Privacy & Information Security Law Blog

On August 29, 2021, a New York City Council bill amending the New York City Administrative Code to address customer data collected by food delivery services from online orders became law after the 30-day period for the mayor to sign or veto lapsed. Effective December 27, 2021, the law will permit restaurants to request customer data from third-party food delivery services and require delivery services to provide, on at least a monthly basis, such customer data until the restaurant “requests to no longer receive such customer data.” Customer data includes name, phone number, email address, delivery address and contents of the order.

On September 14, 2021, the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce (“E&C Committee”) voted in favor of a legislative recommendation that would create a new Federal Trade Commission privacy bureau as part of the proposed $3.5 trillion federal budget reconciliation package.

This week, the United Arab Emirates (“UAE”) Minister of State for Artificial Intelligence, Digital Economy and Remote Work Applications (the “Minister”) announced that the UAE would introduce a new federal data protection law (“Data Protection Law”), the first federal law of its kind in the UAE. The Data Protection Law is one of the initiatives to be implemented under the recently published “Principles of the 50,” a charter of 10 strategic principles that will guide the political, economic and social development of the UAE for the next 50 years.

On August 26, 2021, the UK Department of Culture, Media and Sport (“DCMS”) made news by publishing a document indicating its intent to begin making adequacy decisions for UK data transfers to foreign jurisdictions and by announcing its preferred candidate for the position of new UK Information Commissioner.

On July 8, 2021, Colorado Governor Jared Polis signed SB21-190, the Colorado Privacy Act (“the Act”), into law, making Colorado the third state to have a comprehensive data privacy law on the books, following California and Virginia. The Colorado House voted 57-7 in favor of the Act on June 7 after it had previously passed the Senate unanimously on May 26. The Senate voted unanimously to adopt the House’s amendments to the Act on June 8. The Act will go into effect on July 1, 2023, with some specific provisions going into effect at later dates.

On June 17, 2021, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) announced the reintroduction of the Data Protection Act of 2021 (the “bill”), which would create an independent federal agency, the Data Protection Agency, to “regulate high-risk data practices and the collection, processing, and sharing of personal data.” The bill was first introduced in 2020 and has since been revised to include updated provisions intended to protect against privacy harms, oversee the use of “high-risk data practices” and examine the social, ethical, and economic impacts of data collection.

On June 14, 2021, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed HB 3746, a bill amending Texas’s data breach notification law. Texas’s breach notification law requires notice to affected residents in the event of a data breach affecting certain sensitive personal data, including Social Security numbers, driver’s license or other government-issued ID numbers, account numbers or payment card numbers in combination with any required security code, access code or password, or certain information about an individual’s health or medical condition or treatment. The law also requires businesses to notify the Texas Attorney General of any data breach affecting at least 250 Texas residents.

After two rounds of public comments, the Data Security Law of the People’s Republic of China (the “DSL”) was formally issued on June 10, 2021, and will become effective on September 1, 2021.

Compared to previous drafts of the law, the final version of the DSL differs with respect to:

• establishing a work coordination mechanism and clarifying the duties of each governmental authority;
• establishing an administration system for state core data;
• encouraging data development and use to make public service more intelligent and requiring consideration of the needs of the elderly and people with disabilities when providing intelligent public services;
• protecting the security of government data; and
• increasing the punishment dynamics for violations of the law. 

On June 9, 2021, President Biden signed an Executive Order on Protecting Americans’ Sensitive Data from Foreign Adversaries (the “EO” or “Biden EO”). The Biden EO elaborates on measures to address the national emergency regarding the information technology supply chain declared in 2019 by the Trump administration in Executive Order 13873. Simultaneously, the Biden EO also revokes three Trump administration orders (Executive Orders 13942, 13943 and 13971) that sought to prohibit transactions with TikTok, WeChat, their parent companies and certain other “Chinese connected software applications.” In their place, the Biden EO provides for (1) cabinet-level assessments and future recommendations to protect against risks from foreign adversaries’ (a) access to U.S. persons’ sensitive data and (b) involvement in software application supply and development; and (2) the continuing evaluation of transactions involving connected software applications that threaten U.S. national security.

On June 4, 2021, the European Commission published the final version of the implementing decision on standard contractual clauses for transfers of personal data to third countries under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), as well as the final version of the new standard contractual clauses (the “SCCs”). The European Commission had previously published draft versions of the implementing decision and the SCCs in November 2020.

On May 10, 2021, the Ecuadorian National Assembly unanimously approved the Organic Law on Data Protection (the “Data Protection Law”), which President Moreno is expected to sign.

On April 29, 2021, the New York City Council passed the Tenant Data Privacy Act (“TDPA”), which would regulate the collection, use, safeguarding and retention of tenant data by owners of “smart access” buildings. The TDPA has been sent to the New York City Mayor’s desk for signature.

On April 29, 2021, China issued a second version of the draft Personal Information Protection Law (“Draft PIPL”). The Draft PIPL will be open for public comments until May 28, 2021.

While the framework of this version of the Draft PIPL is the same as the prior version issued on October 21, 2020, below we summarize the material changes in the second version of the Draft PIPL.

On April 29, 2021, China issued a second draft version of the Data Security Law (“Draft DSL”). The Draft DSL will be open for public comments until May 28, 2021.

While the framework of this version of the Draft DSL is the same as the prior version issued on July 3, 2020, below we summarize the material changes in the second version of the Draft DSL.

On March 25, 2021, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership at Hunton Andrews Kurth organized an expert roundtable on the EU Approach to Regulating AI–How Can Experimentation Help Bridge Innovation and Regulation? (the “Roundtable”). The Roundtable was hosted by Dragoș Tudorache, Member of Parliament and Chair of the Artificial Intelligence in the Digital Age (“AIDA”) Committee of the European Parliament.  The Roundtable gathered industry representatives and data protection authorities (“DPAs”) as well Axel Voss, Rapporteur of the AIDA Committee.

On March 30, 2021, Hunton Andrews Kurth will host a webinar examining Virginia’s new Consumer Data Protection Act.

On March 15, 2021, the California Attorney General (“AG”) approved additional CCPA Regulations that impact certain sections of the initial CCPA Regulations that went into effect on August 14, 2020. These amendments, which were the subject of the third and fourth sets of proposed modifications, went into effect on March 15, 2021.

On March 2, 2021, Virginia’s Governor, Ralph Northam, signed the Consumer Data Protection Act into law without any further amendments. In addition to California, Virginia is now the second state to enact major privacy legislation of general applicability in the U.S.

On February 23, 2021, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership at Hunton Andrews Kurth hosted a webinar on China’s Data Privacy Landscape and Upcoming Legislation.

In the February 2021 issue of the Data Protection Leader, Hunton partner Dora Luo discusses China’s draft Personal Information Protection Law (“Draft PIPL”) (in Chinese) in the context of other comprehensive data protection frameworks, such as the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”).

As we previously reported, significant data privacy bills, titled the Consumer Data Protection Act, are working their way through the Virginia legislature. If enacted, Virginia would be the second state to enact major data privacy legislation of general applicability.

On February 10, 2021, the European Data Protection Supervisor (“EDPS”) published two opinions on the European Commission’s proposals for a Digital Services Act (“DSA”) and a Digital Markets Act (“DMA”). The proposed DSA and DMA are part of a set of measures announced in the 2020 European Strategy for Data and have two main goals: (1) creating a safer digital space in which the fundamental rights of all users of digital services are protected, and (2) establishing a level playing field to foster innovation, growth and competitiveness in the European Single Market and globally.

On February 5, 2021, the state Senate of Virginia voted unanimously to approve Senate Bill 1392, titled the Consumer Data Protection Act, after the House of Delegates approved an identical House bill by an 89-9 vote. Each bill likely will be heard in committee next week by the opposite chamber, which provides additional opportunities to make amendments. Minor, clarifying amendments will likely be added in committee, but they are not expected to alter the main components of the bill. Virginia’s General Assembly will adjourn Sine Die on March 1, and legislators have until then to finalize the details of the legislation. Virginia’s Governor Ralph Northam would be in a position to sign the bill later in March. Notably, the Governor has line item veto authority, so the bill could also possibly be amended after it passes the General Assembly.

On February 4, 2021, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) announced (in French) that it sent letters and emails to approximately 300 organizations, both private and public, to remind them of the new cookie law rules and the need to audit sites and apps to comply with those rules by March 31, 2021.

The global privacy and cybersecurity team at Hunton Andrews Kurth has authored multiple chapters of the 2021 Data Protection & Privacy guide by Lexology’s Getting the Deal Through. Partner Aaron P. Simpson and practice chair Lisa J. Sotto served as contributing editors of the ninth edition of the annual guide, which provides summary and analysis in key areas of law, practice and regulation for 150 jurisdictions across the globe.

On December 22, 2020, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law legislation that temporarily bans the use or purchase of facial recognition and other biometric identifying technology in public and private schools until at least July 1, 2022. The legislation also directs the New York Commissioner of Education (the “Commissioner”) to conduct a study on whether this technology is appropriate for use in schools.

Hunton attorneys Dora Luo and Yanchen Wang recently published a new Guidance Note for OneTrust DataGuidance on China’s data protection laws.

On December 10, 2020, the California Attorney General (“AG”) issued a fourth set of proposed modifications to the regulations implementing the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”). This set of modifications builds upon the third draft set previously issued on October 12, 2020, which had not been finalized. Specifically, the modifications would revise portions of the regulations relating to the notice of right to opt-out.

According to the AG’s website, the fourth set of modified draft regulations are subject to another public comment period. The ...

On November 27, 2020, New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in the lawsuit it brought against Google on February 20, 2020, regarding alleged violations of the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA”) in connection with G-Suite for Education (“GSFE”). As we previously reported, the U.S. District Court of New Mexico had granted Google’s motion to dismiss, in which it asserted that its terms governed the collection of data through GSFE and that it had complied with COPPA by using schools both as “intermediaries” and as the parent’s agent for parental notice and consent, in line with Federal Trade Commission Guidance.

On November 17, 2020, the Senate passed by unanimous consent H.R. 1668, the Internet of Things (“IoT”) Cybersecurity Improvement Act (the “IoT Bill”). The House previously passed the IoT Bill in September after negotiations with the Senate to resolve differences in their respective bills. The IoT Bill now heads to the President’s desk for signature.

On November 12, 2020, somewhat in the shadow of the new standard contractual clauses for data transfers to recipients outside the European Economic Area (“EEA”), the European Commission also adopted draft standard contractual clauses to be used between controllers and processors in the EEA (“EEA Controller-Processor SCCs”).

On November 12, 2020, the European Commission published a draft implementing decision on standard contractual clauses for the transfer of personal data to third countries pursuant to the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), along with its draft set of new standard contractual clauses (the “SCCs”).

On November 11, 2020, the European Data Protection Board (the “EDPB”) published its long-awaited recommendations following the Schrems II judgement regarding supplementary measures in the context of international transfer safeguards such as Standard Contractual Clauses (“SCCs”) (the “Recommendations”). In addition, the EDPB published recommendations on the European Essential Guarantees for surveillance measures (the “EEG Recommendations”), which complement the Recommendations. The Recommendations are subject to a public consultation, which closes on December 21, 2020.

On November 19, 2020, Hunton Andrews Kurth will host a webinar examining the recently approved California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”) and how it revises the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”).

On November 3, 2020, California voters approved California Proposition 24, the California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”). As we previously reported, the CPRA significantly amends and expands upon the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, which became enforceable earlier this year. The new and modified obligations under the CPRA will become operative on January 1, 2023, and, with the exception of access requests, will apply to personal information collected by businesses on or after January 1, 2022. Notably, the CPRA establishes the California Privacy Protection Agency ...

On October 21, 2020, China issued a draft of Personal Information Protection Law (“Draft PIPL”) for public comments. The Draft PIPL marks the introduction of a comprehensive system for the protection of personal information in China.

On October 12, 2020, the California Attorney General (“AG”) issued a third set of proposed modifications to the regulations implementing the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”). As we previously reported, the long-awaited CCPA regulations were approved by the California Office of Administrative law and became effective on August 14, 2020. This new set of proposed modifications would revise portions of the regulations relating to the notice of right to opt-out, methods for submitting opt-out of sale requests, and verification of authorized agents ...

On October 6, 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) handed down Grand Chamber judgments determining that the ePrivacy Directive (the “Directive”) does not allow for EU Member States to adopt legislation intended to restrict the scope of its confidentiality obligations unless they comply with the general principles of EU law, particularly the principle of proportionality, as well as fundamental rights under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the “Charter”).

On October 1, 2020, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) launched a public consultation on its draft Statutory Guidance (the “Guidance”). The Guidance provides an overview of the ICO’s powers and how it intends to regulate and enforce data protection legislation in the UK, including its approach to calculating fines.

On September 25, 2020, the District Court of New Mexico granted Google’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed on February 20, 2020, by New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas alleging, among other claims, that the company violated the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA” or the “Act”) by using G Suite for Education to “spy on New Mexico students’ online activities for its own commercial purposes, without notice to parents and without attempting to obtain parental consent.”

On September 17, 2020, Senator Roger Wicker (MS), Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, along with Senators John Thune (SD), Deb Fischer (NE) and Marsha Blackburn (TN) introduced the Setting an American Framework to Ensure Data Access, Transparency, and Accountability (SAFE DATA) Act (“the Bill”). The Bill marks an official introduction of an update of Senator Wicker’s draft United States Consumer Data Privacy Act of 2019, which was circulated last November.

On September 18, 2020, as confirmed by Brazilian firm Mattos Filho, Veiga Filho, Marrey Jr. e Quiroga Advogados, Brazil’s President signed a bill from Brazil’s Congress bringing the new Brazilian data protection law (Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados Pessoais, “LGPD”) into effect with a retroactive applicability date of August 16, 2020. The LGPD’s sanctions provisions will apply beginning August 1, 2021, based on a previous delay passed by Brazil’s legislature. As we previously reported, on August 26, 2020, Brazil’s Senate had unexpectedly rejected the ...

UPDATE: On September 29, 2020, California Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed AB 1138.

On September 8, 2020, AB 1138, the Parent’s Accountability and Child Protection Act, was enrolled and presented to the California Governor for signature. If signed into law by the Governor, the bill would require a business that operates a social media website or application, beginning July 1, 2021, to obtain verifiable parental consent for California-based children that the business “actually knows” are under 13 years of age (hereafter, “Children”). The bill defines “social media” to mean an electronic service or account held open to the general public to post, on either a public or semi-public page dedicated to a particular user, electronic content or communication, including but not limited to videos, photos or messages intended to facilitate the sharing of information, ideas, personal messages or other content.

The Centre for Information Policy Leadership at Hunton Andrews Kurth (“CIPL”) and the Data Security Council of India (“DSCI”) have published a report on Enabling Accountable Data Transfers from India to the United States under India’s Proposed Personal Data Protection Bill (the “Report”).

On September 1, 2020, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership at Hunton Andrews Kurth (“CIPL”) and the Centro de Direito, Internet e Sociedade of Instituto Brasiliense de Direito Público (“CEDIS-IDP”) released a new paper (“Paper”) on the Top Priorities for Public and Private Organizations to Effectively Implement the New Brazilian General Data Protection Law (“LGPD”). This paper is part of their joint-project on effective implementation and regulation under the LGPD.

On September 3, 2020, the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (“LIBE Committee”) of the European Parliament held a meeting to discuss the future of EU-U.S. data flows following the Schrems II judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”). In addition to Members of the European Parliament (“MEPs”), the meeting’s participants included Justice Commissioner Didier Reynders, European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) Chair Andrea Jelinek and Maximilian Schrems. Importantly, Commissioner Reynders stated during the meeting that the new Standard Contractual Clauses (“SCCs”) might be adopted by the end of 2020, at the earliest.

UPDATE: On September 25, 2020, California Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed SB-980.

On August 31, 2020, the California Senate joined the Assembly in passing SB-980, as amended, a bill to establish the Genetic Information Privacy Act (the “Act”), which would require direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies to comply with certain privacy and data security provisions, including providing consumers with prescribed notice; obtaining consumers’ express consent regarding the collection, use and disclosure of genetic data; and enabling consumers to access and delete their genetic data. The bill is pending California Governor Gavin Newsom’s signature.

On August 30, 2020, the California legislature passed AB-1281. As background, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”) currently exempts from most of its requirements certain information collected in the HR context and certain information collected about B2B personnel. Each exemption is scheduled to sunset on January 1, 2021. As we previously reported, the California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”) ballot initiative, if passed during the state’s November 3, 2020 general election, would extend the CCPA’s HR and B2B exemptions to January 1, 2023 ...

On August 26, 2020, as reported by Brazilian firm Mattos Filho, Veiga Filho, Marrey Jr. e Quiroga Advogados, the Brazilian Senate unexpectedly rejected the President’s Provisional Measure that was previously passed by the House of Representatives and aimed to postpone the applicability of the new Brazilian data protection law (Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados Pessoais, or “LGPD”). The LGPD now will come into effect when the President signs the bill within 15 days of receiving the bill from Congress. The LGPD’s sanctions provisions, however, will continue to apply from August 1, 2021. The President also has issued a decree creating the new Brazilian data protection authority.

On August 14, 2020, the California Attorney General announced that the California Office of Administrative Law (“OAL”) approved the final regulations issued under the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”) and filed them with the California Secretary of State. As we previously reported, the California Attorney General submitted the draft regulations to the OAL on June 1, 2020, and requested that the regulations become effective on the same day they are filed with the Secretary of State. The OAL has complied with that request, and the regulations go into effect ...

On August 4, 2020, Senators Jeff Merkley (OR) and Bernie Sanders (VT) introduced the National Biometric Information Privacy Act of 2020 (the “bill”). The bill would require companies to obtain individuals’ consent before collecting biometric data. Specifically, the bill would prohibit private companies from collecting biometric data—including eye scans, voiceprints, faceprints and fingerprints—without individuals’ written consent, and from profiting off of biometric data. The bill provides individuals and state attorneys general the ability to institute legal proceedings against entities for alleged violations of the act.

The U.S. Department of Commerce has issued two new sets of FAQs in light of the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (“CJEU’s”) recent decision to invalidate the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield in Schrems II. We previously reported on the Schrems II ruling and its implication for businesses that transfer personal data to the U.S. The new FAQs from the Department of Commerce address the impact of the decision on the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework and the Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield framework.

On July 16, 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) issued its landmark judgment in the Schrems II case (case C-311/18). In its judgment, the CJEU concluded that the Standard Contractual Clauses (the “SCCs”) issued by the European Commission for the transfer of personal data to data processors established outside of the EU are valid. Unexpectedly, the Court invalidated the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework.

In one of the most important cases on global data transfers, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) will rule on the validity of the Standard Contractual Clauses (“SCCs”) in the Schrems II case (case C-311/18) on July 16, 2020. Invalidation of the SCCs would leave businesses scrambling to find an alternative data transfer mechanism. But there may be significant practical challenges for businesses even if the SCCs survive.

In a case that has garnered widespread interest, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) will deliver its judgment in the Schrems II case (case C-311/18) on July 16, 2020, determining the validity of the controller–to-processor Standard Contractual Clauses (“SCCs”) as a cross-border data transfer mechanism under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). If the SCCs are invalidated, the judgment would deliver a significant blow to the numerous businesses that rely on them, leaving many scrambling to find a suitable alternative transfer mechanism. Even if the SCCs survive, they may become more cumbersome to use.

On June 26, 2020, New Zealand Justice Minister Andrew Little announced that the bill to repeal and replace New Zealand’s existing Privacy Act 1993 (the “Privacy Bill”) had passed its third reading in Parliament. The Privacy Bill received royal assent on June 30, 2020.

When compared to the EU or the U.S., China has lacked a comprehensive data protection and data security law that regulates in detail requirements and procedures relating to the collection, processing, control and storage of personal data. In recent years, China has seen developments on data protection both in legislation and in practice. Recently, another significant draft law on data security was issued by the Chinese legislative authority. On June 28 to June 30, 2020, the 20th Session of the 13th Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of China (the “NPC”) deliberated on the draft of the Data Security Law (the “Draft”), and on July 3, published the Draft on the NPC’s official website for public comment. The public comment period for the Draft will end on August 16, 2020. It is expected that the Draft will be finalized within the year and that the regulatory requirements relating to data security eventually will be reflected in law in China.

On July 1, 2020, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”) became enforceable by the California Attorney General. Under the statute, businesses are granted 30 days to cure any alleged violations of the law after being notified of alleged noncompliance. If a business fails to cure the alleged violation, it may be subject to an injunction and liable for a civil penalty of up to $2,500 for each violation or $7,500 for each intentional violation.

Zeyn Bhyat of ENSafrica reports that on June 22, 2020, it was announced that South Africa’s comprehensive privacy law known as the Protection of Personal Information Act, 2013 (the “POPIA”) will become effective on July 1, 2020. POPIA acts as the more detailed framework legislation supporting South Africa’s constitutional right to privacy.

According to a memorandum issued by the California Secretary of State on June 24, 2020, the California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”) has garnered enough signatures to be placed on the State’s General Election ballot this November 3, 2020. As we previously reported, the CPRA would amend the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”) to create new and additional privacy rights and obligations in California. According to early polling by Californians for Consumer Privacy (the group behind the CPRA), nine in 10 Californians would vote to support a ballot measure ...

On May 13, 2020, Senator Alessandro Vieira presented Bill n. 2630/2020 (“Bill”) to the Brazilian Senate, which the Senate is calling the “Fake News Law.” Officially, this Bill establishes the Brazilian law of “freedom, responsibility and transparency on the internet.” It was introduced in the context of the alleged use of fake news by political parties and other public sector stakeholders in Brazil.

On June 12, 2020, the Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro approved Law #14,010/2020 (the “Law”). This Law was created to establish an urgent legal framework for the private sector in the context of the COVID-19 crisis. Among other topics, it delays until August 1, 2021 the applicability of the provisions relating to sanctions for non-compliance with the new Brazilian data protection law (Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados Pessoais, “LGPD”).

On June 11, 2020, the California Senate amended AB-713 to the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”). The Senate’s recent amendments impose new contractual obligations on the use or sale of de-identified information and modify the exemption from the CCPA for information used for public health purposes. The California Assembly had originally passed AB-713 in 2019 to (1) explicitly carve out from coverage by the CCPA information de-identified pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) Privacy Rule, and (2) expand the CCPA exemption for information used for research purposes. AB-713 is intended to “preserv[e] access to information needed to conduct important health-related research that will benefit Californians.” The revised version of AB-713 containing the Senate’s recent amendments has not yet passed either house of the California legislature.

On June 1, 2020, the Office of the California Attorney General submitted the final California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) proposed regulations to the California Office of Administrative Law (“OAL”). Notably, the final proposed regulations are the same as the draft issued in March. The OAL must review the rulemaking package for procedural compliance with California’s Administrative Procedure Act. The OAL’s typical 30-day review period has been extended by 60 calendar days under an executive order related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Assuming OAL approves the regulations, the final text will be filed with the Secretary of State.

On May 14, 2020 Democrats in both the House and Senate introduced the Public Health Emergency Privacy Act (“the Act”). In the House, the Act was sponsored by Representatives Jan Schakowsky (IL), Anna Eshoo (CA) and Suzan DelBene (WA), and in the Senate was sponsored by Senators Richard Blumenthal (CT) and Mark Warner (VA). Similar to the recently-introduced COVID-19 Consumer Data Protection Act of 2020, the Act would put temporary rules in place regarding the collection, use and disclosure of emergency health data used to combat the spread of the coronavirus. The rules imposed by the Act would only apply during the course of the Public Health Emergency as declared by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) and would only apply to specific uses of certain personal data.

Pakistan’s Ministry of Information Technology and Telecommunication recently introduced a new draft of Pakistan’s Personal Data Protection Bill, 2020 (the “Bill”) and launched a public consultation regarding the same. The public consultation period will end on May 15, 2020. The Bill, which applies to “any person who processes” or “has control over or authorizes the processing of” any personal data, if the data subject, the controller or processor are located in Pakistan, would establish certain requirements and restrictions related to the processing of personal data, as well as penalties for violating the law. In addition, under the Bill, the federal government would, within six months of coming into force, establish a Personal Data Protection Authority of Pakistan with rulemaking authority to enforce the act.

In a “Ten Years Hence” speaker series hosted by the University of Notre Dame, Lisa Sotto, Chair of Hunton Andrews Kurth’s global Privacy and Cybersecurity practice, highlights why privacy and cybersecurity will remain relevant issues now and for decades to come in a lecture on Privacy and Cybersecurity: The New Frontier.

On April 28, 2020, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) at Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP submitted formal comments to the European Commission’s consultation on its roadmap for the two-year evaluation of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) (the “Response”).

On May 4, 2020, Californians for Consumer Privacy (the group behind the ballot initiative that inspired the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”)) announced that it had collected over 900,000 signatures to qualify the California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”) for the November 2020 ballot. The group announced that it was taking steps to submit the CPRA for inclusion on the November ballot in counties across California. The CPRA would amend the CCPA to create new and additional privacy rights and obligations in California, including the following:

On April 29, 2020, the Brazilian President issued Provisional Measure #959/2020, which provisionally delays the applicability date of the Brazilian data protection law (Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados Pessoais – “LGPD”) to May 3, 2021.

California Attorney General (“AG”) Xavier Becerra recently issued an alert emphasizing the rights of California consumers under the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) during the COVID-19 pandemic. The alert follows media reports that the AG’s office is “committed to enforcing the law upon finalizing the rules or [by] July 1, whichever comes first,” even with the “new reality created by COVID-19.”

On April 3, 2020, the Brazilian Senate approved Bill of Law (“PL 1179/2020”), which includes a number of emergency measures intended to address the COVID-19 pandemic. Importantly, one provision delays the effective date of the Brazilian Data Protection Law (Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados Pessoais, “LGPD”) until January 2021. Fines and sanctions for companies that fail to comply with the LGPD are now scheduled to become effective August 2021.

On March 18, 2020, Washington Governor Jay Inslee signed into law a bill amending Washington State’s Agency Breach Notification Law (“Agency Breach Law”). The Agency Breach Law applies to all state and local agencies, including state and municipal offices, departments, bureaus and commissions.

On March 19, 2020, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) published a new statement regarding processing personal data in the context of the COVID-19 outbreak. The EDPB said that emergency is a legal condition which may legitimize restrictions of individual freedoms, provided that these restrictions are proportionate and limited to the emergency period. Several considerations come into play in weighing the lawful processing of personal data in these circumstances.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, on March 12, 2020, the Washington House and Senate were unable to reach consensus on the Washington Privacy Act.  As we reported this January, lawmakers in Washington state introduced a new version of the Washington Privacy Act, a comprehensive data privacy bill.  In the past two months, the much-discussed bill flew through the Washington Senate and House, but ultimately failed to pass.

The bill’s House version would have provided for a private right of action while the bill’s Senate version would have given sole enforcement authority to the state ...

On March 11, 2020, the California Attorney General (“AG”) issued a second set of modified draft regulations implementing the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”). The AG has provided a redline to the initial modified draft regulations about which we previously reported. According to the AG’s website, the second set of modified draft regulations are subject to another public comment period. The deadline to submit written comments is March 27, 2020, at 5:00 p.m. (PST).

On February 10, 2020, the California Attorney General issued a slightly revised version of the modified draft regulations implementing the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, having omitted a revision in Section 999.317(g) from the version published on February 7, 2020. The deadline to submit written comments has been extended to February 25, 2020, at 5:00 p.m. (PST).

On February 7, 2020, the California Attorney General (“AG”) issued modified draft regulations implementing the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”). The AG has provided a redline to the initial draft regulations about which we previously reported.  According to the AG’s website, the modified draft regulations are subject to another public comment period. The deadline to submit written comments is February 24, 2020, at 5:00 p.m. (PST).

On January 16, 2020, the Senate approved the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (“USMCA”), sending it to the President’s desk for ratification. Mexico ratified the Agreement in June 2019, and Canada is expected to follow suit later this month. To coincide with its ratification, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) at Hunton Andrews Kurth issued a white paper entitled What Does the USMCA Mean for a U.S. Federal Privacy Law?

On December 11, 2019, an updated version of India’s draft data privacy bill was introduced in the Indian Parliament (the “Draft Bill”) by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (“MeitY”). The Draft Bill updates a prior version submitted to MeitY in July 2018.

On November 29, 2019, Senator Roger Wicker (MS), Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, circulated a draft of a comprehensive federal privacy bill entitled the United States Consumer Data Privacy Act of 2019 (“the Bill”).

As reported by Russian law firm Alrud, on November 21, 2019, the Russian State Duma passed a bill (the “Bill”) that would increase the minimum fines that may be imposed for violations of Russia’s data protection laws. The Bill would allow for maximum administrative fines of 18 million RUB (approximately $282,000 USD) for violations of Russia’s data localization requirement, which requires entities processing personal data of Russian citizens to process that data in databases located within the territory of Russia. This represents a significant departure from the maximum administrative fines that may be imposed for other data protection violations in Russia as it is significantly higher than other potential penalties.

On September 20, 2019, Bloomberg Law reported that California Attorney General Xavier Becerra anticipates that draft regulations implementing the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”) will be published this October. According to Bloomberg’s reporting, the Attorney General aims to issue final regulations by January 1, 2020, the CCPA’s compliance deadline. Under the CCPA, the Attorney General may begin enforcement of the law six months after the publication of final regulations or July 1, 2020, whichever is sooner ...

Ecuador is seeking to pass a data protection bill in the wake of a massive data breach that resulted in the personal data of up to 20 million people being made available online. According to reports, the bill draws on the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) in certain ways—for example, as relates to international data transfers—but diverges in other respects. The data protection bill headed to Ecuador’s national assembly today.

There are six bills pending before the California legislature that would amend the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”). These bills could significantly alter the law’s application and associated compliance obligations, including with respect to HR data, B2B customer data, loyalty programs and the definition of “personal information.” As of September 12, three bills have passed out of the California Senate and are pending before the Assembly for a concurring vote: AB 874, AB 1146 and AB 1564. The California legislature must vote on all pending CCPA ...

On July 25, 2019, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law Senate Bill S5575B (the “Bill”), an amendment to New York’s breach notification law (the “Act”). The Bill expands the Act’s definition of “breach of the security of the system” and the types of information (i.e., “private information”) covered by the Act, and makes certain changes to the Act’s requirements for breach notification.

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.

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.

Today marks one year since the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”) was passed and signed into law. The CCPA signals a dramatic shift in the data privacy regime in the United States, imposing on covered businesses the most prescriptive general privacy rules in the nation. In addition, the past year has seen a legislative explosion in the form of similar proposed state laws and potential federal data privacy legislation.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott recently signed into law HB 4390 (the “Bill”), which amends the state’s data breach notification law and creates an advisory council tasked with studying and developing recommendations regarding data privacy legislation.

Maryland Governor Larry Hogan recently signed into law House Bill 1154 (the “Bill”), which amends the state’s data breach notification law. Among other obligations, the amendments expand the required actions a business must take after becoming aware of a data security breach.

On June 1, 2019, New Decree No. 2019-536 (the “Implementing Decree”) took force, enabling the French Data Protection Act, as amended by an Ordinance of December 12, 2018, likewise to enter into force. This marks the completion of the adaption of French law to the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) and the EU Police and Criminal Justice Directive (Directive (EU) 2016/680).

On May 30, 2019, the Maine House and Senate passed a bill (L.D. 946) that will place restrictions on broadband Internet service providers from selling customer data without the customer’s affirmative consent. The bill will apply to providers operating within Maine in connection with the broadband Internet access services they provide to customers who are physically located and billed for service received in Maine.

On May 24, 2019, Oregon Governor Kate Brown signed Senate Bill 684 (the “Bill”) into law. The Bill, which takes effect January 1, 2020, amends the Oregon Consumer Identity Theft Protection Act (“OCITPA”) by enhancing the breach notification requirements applicable to third-party vendors.

On June 4, 2019, Hunton hosted a webinar with partners Lisa Sotto, Aaron Simpson, Brittany Bacon and Fred Eames on the evolving U.S. privacy landscape. The past year has seen highly consequential legislative developments in U.S. privacy law affecting compliance obligations for businesses that have or use consumer data. Various states and the U.S. Congress are considering bills that could transform privacy in the United States. In this program, our speakers discuss the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”) and other significant state and federal privacy legislation.

On May 27, 2019, the Illinois General Assembly voted 79-32 to approve Senate Bill 1624, an amendment to the Personal Information Protection Act (“PIPA”). The bill’s sponsor, Senator Suzy Glowiak (D), expects Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker (D) to sign the bill into law in short order. The amendment had already unanimously passed the state Senate last month.

On May 16, 2019, the California State Senate Appropriations Committee did not approve SB 561, a bill that would have amended the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) to expand the private right of action to permit consumers to sue for any violations of the CCPA. The Committee’s decision to hold the bill means it will not pass out of the Senate this session.

On May 10, 2019, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed into law a bill that amends New Jersey’s data breach notification law to expand the definition of personal information to include online account information. The amendment goes into effect September 1, 2019.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, on May 7, 2019, Washington State Governor Jay Inslee signed a bill (HB 1071) amending Washington’s data breach notification law. The new requirements include the following:

• Expanded Definition of Personal Information. HB 1071 expands the definition of “personal information.” Washington’s breach notification law previously defined personal information as an individual’s name in combination with the individual’s Social Security number, state identification card number, or financial account or credit or debit card number in combination with any required security code, access code or password that would permit access to an individual’s financial account. HB 1071 adds the following data elements to the definition, when compromised in combination with an individual’s name:
  • full date of birth;
  • private key that is unique to an individual and that is used to authenticate or sign an electronic record;
  • student, military or passport identification number;
  • health insurance policy number or health insurance identification number;
  • any information about a consumer’s medical history or mental or physical condition or about a health care professional’s medical diagnosis or treatment of the consumer; or
  • biometric data generated by automatic measurements of an individual’s biological characteristics such as a fingerprint, voiceprint, eye retinas, irises or other unique biological patterns or characteristics that is used to identify a specific individual.