Privacy & Information Security Law Blog

On March 2, 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) reached a settlement with Dwolla, Inc. (“Dwolla”), an online payment system company, to resolve claims that the company made false representations regarding its data security practices in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act. Among other things, the consent order imposes a $100,000 fine on Dwolla. This marks the first data security-related fine imposed by the CFPB.

On February 25, 2016, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) heard arguments on two questions referred by the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof). The first question was whether or not IP addresses constitute personal data and therefore cannot be stored beyond what is necessary to provide an Internet service.

On February 23, 2016, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it reached a settlement with Taiwanese-based network hardware manufacturer ASUSTeK Computer, Inc. (“ASUS”), to resolve claims that the company engaged in unfair and deceptive security practices in connection with developing network routers and cloud storage products sold to consumers in the U.S.

On February 19, 2016, the French Data Protection Authority (“CNIL”) made public its new Single Authorization Decision No. 46 (“Single Authorization AU-46”). This decision relates to the data processing activities of public and private organizations with respect to the preparation, exercise and follow-up regarding disciplinary or court actions, and the enforcement of those actions.

On February 16, 2016, California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris released the California Data Breach Report 2012-2015 (the “Report”) which, among other things, provides (1) an overview of businesses’ responsibilities regarding protecting personal information and reporting data breaches and (2) a series of recommendations for businesses and state policy makers to follow to help safeguard personal information.

On February 16, 2016, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), in collaboration with other federal agencies, released a series of documents outlining procedures for both federal and non-federal entities to share and disseminate cybersecurity information. These documents were released as directed by the Cybersecurity Act of 2015 (the “Act”), signed into law on December 18, 2015. The Act outlines a means by which the private sector may enjoy protection from civil liability when sharing certain cybersecurity information with the federal government and private entities. These documents represent the first steps by the executive branch to implement the Act.

On December 30, 2015, Taiwan’s Office of the President issued an order to promulgate certain amendments (the “Amendments”) to Taiwan’s Personal Data Protection Law (the “PDPL”). The Amendments revise 12 articles in the PDPL. The Amendments concern the collection and use of sensitive personal data, the form of consent for the collection and use of non-sensitive personal data, and the imposition of criminal liability for violations of certain provisions of the PDPL. The Amendments are expected to become effective in the first half of 2016 on a date to be determined by the Executive Yuan.

On January 12, 2016, the European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”) ruled in Bărbulescu v. Romania that companies can monitor their employees’ online communications in certain circumstances.

The case concerned the dismissal of a Romanian engineer, Bărbulescu, by his employer, for the use of the company’s Internet and in particular, Yahoo Messenger, for personal purposes during work hours. The employer alleged that Bărbulescu was violating internal regulations that prohibit the use of the company’s equipment for personal purposes.

On December 28, 2015, the People's Bank of China published Administrative Measures for Online Payment Business of Non-bank Payment Institutions (the “Measures”). The Measures were enacted to provide further details on the regulation of online payment businesses, in supplement to the earlier Administrative Measures for the Payment Services of Non-financial Institutions (the “2010 Measures”), published by the People's Bank of China on June 14, 2010. The 2010 Measures regulated the conduct of all payment services, including both online payment methods and three other types of payment methods, by all types of Non-bank Payment Institutions (“NBPIs”). The newer Measures are more focused and apply only to online payment methods, and only to NBPIs which have already obtained a Payment Business License and are engaged in an online payment business.

On January 5, 2016, the Federal Trade Commission announced that dental office management software provider, Henry Schein Practice Solutions, Inc. (“Schein”), agreed to settle FTC charges that accused the company of falsely advertising the level of encryption it used to protect patient data. The proposed Agreement Containing Consent Order (“Consent Order”) stems from an FTC complaint that alleged the company engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices by falsely representing that the Dentrix G5 software used industry-standard encryption and helped dentists protect patient data in accordance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”).

On January 7, 2016, the European Data Protection Supervisor (the “EDPS”) published his Priorities for 2016. The EDPS Priorities consists of a cover note listing the strategic priorities of the EDPS in 2016 and a color-coded table listing the European Commission’s proposals that require the EDPS’ attention, per level of priority.

In line with the EDPS Strategy 2015-2019 unveiled in March 2015, the EDPS will set his focus on the following areas of strategic importance:

On January 6, 2015, the Federal Trade Commission released its report on big data entitled Big Data: A Tool for Inclusion or Exclusion? Understanding the Issues. The report is a compilation of a seminar on alternative scoring products, the discussions at a big data public workshop held on September 15, 2014, and other recent research and public commentary on the issue.

On December 27, 2015, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China published the P.R.C. Anti-Terrorism Law. The law was enacted in response to a perceived growing threat from extremists and terrorists, particularly in regions in Western China, and came into effect on January 1, 2016.

On December 30, 2015, the Pew Research Center released a report on the results of a recent survey that asked 461 Americans about their feelings toward sharing personal information with companies. The survey found that a “significant minority” of American adults have felt “confused over information provided in company privacy policies, discouraged by the amount of effort needed to understand the implications of sharing their data, and impatient because they wanted to learn more about the information-sharing process but felt they needed to make a decision right away.”

On December 4, 2015, President Obama signed the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (the ‘‘FAST Act’’) into law. The FAST Act, which is aimed at improving the country’s surface transportation infrastructure, contains a provision that modifies the annual privacy notice requirement under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (“GLBA”).

On November 20, 2015, Markus Heyder, Vice President of the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) at Hunton & Williams LLP, discussed how “transparency is increasingly understood as a core component of addressing the challenges of the modern information economy” and a key catalyst for a productive and innovative information economy in an article entitled Transparency and the Future of Driverless Privacy published by the International Association of Privacy Professionals.

On November 19, 2015, the French Data Protection Authority (“CNIL”) published guidance, including a set of frequently asked questions, to assist companies that are transferring personal data to the U.S. pursuant to the Safe Harbor framework.

On November 16, 2015, the Legislative Affairs Office of the State Council of the People's Republic of China published a draft Regulation for Couriers (the “Regulation”) and requested public comment on the Regulation. Interested parties have until mid-December 2015 to submit comments on the Regulation. The Regulation comes at a time when courier services and online shopping are growing steadily in China. Under the Regulation, the sender of a parcel will be required to fill in his or her real name and address, the telephone numbers of both the sender and the recipient, as well as the name, quantity and nature of the object being couriered.

On November 13, 2015, Chief Administrative Law Judge D. Michael Chappell dismissed the FTC’s complaint against LabMD Inc. (“LabMD”) for failing to show that LabMD’s allegedly unreasonable data security practices caused, or were likely to cause, substantial consumer injury. The law judge did not address LabMD’s claim that the FTC does not have jurisdiction to enforce data security standards under the unfairness prong of Section 5 of the FTC Act, and LabMD has reserved its jurisdictional challenge for an anticipated appeal to the federal court. The action is In the Matter of LabMD Inc., Docket No. 9357.

As reported in the Hunton Employment & Labor Law Perspectives Blog:

On October 27, 2015, the Ninth Circuit held in EEOC v. McLane Co., Inc. that the EEOC has broad subpoena powers to obtain nationwide private personnel information, including Social Security numbers (“SSNs”), in connection with its investigation of a sex discrimination charge.

In late October, the Brazilian Ministry of Justice (the “Ministry”) issued its revised Draft Bill for the Protection of Personal Data (“Draft Bill”). The Ministry released its preliminary draft in January 2015, and the Centre for Information Policy Leadership at Hunton & Williams LLP (“CIPL”) filed public comments to the draft on May 5, 2015.

On November 5, 2015, the White House released the proposed text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (the “TPP”) containing a chapter on cross-border data transfers in the context of electronic commerce. In the chapter on Electronic Commerce, Chapter 14, the TPP includes commitments from participating parties to adopt and maintain a legal framework to protect personal information, and encourages cross-border data transfers to help facilitate business and trade.

On November 6, 2015, the European Commission published a communication and a Q&A document addressed to the European Parliament and European Council on the transfer of personal data from the EU to the U.S. under EU Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC (the “Directive”), following the decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union invalidating the European Commission’s Safe Harbor Decision.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) recently released the final draft of its report entitled De-Identification of Personal Information. The report stems from a review conducted by NIST of various de-identification techniques for removal of personal information from computerized documents. While de-identification techniques are widely used, there is concern that existing techniques are insufficient to protect personal privacy because certain remaining information can make it possible to re-identify individuals.

On October 26, 2015, the German federal and state data protection authorities (the “German DPAs”) published a joint position paper on Safe Harbor and potential alternatives for transfers of data to the U.S. (the “Position Paper”).

On October 1, 2015, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) issued its judgment in Weltimmo v Nemzeti (Case C-230/14). Weltimmo, a company registered and headquartered in Slovakia, runs a website that allows property owners in Hungary to advertise their properties. The CJEU stated that, in some cases, Weltimmo had failed to delete the personal data of the advertisers upon request, and also had sent debt collectors to some advertisers despite their earlier attempts to cancel their accounts. The advertisers complained to the Hungarian Data Protection Authority (“DPA”), which investigated the matter and issued a fine of HUF 10 million (approximately 36,500 USD) against Weltimmo.

On September 8, 2015, representatives from the U.S. Government and the European Commission initialed a draft agreement known as the Protection of Personal Information Relating to the Prevention, Investigation, Detection and Prosecution of Criminal Offenses (the “Umbrella Agreement”). The European Commission’s stated aim for the Umbrella Agreement is to put in place “a comprehensive high-level data protection framework for EU-U.S. law enforcement cooperation.” The Umbrella Agreement has been agreed upon amid the ongoing uncertainty over the future of the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor, and was drafted shortly before the release of the September 23 Advocate General’s Opinion in the Schrems v. Facebook litigation. The content of the Umbrella Agreement is in its final form, but its implementation is dependent upon revisions to U.S. law that are currently before Congress.

On September 15, 2015, the Office of Compliance, Inspections and Examinations (“OCIE”) at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) issued a Risk Alert outlining its latest cybersecurity examination priorities for SEC-registered broker-dealers and investment advisers.

On August 20, 2015, the Bavarian Data Protection Authority (“DPA”) issued a press release stating that it imposed a significant fine on a data controller for failing to adequately specify the security controls protecting personal data in a data processing agreement with a data processor.

On September 2, 2015, the Information Commissioner’s Office (the “ICO”) announced an investigation into the data sharing practices of charities in the United Kingdom. The announcement follows the publication of an article in a UK newspaper highlighting the plight of Samuel Rae, an elderly man suffering from dementia. In 1994, Rae completed a survey, which resulted in a charity collecting his personal data. The charity, in turn, allegedly shared his contact details with other charities, data brokers and third parties. Over the years, some of those charities and third parties are reported to have sent Rae hundreds of unwanted items of mail, requesting donations and, in some cases, attempting to defraud him. The legal basis on which Rae’s details were shared remains unclear, although the ICO has noted that the distribution may have resulted from a simple failure to tick an “opt-out” box on the survey.

On September 2, 2015, the French Data Protection Authority (“CNIL”) published the results of an Internet sweep of 54 websites visited by children and teenagers. The sweep was conducted in May 2015 to assess whether websites that are directed toward, frequently used by or popular among children comply with French data protection law. As we previously reported, the sweep was coordinated by the Global Privacy Enforcement Network (“GPEN”), a global network of approximately 50 data protection authorities (“DPAs”). The CNIL and 28 other DPAs that are members of the GPEN participated in the coordinated online audit. A total of 1,494 websites and apps were audited around the world.

On August 14 and August 26, 2015, the Conference of the Data Protection Commissioners of the Federal Government and the Federal States (Länder) issued a detailed position paper (“Position Paper”) and a press release on the main issues for the trilogue negotiations on the proposed EU General Data Protection Regulation (the “Regulation”). In the Position Paper and press release, the participating German Data Protection Commissioners (“German DPAs”) request the trilogue partners to focus on the following issues:

On July 30, 2015, the Bavarian Data Protection Authority (“DPA”) issued a press release stating that it imposed a significant fine on both the seller and purchaser in an asset deal for unlawfully transferring customer personal data as part of the deal.

On August 11, 2015, the Online Trust Alliance, a nonprofit group whose goal is to increase online trust and promote the vitality of the Internet, released a framework (the “Framework”) for best practices in privacy and data security for the Internet of Things. The Framework was developed by the Internet of Things Trustworthy Working Group, which the Online Trust Alliance created in January 2015 to address “the mounting concerns and collective impact of connected devices.”

On August 3, 2015, Neiman Marcus requested en banc review of the Seventh Circuit’s recent decision in Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, No. 14-3122. As we previously reported, the Seventh Circuit found that members of a putative class alleged sufficient facts to establish standing to sue Neiman Marcus following a 2013 data breach. During that breach, hackers gained access to customers’ credit and debit card information.

On July 27, 2015, Giovanni Buttarelli, the European Data Protection Supervisor (“EDPS”), published Opinion 3/2015 on the reform of Europe’s data protection laws, intended to “assist the participants in the trilogue in reaching the right consensus on time.” The Opinion sets out the EDPS’ vision for the regulation of data protection, re-stating the case for a framework that strengthens the rights of individuals and noting that “the time is now to safeguard individuals’ fundamental rights and freedoms in the data-driven society of the future.”

On July 1, 2015, Connecticut’s governor signed into law Public Act No. 15-142, An Act Improving Data Security and Agency Effectiveness (the “Act”), that (1) amends the state’s data breach notification law to require notice to affected individuals and the Connecticut Attorney General within 90 days of a security breach and expands the definition of personal information to include biometric data such as fingerprints, retina scans and voice prints; (2) affirmatively requires all businesses, including health insurers, who experience data breaches to offer one year of identity theft prevention services to affected individuals at no cost to them; and (3) requires health insurers and contractors who receive personal information from state agencies to implement and maintain minimum data security safeguards. With the passing of the Act, Connecticut becomes the first state to affirmatively require businesses to provide these security services to consumers.

On July 6, 2015, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China published a draft of the country’s proposed Network Security Law (the “Draft Cybersecurity Law”). A public comment period on the Draft Cybersecurity Law is now open until August 5, 2015.

On June 11 and 12, 2015, Asia Pacific Privacy Authority (“APPA”) members, invited observers and guest speakers from the government, private sector, academia and civil society, met in Hong Kong to discuss privacy law and policy issues at the 43rd APPA Forum. At the end of the open session on day two, APPA issued its customary communiqué, setting forth the highlights of the discussions of the open and closed sessions. The Hong Kong Privacy Commissioner, who hosted the APPA meeting, also hosted a conference on big data and privacy on June 10.

On May 13, 2015, Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval (R-NV) signed into law A.B. 179 (the “Bill”), which expands the definition of “personal information” in the state’s data security law. The law takes effect on July 1, 2015. Under the Bill, personal information now includes:

On April 8, 2015, a New York Assemblyman introduced the Data Security Act in the New York State Assembly that would require New York businesses to implement and maintain information security safeguards. The requirements would apply to “private information,” which is defined as either:

• personal information consisting of any information in combination with one or more of the following data elements, when either the personal information or the data element is not encrypted: Social Security number; driver’s license number or non-driver identification card number; financial account or credit or debit card number in combination with any required security code or password; or biometric information;
• a user name or email address in combination with a password or security question and answer that would permit access to an online account; or
• unsecured protected health information (as that term is defined in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) Privacy Rule).

On April 13, 2015, the Senate of Washington State unanimously passed legislation strengthening the state’s data breach law. The bill (HB 1078) passed the Senate by a 47-0 vote, and as we previously reported, passed the House by a 97-0 vote.

On November 16, 2015, the Federal Trade Commission will host a workshop in Washington, D.C., to examine the benefits and privacy risks associated with “cross-device tracking.” The workshop intends to highlight the types of cross-device tracking techniques and how businesses and consumers can benefit from these practices. The workshop also will address related privacy and security risks, and discuss whether self-regulatory programs apply to these practices.

On March 4, 2015, the House of Representatives of Washington passed a bill (HB 1078), which would amend the state’s breach notification law to require notification to the state Attorney General in the event of a breach and impose a 45-day timing requirement for notification provided to affected residents and the state regulator. The bill also mandates content requirements for notices to affected residents, including (1) the name and contact information of the reporting business; (2) a list of the types of personal information subject to the breach; and (3) the toll-free telephone numbers and address of the consumer reporting agencies. In addition, while Washington’s breach notification law currently applies only to “computerized” data, the amended law would cover hard-copy data as well.

On December 5, 2014, the Article 29 Working Party (the “Working Party”) published a Working Document on surveillance, electronic communications and national security. The Working Party (which is comprised of the national data protection authorities (“DPAs”) of each of the 28 EU Member States) regularly publishes guidance on the application and interpretation of EU data protection law. Although its views are not legally binding, they are strongly indicative of the way in which EU data protection law is likely to be enforced.

On October 6, 2014, the Irish Office of the Data Protection Commissioner (“ODPC”) announced its success in bringing prosecution proceedings against M.C.K Rentals Limited (“MCK”), a firm of private investigators, and its two directors, for breaches of the Irish Data Protection Acts 1998 and 2003. Specifically MCK and its directors were found to have (1) obtained personal data without the prior authority of the data controller who was responsible for the data and (2) disclosed the personal data obtained to various third parties.

On August 8, 2014, a court in Shanghai found a foreign couple guilty of illegal collection of personal information. British national Peter Humphrey was sentenced to two and a half years of imprisonment and a fine of RMB 200,000, and his wife was sentenced to two years of imprisonment and a fine of RMB 150,000. In addition, Humphrey will be deported after serving his term.

On June 25, 2014, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Obama Administration is looking to pass legislation that would provide EU citizens with a right to judicial redress in U.S. courts if their personal information that was shared for law enforcement purposes is later intentionally or wilfully disclosed. The announcement was made during the EU-U.S. Ministerial Meeting on Justice and Home Affairs in Athens, Greece, which was co-chaired by the Attorney General and aimed to advance EU-U.S. cooperation in efforts to stop transnational crime and terrorism. The announcement also relates to the ongoing negotiations of the new “umbrella” EU-U.S. Data Protection and Privacy Agreement (“DPPA”).

In March 2014, the State Postal Bureau of the People’s Republic of China (the “SPBC”) formally issued three rules (the “Rules”) establishing significant requirements regarding the protection of personal information: (1) Provisions on the Management of the Security of Personal Information of Postal and Delivery Service Users (the “Security Provisions”); (2) Provisions on the Reporting and Handling of Security Information in the Postal Sector (the “Reporting and Handling Provisions”); and (3) Provisions on the Management of Undeliverable Express Mail Items (the “Management Provisions”). The Rules, each of which became effective on its date of promulgation, were issued in draft form in November 2013 along with a request for public comment.

On November 27, 2013, the State Post Bureau of the People’s Republic of China (the “SPBC”) released five draft normative rules for solicitation of public comment. Three of these rules, respectively entitled Provisions on the Management of the Security of Personal Information of Postal and Delivery Service Users (the “Draft Provisions”), Provisions on the Reporting and Handling of Security Information in the Postal Sector (the “Reporting and Handling Provisions”), and Provisions on the Management of Undeliverable Express Mail Items (the “Management Provisions”) contain significant requirements regarding the protection of personal information. The deadline for submitting comments on the rules is December 27, 2013.

On November 15, 2013, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) released a report (the “Report”) finding that the current federal statutory privacy scheme contains “gaps” and “does not fully reflect” the Fair Information Practice Principles (“FIPPs”). The Report focused primarily on companies that gather and resell consumer personal information, and on the use of consumer personal information for marketing purposes.

Provisions of the economic stimulus legislation (known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (“ARRA”)), recently passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, require certain entities to notify affected individuals, government agencies and the media of breaches of “unsecured protected health information.” Additional provisions substantially revise regulations promulgated pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”). While these provisions are specifically limited to the context of health data, they have ...