonable if they cannot also be justified in the specific circumstances of the case.”  PIPA is provincial legislation that governs the use of personal information by private sector organizations in Alberta.

On March 3, 2010, the UK Information Commissioner launched a report on the "Privacy Dividend" (the “Report”), which outlines the business case for proactively investing in privacy protection.  The lack of a robust business case is a common barrier to privacy investment, and too often such investment is approved only after a privacy breach or other crisis occurs.

On February 24, 2010, the French Senate’s Committee of Laws published an amended bill on the right to privacy in the digital age (“Proposition de loi visant à garantir le droit à la vie privée à l’heure du numérique”) (the “Bill”).  Following the initial draft presented by Senators Yves Détraigne and Anne-Marie Escoffier, this revised version is based on a second Senate Report in which concrete proposals are made to amend the Data Protection Act.

On March 2, 2010, the German Federal Constitutional Court ruled that the mass storage of telephone and Internet data for law enforcement purposes is unlawful in its current form.

Since 2008, the challenged law has required telecom companies to retain data from telephone, email and Internet traffic, as well as mobile phone location data, for six months.  This information may be retrieved for law enforcement and safety purposes.  Constitutional claims were brought before the Court by nearly 35,000 citizens, representing the largest mass claim proceeding in German history. 

On February 16, 2010, the Article 29 Working Party adopted Opinion 1/2010 (the “Opinion”) providing further clarification and guidance on the interpretation of the concepts of “data controller” and “data processor” in the context of the EU’s Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC.

On February 25, 2010, the Federal Trade Commission filed a notice that it is appealing the D.C. District Court’s December 28, 2009 judgment in favor of the American Bar Association in American Bar Association v. FTC.  The District Court’s summary judgment held that the FTC’s Identity Theft Red Flags Rule (“Red Flags Rule” or the “Rule”) does not apply to attorneys or law firms.  The Rule implements Sections 114 and 315 of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act.  In relevant part, the Rule requires creditors and financial institutions that offer or maintain certain ...

In February 24, 2010, an Italian court in Milan found three Google executives guilty of violating applicable Italian privacy laws.  The executives were accused of violating Italian law by having allowed a video showing an autistic teenager being bullied to be posted online.  The Google executives, Senior Vice President and Chief Legal Officer David Drummond, Chief Privacy Counsel Peter Fleischer and former Chief Financial Officer George Reyes, were fined and received six-month suspended jail sentences.