Privacy & Information Security Law Blog

On February 9, 2020, amidst the ongoing coronavirus outbreak ("2019-nCoV”) in China, in order to protect personal information collected during the fight against coronavirus, such as the personal data of diagnosed patients, suspected patients and individuals who have been in close contact with diagnosed patients, the Cyberspace Administration of China released a Circular on Ensuring Effective Personal Information Protection and Utilization of Big Data to Support Joint Efforts for Epidemic Prevention and Control (the “Circular”) to emphasize the protection of relevant personal data.

At this point, most companies doing business in California are aware of the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”), and most have been bracing for the eventual onslaught of class action litigation to follow its passage.

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (“OCIE”) recently announced the publication of a report entitled “Cybersecurity and Resiliency Observations.” The report summarizes the observations gleaned from OCIE’s cybersecurity examinations of broker-dealers, investment advisers, clearing agencies, national securities exchanges and other SEC registrants.

On January 21, 2020, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) published the final version of its Age Appropriate Design Code (“the code”), which sets out the standards that online services need to meet in order to protect children’s privacy. It applies to providers of information services likely to be accessed by children in the UK, including applications, programs, websites, social media platforms, messaging services, games, community environments and connected toys and devices, where these offerings involve the processing of personal data.

On January 13, 2020, lawmakers in Washington state introduced a new version of the Washington Privacy Act, a comprehensive data privacy bill, in both the state Senate and House of Representatives. It would apply to companies conducting business in Washington or who provide products or services to Washington residents.

On January 8, 2020, the Information Commissioner's Office (“ICO”) launched a consultation on its draft direct marketing code of practice (the “Draft Code”), as required by section 122 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (“DPA 18”). The Draft Code is open for public consultation until March 4, 2020.

According to MLex, on January 6, 2020, the Seoul Eastern District Court found Kim Jin-Hwan, a privacy officer of the South Korean travel agency Hana Tour Service Inc., guilty of negligence in failing to prevent a 2017 data breach that affected over 465,000 customers of the agency and 29,000 Hana Tour employees.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has signaled his intent to overhaul data privacy within Canada. Prime Minister Trudeau recently sent a Mandate Letter to Navdeep Bains, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, that contained a number of mandates with respect to data privacy. Specifically, the Mandate Letter states that Minister Bains is expected to work with the Minister of Justice, Attorney General of Canada and the Minister of Canadian Heritage to advance Canada’s Digital Charter and enhance powers for the Privacy Commissioner, in order to establish a new set of online rights, including:

• data portability;
• the ability to withdraw, remove and erase basic personal data from a platform;
• the knowledge of how personal data is being used, including with a national advertising registry, and the ability to withdraw consent for the sharing or sale of data;
• the ability to review and challenge the amount of personal data that a company or government has collected;
• proactive data security requirements;
• the ability to be informed when personal data is breached with appropriate compensation; and,
• the ability to be free from online discrimination including bias and harassment.

On December 18, 2019, the House Energy and Commerce Committee released a bipartisan staff-level draft privacy bill (“the bill”). While comprehensive in scope, much of the key language in the bill was left in brackets, meaning the two sides have not yet reached a compromise on final language.

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 December 10, 2019, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) published the final version of its standard (“Referential”) concerning the processing of personal data in the context of whistleblowing hotlines. The Referential on whistleblowing hotlines was adopted following a public consultation launched by the CNIL on April 11, 2019. It replaces the CNIL’s Single Authorization AU-004 decision regarding such data processing, and anticipates certain changes introduced by the EU Directive on the protection of whistleblowers (Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of October 23, 2019), which EU Member States will have to implement into their national laws by December 17, 2021. The CNIL also published a set of questions and answers (“FAQs”), which aim to answer some practical questions that the CNIL are regularly asked regarding the operation of a whistleblowing hotline.

On December 11, 2019, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) published its draft guidelines 5/2019 (the “Guidelines”) on the criteria of the right to be forgotten in search engine cases under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). The Guidelines aim to provide guidance on: (1) the grounds on which individuals can rely for submitting a request for the right to be forgotten in relation to links to web pages containing their personal data; and (2) the exceptions to the right to be forgotten that search engine operators could use to reject such a request. The Guidelines will be supplemented by an appendix on the assessment of criteria for the handling of individuals’ complaints by EU data protection authorities following the refusal by search engine operators to grant the individuals’ request.

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 November 13, 2019, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) published its draft guidelines 4/2019 (the “Guidelines”) on the obligation of Data Protection by Design and by Default (“DPbDD”) set out under Article 25 of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”).

On November 18, 2019, the ranking members from four Senate Committees (Senator Maria Cantwell (WA) from Commerce, Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA) from Judiciary, Senator Sherrod Brown (OH), and Senator Patty Murray (WA) from Health, Education, Labor and Pensions) released a set of “core principles” for federal privacy legislation.

The European Data Protection Board recently published on its website that the Austrian Data Protection Authority (“Austrian DPA”) imposed an €18 million fine (approximately $20 million) on the Austrian Postal Service, Österreichische Post AG (“ÖPAG”), for various violations of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). After conducting an investigation, the Austrian DPA established that ÖPAG unlawfully processed and sold data with respect to its customers’ alleged political affinities. Another GDPR violation was related to the ÖPAG’s ...

On November 5, 2019, Representatives Anna G. Eshoo (CA) and Zoe Lofgren (CA) introduced the Online Privacy Act (the “Act”), which proposes sweeping legislation that would create federal privacy rights for individuals, require companies to adhere to data minimization and establish a federal Digital Privacy Agency (“DPA”).

On September 24, 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) released its judgments in cases C-507/17, Google v. CNIL and C-136/17, G.C. and Others v. CNIL regarding (1) the territorial scope of the right to be forgotten, referred to in the judgement as the “right to de-referencing,” and (2) the conditions in which individuals may exercise the right to be forgotten in relation to links to web pages containing sensitive data. The Court’s analysis considered both the EU Data Protection Directive and the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”).

On September 9, 2019, the Dutch Data Protection Authority (Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens, the “Dutch DPA”) published a report on the privacy complaints it received between January 2019 and June 2019 (the “Report”).

California marked the end of the 2019 legislative session this past Friday, September 13, by passing five out of six pending bills to amend the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”). The bills – AB-25, AB-874, AB-1146, AB-1355 and AB-1564 – now head to California Governor Newsom’s desk for signature, which must occur by October 13 for the bills to be signed into law. The only pending bill not to pass was AB-846, which would have addressed the law’s application to customer loyalty programs; it was ordered to the inactive file at the request of Senator Jackson.

The Cayman Islands Data Protection Law, 2017 (“DPL”), which was published in June 2017, will go into force on September 30, 2019. The DPL includes requirements for the protection of personal data and is centered upon eight data protection principles. According to the newly minted Cayman Islands data protection authority, the DPL aligns the Cayman Islands with other major jurisdictions around the world. It includes many concepts that exist in other comprehensive data protection laws, such as the EU General Data Protection Regulation. For example, the DPL includes personal data processing limitations, individual data subject rights, data breach notification obligations and cross-border transfer restrictions.

On August 21, 2019, the Swedish Data Protection Authority (the “Swedish DPA”) imposed its first fine since the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) came into effect in May, 2018. The Swedish DPA fined a school 200,000 Swedish Kroner for creating a facial recognition program in violation of the GDPR.

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 June 6, 2019, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) announced that it levied a fine of €400,000 on SERGIC, a French real estate service provider, for failure to (1) implement appropriate security measures and (2) define data retention periods for the personal data of unsuccessful rental candidates.

On May 27, 2019, Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (A.D. 2019) (the “PDPA”), which was passed by the National Legislative Assembly on February 28, 2019, was finally published in the Government Gazette, and thus became effective on May 28, 2019. Although now effective, the main operative provisions concerning personal data protection (including requests for data subjects’ consent; collection/use and disclosure of personal data; rights of data subjects; complaints; civil liabilities and penalties) will not come into force until one year after their ...

On April 15, 2019, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (the “ICO”) issued for public consultation a draft code of practice, “Age Appropriate Design,” that will regulate the provision of online services likely to be accessed by children in the UK. Given the extraterritorial reach of the UK Data Protection Act 2018, organizations based outside of the UK may be subject to the code, which is expected to take effect by the end of 2019. The deadline for responding to the public consultation is May 31, 2019.

On April 24, 2019, the Federal Trade Commission announced two data security cases involving online operators—one, an online rewards website, and the second, a dress-up games website—that were alleged to have failed to take reasonable steps to secure consumers’ data, which allowed hackers to breach both websites.

On April 15, 2019, the Greek Data Protection Authority (“DPA”) fined Hellenic Petroleum S.A. EUR 20,000 for unlawful processing of personal data and EUR 10,000 for failing to adopt appropriate data security measures.

On April 22, 2019, Washington state legislators voted to send HB 1071 (the “Bill”) to Governor Jay Inslee for consideration. The Bill was requested by Attorney General Ferguson and would strengthen Washington’s data breach law. The request to amend the current law followed Attorney General Ferguson’s third annual Data Breach Report, which found that data breaches affected nearly 3.4 million Washingtonians between July 2017 and July 2018.

On April 12, 2019, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) published draft guidelines 2/2019 on the processing of personal data in the context of the provision of online services to data subjects (the “Guidelines”).

On April 12, 2019, Senator Edward J. Markey (MA) introduced the Privacy Bill of Rights Act (the “Act”), comprehensive privacy legislation intended to protect individuals’ “personal information,” defined as “information that directly or indirectly identifies, relates to, describes, is capable of being associated with, or could reasonably be linked to, a particular individual.” This definition is substantially similar to the definition of “personal information” contained in the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018. The Act also includes an enumerated list of examples that constitute “personal information” and specifically excludes certain publicly available information from the term.

On April 11, 2019, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) launched an online public consultation regarding two new CNIL draft standards (“Referentials”) concerning the processing of personal data for (1) core HR management purposes and (2) the operation of a whistleblowing hotline.

On January 25, 2019, Nigeria’s National Information Technology Development Agency (“NITDA”) issued the Nigeria Data Protection Regulation 2019 (the “Regulation”). Many concepts of the Regulation mirror the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”).

On March 27, 2019, Utah Governor Gary Herbert signed HB57, the first U.S. law to protect electronic information that individuals have shared with certain third parties. The bill, called the “Electronic Information or Data Privacy Act,” places restrictions on law enforcement’s ability to obtain certain types of “electronic information or data” of a Utah resident, including (1) location information, stored data or transmitted data of an electronic device, and (2) data that is stored with a “remote computing service provider” (i.e., data stored in digital devices or servers).  The law provides for situations in which law enforcement may obtain such information without a warrant.

On February 28, 2019, Thailand’s National Legislative Assembly finally approved and endorsed the draft Personal Data Protection Act (the “PDPA”), which will now be submitted for royal endorsement and subsequent publication in the Government Gazette. Publication is anticipated to occur within the next few weeks.

On January 10, 2019, Advocate General Maciej Szpunar (“Advocate General”) of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) issued an Opinion in the case of Google v. CNIL, which is currently pending before the CJEU. In the Opinion, the Advocate General provided his views concerning the territorial scope of the right to be forgotten under the relevant EU Data Protection Directive in the case at hand.

On December 28, 2018, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) published guidance regarding the conditions to be met by organizations in order to lawfully share personal data with business partners or other third parties, such as data brokers. The guidance focused, in particular, on such a scenario in the context of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). The CNIL guidance sets forth the 5 following conditions:

On December 20, 2018, the French data protection authority (the “CNIL”) announced that it levied a €400,000 fine on Uber France SAS, the French establishment of Uber B.V. and Uber Technologies Inc., for failure to implement some basic security measures that made possible the 2016 Uber data breach.

The Agency of Access to Public Information (Agencia de Acceso a la Información Pública) (“AAIP”) has approved a set of guidelines for binding corporate rules (“BCRs”), a mechanism that multinational companies may use in cross-border data transfers to affiliates in countries with inadequate data protection regimes under the AAIP.

On November 9, 2018, Serbia’s National Assembly enacted a new data protection law. The Personal Data Protection Law, which becomes effective on August 21, 2019, is modeled after the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”).

On November 20, 2018, the Illinois Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that could shape future litigation under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”). BIPA requires companies to (i) provide prior written notice to individuals that their biometric data will be collected and the purpose for such collection, (ii) obtain a written release from individuals before collecting their biometric data and (iii) develop a publicly available policy that sets forth a retention schedule and guidelines for deletion once the biometric data is no longer used for the purpose for which it was collected (but for no more than three years after collection). BIPA also prohibits companies from selling, leasing or trading biometric data.

On November 8, 2018, Privacy International (“Privacy”), a non-profit organization “dedicated to defending the right to privacy around the world,” filed complaints under the GDPR against consumer marketing data brokers Acxiom and Oracle. In the complaint, Privacy specifically requests the Information Commissioner (1) conduct a “full investigation into the activities of Acxiom and Oracle,” including into whether the companies comply with the rights (i.e., right to access, right to information, etc.) and safeguards (i.e., data protection impact assessments, data protection by design, etc.) in the GDPR; and (2) “in light of the results of that investigation, [take] any necessary further [action]... that will protect individuals from wide-scale and systematic infringements of the GDPR.”

On November 7, 2018, the Data Protection Authority of Bavaria for the Private Sector (the “BayLDA”) issued a press release describing audits completed and pending in Bavaria since the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) took force.

On September 26, 2018, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) at Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP submitted formal comments to the Indian Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology on the draft Indian Data Protection Bill 2018 (“Draft Bill”).

The Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) in the UK has issued the first formal enforcement action under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the UK Data Protection Act 2018 (the “DPA”) on Canadian data analytics firm AggregateIQ Data Services Ltd. (“AIQ”). The enforcement action, in the form of an Enforcement Notice served under section 149 of the DPA, requires AIQ to “cease processing any personal data of UK or EU citizens obtained from UK political organizations or otherwise for the purposes of data analytics, political campaigning or any other advertising purposes.”

Recently, the UK Information Commissioner's Office (“ICO”) fined credit rating agency Equifax £500,000 for failing to protect the personal data of up to 15 million UK individuals. The data was compromised during a cyber attack that occurred between May 13 and July 30, 2017, which affected 146 million customers globally. Although Equifax’s systems in the U.S. were targeted, the ICO found the credit agency's UK arm, Equifax Ltd, failed to take appropriate steps to ensure that its parent firm, which processed this data on its behalf, had protected the information. The ICO investigation uncovered a number of serious contraventions of the UK Data Protection Act 1998 (the “DPA”), resulting in the ICO imposing on Equifax Ltd the maximum fine available.

On September 5, 2018, the European Commission (the “Commission”) announced in a press release the launch of the procedure to formally adopt the Commission’s adequacy decision with respect to Japan.

On July 31, 2018, the Supreme Court of Ireland granted Facebook, Inc.’s (“Facebook”) leave to appeal a lower court’s ruling sending a privacy case to the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”). Austrian privacy activist Max Schrems challenged Facebook’s data transfer practices, arguing that Facebook’s use of standard contractual clauses failed to adequately protect EU citizens’ data. Schrems, supported by Irish Data Protection Commissioner Helen Dixon, argued that the case belonged in the CJEU, the EU’s highest judicial body. The High Court agreed. Facebook’s request to appeal followed.

On July 11, 2018, computer manufacturer Lenovo Group Ltd. (“Lenovo”) agreed to a proposed $8.3 million settlement in the hopes of resolving consumer class claims regarding pop-up ad software Lenovo pre-installed on its laptops. Lenovo issued a press release stating that, "while Lenovo disagrees with allegations contained in these complaints, we are pleased to bring this matter to a close after 2-1/2 years."

This post has been updated. 

As reported by Mundie e Advogados, on July 10, 2018, Brazil’s Federal Senate approved a Data Protection Bill of Law (the “Bill”). The Bill, which is inspired by the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), is expected to be sent to the Brazilian President in the coming days.

As reported by Mattos Filho, Veiga Filho, Marrey Jr e Quiroga Advogados, the Bill establishes a comprehensive data protection regime in Brazil and imposes detailed rules for the collection, use, processing and storage of personal data, both electronic and physical.

On July 3, 2018, a draft bill (the “Data Protection Bill”) was introduced that would establish a comprehensive data protection regime in Kenya. The Data Protection Bill would require “banks, telecommunications operators, utilities, private and public companies and individuals” to obtain data subjects’ consent before collecting and processing their personal data. The Data Protection Bill also would impose certain data security obligations related to the collection, processing and storage of data, and would place restrictions on third-party data ...

On June 28, 2018, the Governor of California signed AB 375, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (the “Act”). The Act introduces key privacy requirements for businesses, and was passed quickly by California lawmakers in an effort to remove a ballot initiative of the same name from the November 6, 2018, statewide ballot. We previously reported on the relevant ballot initiative. The Act will take effect January 1, 2020.

As reported in BNA Privacy Law Watch, a new law makes data protection a constitutional right in Chile. The measure, which was enacted by the National Congress of Chile, lists “protection of one’s personal data” as an individual right under the Constitution’s Article 19. As a result of this measure, Chilean courts must expedite privacy-related cases under constitutional protection.

On July 1, 2018, HB 183, which amends Virginia’s breach notification law, will come into effect (the “amended law”). The amended law will require income tax return preparers who prepare individual Virginia income tax returns to notify the state’s Department of Taxation (the “Department”) if they discover or are notified of a breach of “return information.” Under the amended law, “return information” is defined as “a taxpayer's identity and the nature, source, or amount of his income, payments, receipts, deductions, exemptions, credits, assets, liabilities, net worth, tax liability, tax withheld, assessments, or tax payments.”

Recently, Colorado’s governor signed into law House Bill 18-1128 “concerning strengthening protections for consumer data privacy” (the “Bill”), which takes effect September 1, 2018. Among other provisions, the Bill (1) amends the state’s data breach notification law to require notice to affected Colorado residents and the Colorado Attorney General within 30 days of determining that a security breach occurred, imposes content requirements for the notice to residents and expands the definition of personal information; (2) establishes data security requirements applicable to businesses and their third-party service providers; and (3) amends the state’s law regarding disposal of personal identifying information.

On June 12, 2018, Vietnam’s parliament approved a new cybersecurity law  that contains data localization requirements, among other obligations. Technology companies doing business in the country will be required to operate a local office and store information about Vietnam-based users within the country. The law also requires social media companies to remove offensive content from their online service within 24 hours at the request of the Ministry of Information and Communications and the Ministry of Public Security’s cybersecurity task force. Companies could face ...

On May 16, 2018, the Irish Data Protection Bill 2018 (the “Bill”) entered the final committee stage in Dáil Éireann (the lower house and principal chamber of the Irish legislature). The Bill was passed by the Seanad (the upper house of the legislature) at the end of March 2018. In the current stage, final statements on the Bill will be made before it is signed into law by the President.

On May 2, 2018, the Belgian Privacy Commission (the “Belgian DPA”) published its Annual Activity Report for 2017 (the “Annual Report”), highlighting its main accomplishments for the past year.

On May 14, 2018, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) at Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP published a study on how the ePrivacy Regulation will affect the design and user experiences of digital services (the “Study”). The Study was prepared by Normally, a data product and service design studio, whom CIPL had asked for an independent expert opinion on user experience design.

On May 1, 2018, the Information Security Technology – Personal Information Security Specification (the “Specification”) went into effect in China. The Specification is not binding and cannot be used as a direct basis for enforcement. However, enforcement agencies in China can still use the Specification as a reference or guideline in their administration and enforcement activities. For this reason, the Specification should be taken seriously as a best practice in personal data protection in China, and should be complied with where feasible.

On May 4, 2018, St. Kitts and Nevis’ legislators passed the Data Protection Bill 2018 (the “Bill”). The Bill was passed to promote the protection of personal data processed by public and private bodies.

On April 11, 2018, the Article 29 Working Party (the “Working Party”) adopted two Recommendations on the Standard Application for Approval of Data Controller or Processor Binding Corporate Rules for the Transfer of Personal Data (the “Recommendations”). Binding Corporate Rules (“BCRs”) are one of the mechanisms offered to companies to transfer data outside the European Economic Area to a country which does not provide an adequate level of protection for the data according to Article 45 of the GDPR. These Recommendations, in the form of questionnaires, are intended to help BCR applicants demonstrate how they fulfill the requirements of Article 47 of the GDPR.

The Belgian Privacy Commission (the “Belgian DPA”) recently released a Recommendation (in French and Dutch) on Data Protection Impact Assessment (“DPIA”) and the prior consultation requirements under Articles 35 and 36 of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) (the “Recommendation”). The Recommendation aims to provide guidance on the core elements and requirements of a DPIA, the different actors involved and specific provisions.

On March 20, 2018, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership ("CIPL") at Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP issued a factsheet outlining relevant GDPR provisions for negotiations surrounding the proposed ePrivacy Regulation (the "Factsheet").

On March 8, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (“Ninth Circuit”) reversed a decision from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. The trial court found that one subclass of plaintiffs in In re Zappos.Com, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, had not sufficiently alleged injury in fact to establish Article III standing. The opinion focused on consumers who did not allege that any fraudulent charges had been made using their identities, despite hackers accessing their names, account numbers, passwords, email addresses, billing and shipping addresses, telephone numbers, and credit and debit card information in a 2012 data breach. 

On February 1, 2018, the Singapore Personal Data Protection Commission (the “PDPC”) published its response to feedback collected during a public consultation process conducted during the late summer and fall of 2017 (the “Response”). During that public consultation, the PDPC circulated a proposal relating to two general topics: (1) the relevance of two new alternative bases for collecting, using and disclosing personal data (“Notification of Purpose” and “Legal or Business Purpose”), and (2) a mandatory data breach notification requirement. The PDPC invited feedback from the public on these topics.

On January 25, 2018, the Standardization Administration of China published the full text of the Information Security Technology – Personal Information Security Specification (the “Specification”). The Specification will come into effect on May 1, 2018. The Specification is voluntary, but could become influential within China because it establishes benchmarks for the processing of personal information by a wide variety of entities and organizations. In effect, the Specification constitutes a best practices guide for the collection, retention, use, sharing and transfer of personal information, and for the handling of related information security incidents.

On January 24, 2018, the European Commission issued a communication to the European Parliament and the Council (the “Communication”) on the direct application of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). The Communication (1) recounts novel elements of the GDPR that create stronger protections for individuals and new opportunities for organizations; (2) reviews preparatory work undertaken to date for GDPR implementation; (3) outlines remaining steps for successful preparation; and (4) outlines measures the European Commission intends to take up until May 25, 2018.

On January 10, 2018, the Law of 3 December 2017 creating the Data Protection Authority (the “Law”) was published in the Belgian Official Gazette. The Law was submitted in the Chamber of Representatives on August 23, 2017, and was approved by the Parliament in plenary meeting on November 16, 2017.

On January 8, 2017, the UK Information Commissioner (“ICO”) issued an unprecedented monetary penalty of £400,000 against British mobile phone retailer, The Car Phone Warehouse Limited. Following an attack on their system in 2015, the ICO found that the company had failed to take adequate steps to protect the personal data it held on its system.

On January 9, 2018, the FTC issued a paper recapping the key takeaways from the FTC’s and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s June 2017 workshop on privacy and security issues involving connected cars. The workshop featured representatives from consumer groups, industry, government and academia.

On December 12, 2017, the Article 29 Working Party (“Working Party”) published its guidelines on transparency under Regulation 2016/679 (the “Guidelines”). The Guidelines aim to provide practical guidance and clarification on the transparency obligations introduced by the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). The transparency obligations require controllers to provide certain information to data subjects regarding the processing of their personal data.

Recently, the EU’s Article 29 Working Party (”Working Party”) held a plenary meeting to discuss, among other things, the implementation of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) and the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield. As well as adopting its first Joint Annual Review Report on the Privacy Shield, the Working Party has been working on a number of documents that offer review and/or guidance on the GDPR, including:

• guidelines on (1) consent and transparency, (2) data protection certifications, and (3) derogations for personal data transfers under the GDPR;
• updated “referentials” on adequacy and binding corporate rules for data controllers and processors; and
• tools for cooperation between data protection authorities on data breach notifications.

On December 1, 2017, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) at Hunton & Williams LLP submitted formal comments to the Article 29 Working Party (the “Working Party”) on its Guidelines on Automated Individual Decision-Making and Profiling (the “Guidelines”). The Guidelines were adopted by the Working Party on October 3, 2017, for public consultation.

On December 1, 2017, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) at Hunton & Williams LLP submitted formal comments to the Article 29 Working Party (the “Working Party”) on its Guidelines on Personal Data Breach Notification (the “Guidelines”). The Guidelines were adopted by the Working Party on October 3, 2017, for public consultation.

On October 17, 2017, the French Data Protection Authority (“CNIL”), after a consultation with multiple industry participants that was launched on March 23, 2016, published its compliance pack on connected vehicles (the “Pack”) in line with its report of October 3, 2016. The Pack applies to connected vehicles for private use only (not to Intelligent Transport Systems), and describes the main principles data controllers must adhere to under both the current French legislation and the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”).   

On October 24, 2017, an opinion issued by the EU’s Advocate General Bot (“Bot”) rejected Facebook’s assertion that its EU data processing activities fall solely under the jurisdiction of the Irish Data Protection Commissioner. The non-binding opinion was issued in relation to the CJEU case C-210/16, under which the German courts sought to clarify whether the data protection authority (“DPA”) in the German state of Schleswig-Holstein could take action against Facebook with respect to its use of web tracking technologies on a German education provider’s fan page without first providing notice.

In our final two segments of the series, industry leaders Lisa Sotto, partner and chair of Hunton & Williams’ Privacy and Cybersecurity practice; Steve Haas, M&A partner at Hunton & Williams; Allen Goolsby, special counsel at Hunton & Williams; and Eric Friedberg, co-president of Stroz Friedberg, along with moderator Lee Pacchia of Mimesis Law, continue their discussion on privacy and cybersecurity in M&A transactions and what companies can do to minimize risks before, during and after a deal closes. They discuss due diligence, deal documents and best practices in privacy and data security. The discussion wraps up with lessons learned in the rapidly changing area of data protection in M&A transactions, and predictions for what lies ahead.

Last week, at the 39th International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners in Hong Kong, data protection authorities from around the world issued non-binding guidance on the processing of personal data collected by connected cars (the “Guidance”). Noting the ubiquity of connected cars and the rapidity of the industry’s evolution, the officials voiced their collective concern about potential risks to consumers’ data privacy and security. The Guidance identifies as its main concern the lack of available information, user choice, data control and valid consent mechanisms for consumers to control the access to and use of their vehicle and driving-related data. Building on existing international guidelines and resolutions, the Guidance urges the automobile industry to follow privacy by design principles “at every stage of the creation and development of new devices or services.”

On September 29, 2017, the Federal Trade Commission published the eleventh blog post in its “Stick with Security” series. As previously reported, the FTC will publish an entry every Friday for the next few months focusing on each of the 10 principles outlined in its Start with Security Guide for Businesses. This week’s post, entitled Stick with Security: Secure paper, physical media, and devices, highlights the importance of adopting a 360 degree approach to protecting confidential data. This strategy includes securing not only networks and information systems, but also paper, physical media and devices.

On September 18, 2017, the European Commission (“Commission”) and U.S. Department of Commerce (“Department”) kicked off their first annual joint review of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield (“Privacy Shield”).  To aid in the review, the Department invited a few industry leaders, including Hunton & Williams’ partner Lisa J. Sotto, who chairs the firm’s Global Privacy and Cybersecurity practice and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee, to speak about their experiences during the first year of the Privacy Shield.

On September 1, 2017, the FTC published the seventh blog post in its “Stick with Security” series. As we previously reported, the FTC will publish an entry every Friday for the next few months focusing on each of the 10 principles outlined in its Start with Security Guide for Businesses. This week’s post, entitled Stick with Security: Secure remote access to your network, outlines important security measures businesses should take to ensure that outside entryways to their systems are sensibly defended.

As reported in BNA Privacy Law Watch, on August 22, 2017, the Russian privacy regulator, Roskomnadzor, announced that it had issued an order (the “Order”), effective immediately, revising notice protocols for companies that process personal data in Russia. Roskomnadzor stated that an earlier version of certain requirements for companies to notify the regulator of personal data processing was invalidated by the Russian Telecom Ministry in July.

As reported in BNA Privacy & Security Law Report, on August 9, 2017, the Russian privacy regulator, Roskomnadzor, expanded its list of nations that provide sufficient privacy protections to allow transfers of personal data from Russia. Russian law allows data transfers to countries that are signatories to the Council of Europe’s Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (the “Convention”), and to certain other non-signatory countries deemed by Roskomnadzor to have adequate privacy protections based on relevant data protection laws, privacy regulators and penalties for privacy law violations.

In a video roundtable series, Hunton & Williams LLP partners Lisa J. Sotto and Steven M. Haas and special counsel Allen C. Goolsby, along with Stroz Friedberg’s co-president Eric M. Friedberg and Lee Pacchia of Mimesis Law, discuss the special consideration that should be given to privacy and cybersecurity risks in corporate transactions.

On August 7, 2017, the UK Government’s Department for Culture, Media and Sport published a Statement of Intent setting out the planned reforms to be included in the forthcoming Data Protection Bill, which we previously reported is expected to be laid before the UK Parliament in early September.

On July 25, 2017, the French Data Protection Authority (“CNIL”) published their decision on the adoption of several amendments to its Single Authorization AU-004 regarding the processing of personal data in the context of whistleblowing schemes (the “Single Authorization”). The amendments reflect changes introduced by French law on December 9, 2016, regarding transparency, the fight against corruption and the modernization of the economy, also known as the “Sapin II Law.”

On July 27, 2017, the French Data Protection Authority (“CNIL”) imposed a fine of €40,000 on a French affiliate of the rental car company, The Hertz Corporation, for failure to ensure the security of website users’ personal data.

On July 26, 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) declared that the envisaged EU-Canada agreement on the transfer of Passenger Name Records (“PNR Agreement”) interferes with the fundamental right to respect for private life and the right to the protection of personal data and is therefore incompatible with EU law in its current form. This marks the first instance where the CJEU has been asked to rule on the compatibility of a draft international agreement with the European Charter of Fundamental Human Rights.

As reported in BNA Privacy Law Watch, on July 1, 2017, a new law took effect in Russia allowing for administrative enforcement actions and higher fines for violations of Russia's data protection law. The law, which was enacted in February 2017, imposes higher fines on businesses and corporate executives accused of data protection violations, such as unlawful processing of personal data, processing personal data without consent, and failure of data controllers to meet data protection requirements. Whereas previously fines were limited to 300 to 10,000 rubles ($5 to $169 USD), under the new law, available fines for data protection violations range from 15,000 to 75,000 rubles ($254 to $1,269 USD) for businesses and 3,000 to 20,000 rubles ($51 to $338 USD) for corporate executives.

The Article 29 Working Party (“Working Party”) recently issued its Opinion on data processing at work (the “Opinion”). The Opinion, which complements the Working Party’s previous Opinion 08/2001 on the processing of personal data in the employment context and Working document on the surveillance of electronic communications in the workplace, seeks to provide guidance on balancing employee privacy expectations in the workplace with employers’ legitimate interests in processing employee data. The Opinion is applicable to all types of employees and not just those under an employment contract (e.g., freelancers).

On June 21, 2017, in the Queen’s Speech to Parliament, the UK government confirmed its intention to press ahead with the implementation of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) into national law. Among the announcements on both national and international politics, the Queen stated that, “A new law will ensure that the United Kingdom retains its world-class regime protecting personal data, and proposals for a new digital charter will be brought forward to ensure that the United Kingdom is the safest place to be online.” The statement confirms the priority ...

Recently, the Belgian Privacy Commission (the “Belgian DPA”) released a Recommendation (in French and Dutch) regarding the requirement to appoint a data protection officer (“DPO”) under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”).

On May 29, 2017, a high-level EU Commission official and Politico reported that the primary objective of the first annual joint review of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield (“Privacy Shield”) is not to obtain more concessions from the U.S. regarding Europeans’ privacy safeguards, but rather to monitor the current U.S. administration’s work and steer U.S. privacy debates to prevent privacy safeguards from deteriorating. On March 31, 2017, the EU Commissioner for Justice, Věra Jourová, announced that the joint review will take place in September 2017.

This post has been updated. 

On April 27, 2017, the German Federal Parliament adopted the new German Federal Data Protection Act (Bundesdatenschutzgesetz) (“new BDSG”) to replace the existing Federal Data Protection Act of 2003. The new BDSG is intended to adapt the current German data protection law to the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), which will become effective on May 25, 2018.

On April 4, 2017, the Article 29 Working Party (“Working Party”) adopted its draft Guidelines on Data Protection Impact Assessment and determining whether processing is “likely to result in a high risk” for the purposes of Regulation 2016/679 (the “Guidelines”). The Guidelines aim to clarify when a data protection impact assessment (“DPIA”) is required under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). The Guidelines also provide criteria to Supervisory Authorities (“SAs”) to use to establish their lists of processing operations that will be subject to the DPIA requirement.

On April 4, 2017, the Article 29 Working Party (the “Working Party”) adopted an Opinion on the Proposed Regulation of the European Commission for the ePrivacy Regulation (the “Proposed ePrivacy Regulation”). The Proposed ePrivacy Regulation is intended to replace the ePrivacy Directive and to increase harmonization of ePrivacy rules in the EU. A regulation is directly applicable in all EU Member States, while a directive requires transposition into national law. 

On April 5, 2017, the Article 29 Working Party (“Working Party”) adopted the final versions of its guidelines (the “Guidelines”) on the right to data portability, Data Protection Officers (“DPOs”) and Lead Supervisory Authority (“SA”), which were first published for comment in December 2016. The final publication of these revised guidelines follows the public consultation which ended in February 2017.

Haim Ravia and Dotan Hammer of Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer Baratz recently published an article outlining Israel’s new Protection of Privacy Regulations (“Regulations”), passed by the Knesset on March 21, 2017. The Regulations will impose mandatory comprehensive data security and breach notification requirements on anyone who owns, manages or maintains a database containing personal data in Israel.

The Regulations will become effective in late March 2018.

Read Pearl Cohen’s full article.

Recently, Virginia passed an amendment to its data breach notification law that adds state income tax information to the types of data that require notification to the Virginia Office of the Attorney General in the event of unauthorized access and acquisition of such data. Under the amended law, an employer or payroll service provider must notify the Virginia Office of the Attorney General after the discovery or notification of unauthorized access and acquisition of unencrypted and unredacted computerized data containing a Virginia resident’s taxpayer identification number in combination with the income tax withheld for that taxpayer.