Privacy & Information Security Law Blog

The Colorado Attorney General announced the adoption of the draft amendments on December 5, 2024, and the adopted rules were filed with the Secretary of State and the Office of Legislative Legal Services on December 17, 2024. The amendments underwent minor clarifying changes prior to the Department of Law hearing, and in response to comments and testimony received during the public comment period.

Last month, Colorado Governor Jared Polis signed into law a bill that amends the Colorado Privacy Act and introduces new obligations for processors of biometric data. The law goes into effect on July 1, 2025.

On July 26, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) adopted long-anticipated disclosure rules for public companies by a 3-2 party-line vote. The final rules apply both to U.S. domestic public companies, as well as any offshore company that qualifies as a “foreign private issuer” under SEC rules due to a strong nexus to the U.S. capital markets. The new rules are effective as soon as December 18, 2023, as detailed further below.

On April 6, 2023, the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection ("DCWP") announced it adopted final rules to implement NYC’s Local Law 144 (“LL 144”) regarding automated employment decision tools (“AEDTs”). Enforcement of the law and the rules will begin on July 5, 2023.

On October 24, 2022, the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (“DCWP”) proposed rules to implement its new law regarding automated employment decision tools (“AEDTs”).

On September 23, 2022, New York State Senator Andrew Gounardes introduced S9563, also known as the “New York Child Data Privacy and Protection Act.” The bill, which resembles the recently passed California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act, bans certain data collection and targeted advertising and requires data controllers to, among other obligations, assess the impact of their products on children.

On October 14, 2022, the Federal Trade Commission announced it is extending the deadline by one month to submit comments on its Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“ANPR”) on commercial surveillance and lax data security practices.

The FTC launched the ANPR in August and has sought public comment on it, including through a virtual public forum held in September.

Comments now must be filed by November 21, 2022.

On June 10, 2022, New York became the first state to require attorneys to complete at least one credit of cybersecurity, privacy and data protection training as part of their continuing legal education (“CLE”) requirements. The new requirement will take effect July 1, 2023.

On August 11, 2022, the Federal Trade Commission announced it is seeking public comment regarding its advance notice of proposed rulemaking (“ANPR”) on commercial surveillance and data security, on which we previously reported. The FTC defines “commercial surveillance” as the business of collecting, analyzing and profiting from consumer data.

On July 28, 2022, a federal judge approved TikTok’s $92 million class action settlement of various privacy claims made under state and federal law. The agreement will resolve litigation that began in 2019 and involved claims that TikTok, owned by the Chinese company ByteDance, violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) and the federal Video Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA”) by improperly harvesting users’ personal data. U.S. District Court Judge John Lee of the Northern District of Illinois also awarded approximately $29 million in fees to class counsel.

On June 22, 2022, the Federal Trade Commission submitted an updated abstract to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs indicating that it is considering initiating a rulemaking under Section 18 of the FTC Act to curb lax security practices, limit privacy abuses, and ensure that algorithmic decision-making does not result in unlawful discrimination.

On May 25, 2022, Twitter reached a proposed $150 million settlement with the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Federal Trade Commission to resolve allegations that the company deceptively used nonpublic user contact information obtained for account security purposes to serve targeted ads to Twitter users. In a complaint filed in federal court, the government alleged that Twitter violated both the FTC Act and a 2011 FTC Order by misrepresenting the extent to which the company maintained and protected users’ nonpublic contact information. The proposed settlement would require Twitter to pay $150 million in civil penalties and implement a comprehensive privacy and information security program “with extensive procedures to safeguard user information and assess internal and external data privacy risks.”

On March 9, 2022, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) held an open meeting and proposed new cybersecurity disclosure rules for public companies by a 3-1 vote. If adopted, the new rules would impose substantial new reporting obligations with respect to material cybersecurity incidents and cybersecurity risk management, strategy, and governance for both domestic and foreign private issuers subject to the reporting requirements under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Beginning in 2022, Apple and Google will impose new privacy requirements on mobile apps available for download in the Apple App Store and Google Play Store, respectively. As described further below, Apple’s new account deletion requirement will apply to all mobile app submissions to the Apple App Store beginning January 31, 2022. Similarly, Google’s new Data Safety section will launch in February 2022, and app developers will be required to submit to the Google Play Store Data Safety forms and Privacy Policies by April 2022.

July 1, 2021 marks the deadline for certain businesses to comply with the metrics reporting obligations under the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”) regulations. Section 999.317(g) of the regulations applies to any business that is subject to the CCPA and that knows or reasonably should know that it, alone or in combination, buys, receives for the business’s commercial purposes, sells, or shares for commercial purposes the personal information of 10,000,000 or more California residents in a calendar year.

On May 6, 2019, the Federal Trade Commission announced that Meet24, FastMeet and Meet4U—three dating apps owned by Ukrainian-based company Wildec LLC—were removed from the Apple App Store and Google Play Store following an FTC letter alleging that the apps potentially violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA”) and the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”). According to the letter and contrary to what was claimed in their privacy policies, the apps, which collect dates of birth, email addresses, photographs and real-time location date, failed to block users who indicated they were under the age of 13.

On April 9, 2019, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (the “ICO”) levied one of its most significant fines under the Data Protection Act 1998 (the “DPA”) against pregnancy and parenting club Bounty (UK) Limited (“Bounty”), fining the company GBP 400,000. Bounty, which provides new and expectant mothers with information and offers for products and services, collects personal data online, via an app, and offline through hard copy cards. The company also offered a data broking service. Bounty came to the attention of the ICO as a “significant supplier” of personal data in the context of the ICO’s wider and ongoing investigation into the data broking industry.

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 September 26, 2018, the SEC announced a settlement with Voya Financial Advisers, Inc. (“Voya”), a registered investment advisor and broker-dealer, for violating Regulation S-ID, also known as the “Identity Theft Red Flags Rule,” as well as Regulation S-P, the “Safeguards Rule.” Together, Regulations S-ID and S-P are designed to require covered entities to help protect customers from the risk of identity theft and to safeguard confidential customer information. The settlement represents the first SEC enforcement action brought under Regulation S-ID.

On August 30, 2018, Apple Inc. announced a June update to its App Store Review Guidelines that will require each developer to provide its privacy policy as part of the app review process, and to include in such policy specific content requirements. Effective October 3, 2018, all new apps and app updates must include a link to the developer’s privacy policy before they can be submitted for distribution to users through the App Store or through TestFlight external testing.

On August 6, 2018, the Federal Trade Commission published a notice seeking public comment on whether the FTC should expand its enforcement power over corporate privacy and data security practices. The notice, published in the Federal Register, follows FTC Chairman Joseph Simons’ declaration at a July 18 House subcommittee hearing that the FTC’s current authority to do so, under Section 5 of the FTC Act, is inadequate to deal with the privacy and security issues in today’s market.

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 February 28, 2018, the Federal Trade Commission issued a report, titled Mobile Security Updates: Understanding the Issues (the “Report”), that analyzes the process by which mobile devices sold in the U.S. receive security updates and provides recommendations for improvement. The Report is based on information the FTC obtained from eight mobile device manufacturers, and from information the Federal Communications Commission collected from six wireless carriers.

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.

Recently, Nevada enacted an online privacy policy law which will require operators of websites and online services to post a notice on their website regarding their privacy practices. The Nevada law contains content requirements for online privacy notices, specifying that the notice must (1) identify the categories of personally identifiable information (“PII”) collected through the website and the categories of third parties with whom PII may be shared; (2) provide information about users’ ability to review and request changes to PII collected through the website; (3) disclose whether third parties may collect information about users’ online activities from the website; and (4) provide an effective date of the notice.

This post has been updated. 

On October 27, 2016, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) announced the adoption of rules that require broadband Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) to take steps to protect consumer privacy (the “Rules”). According to the FCC’s press release, the Rules are intended to “ensure broadband customers have meaningful choice, greater transparency and strong security protections for their personal information collected by ISPs.” 

On October 14, 2016, California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris announced the release of a publicly available online form that will enable consumers to report potential violations of the California Online Privacy Protection Act (“CalOPPA”). CalOPPA requires website and mobile app operators to post a privacy policy that contains certain specific content.

On October 27, 2016, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) will vote on whether to finalize proposed rules (the "Proposed Rules”) concerning new privacy restrictions for Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”). The Proposed Rules, which revise previous versions introduced earlier this year, would require customers’ explicit (or “opt-in”) consent before an ISP can use or share a customer’s personal data, including web browsing and app usage history, geolocation data, children’s information, health information, financial information, email and other message contents and Social Security numbers.

On October 3, 2016, the Texas Attorney General announced a $30,000 settlement with mobile app developer Juxta Labs, Inc. (“Juxta”) stemming from allegations that the company violated Texas consumer protection law by engaging in false, deceptive or misleading acts or practices regarding the collection of personal information from children.

On August 25, 2016, WhatsApp announced in a blog post that the popular mobile messaging platform updated its Terms of Service and Privacy Policy to permit certain information sharing with Facebook. After Facebook acquired WhatsApp in 2014, the Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection wrote a letter to both Facebook and WhatsApp that discussed the companies’ obligations to honor privacy statements made to consumers in connection with the acquisition.

The Federal Trade Commission announced that it will host a workshop on September 15, 2016, “Putting Disclosures to the Test,” on the efficacy and costs of consumer disclosures in advertising and privacy policies. Planned discussion topics include examining disclosures meant to avoid deception in advertising, disclosures designed to inform consumers of data tracking, and industry-specific disclosures for jewelry, environmental and fuel-saving claims. The workshop is open to the public and will take place at the FTC’s Constitution Center offices in Washington, D.C ...

As we previously reported, the Federal Aviation Administration’s (“FAA’s”) proposed “small drone rule” nears completion of the interagency review process, but one potential stumbling block has been removed, at least for now. On Tuesday, May 10, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit denied a request by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (“EPIC”) to review the FAA’s decision not to include privacy provisions in its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (“NPRM”), as well as its denial of an EPIC petition to the same effect. The court decided that there were no reasonable grounds for EPIC’s delay in filing for review of the FAA’s denial of EPIC’s 2012 petition that sought to cause the FAA to promulgate privacy regulations pertaining to drones. The court further concluded that EPIC’s challenge to the NPRM itself is premature, as the rule is not yet final.

On March 14, 2016, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) published a guide, Preparing for the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) – 12 Steps to Take Now. The guide, which is a high-level checklist with accompanying commentary, sets out a number of points that should inform organizations’ data privacy and governance programs ahead of the anticipated mid-2018 entry into force of the GDPR.

On February 3, 2016, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) announced that an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) ruled that Lincare, Inc. (“Lincare”) violated the HIPAA Privacy Rule and ordered the company to pay $239,800 to OCR.

On December 9, 2015, the Federal Trade Commission announced that Wyndham Worldwide Corporation (“Wyndham”) settled charges brought by the FTC stemming from allegations that the company unfairly failed to maintain reasonable data security practices. The case is FTC v. Wyndham Worldwide Corporation, et al. (2:13-CV-01887-ES-JAD) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

On August 24, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued its opinion in Federal Trade Commission v. Wyndham Worldwide Corporation (“Wyndham”), affirming a district court holding that the Federal Trade Commission has the authority to regulate companies’ data security practices.

On August 7, 2015, Delaware Governor Jack Markell signed four bills into law concerning online privacy. The bills, drafted by the Delaware Attorney General, focus on protecting the privacy of website and mobile app users, children, students and crime victims.

On July 28, 2015, the UK Supreme Court announced its decision to grant permission in part for Google Inc. (“Google”) to appeal the England and Wales Court of Appeal’s decision in Google Inc. v Vidal-Hall and Others.

On May 20, 2015, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) released an Enforcement Advisory announcing that its previously-released Open Internet Order “applies the core customer privacy protections of Section 222 of the Communications Act to providers of broadband Internet access service” and that the statutory provisions of Section 222, which historically have been used to protect Consumer Proprietary Network Information on telephone networks, will apply to broadband providers when the Open Internet Order goes into effect on June 12, 2015. This approach will expand broadband providers’ requirements to protect consumer privacy and limit their use of consumer data.

On May 13, 2015, the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “DPA”) published a recommendation addressing the use of social plug-ins associated with Facebook and its services (the “Recommendation”). The Recommendation stems from the recent discussions between the DPA and Facebook regarding Facebook’s privacy policy and the tracking of individuals’ Internet activities.

On April 8, 2015, the Federal Communications Commission announced a $25 million settlement with AT&T Services, Inc. (“AT&T”) stemming from allegations that AT&T failed to protect the confidentiality of consumers’ personal information, resulting in data breaches at AT&T call centers in Mexico, Colombia and the Philippines. The breaches, which took place over 168 days from November 2013 to April 2014, involved unauthorized access to customers’ names, full or partial Social Security numbers and certain protected account-related data, affecting almost 280,000 U.S. customers.

On March 27, 2015, the England and Wales Court of Appeal issued its judgment in Google Inc. v Vidal-Hall and Others. Google Inc. (“Google”) appealed an earlier decision by Tugendhat J. in the High Court in January 2014. The claimants were users of Apple’s Safari browser who argued that during certain months in 2011 and 2012, Google collected information about their browsing habits via cookies placed on their devices without their consent and in breach of Google’s privacy policy.

On March 3, 2015, the Third Circuit heard oral arguments in FTC v. Wyndham Worldwide Corp. (“Wyndham”) on whether the FTC has the authority to regulate private companies’ data security under Section 5 of the FTC Act.

On December 9, 2014, a coalition of 23 global privacy authorities sent a letter to the operators of mobile application (“app”) marketplaces urging them to require privacy policies for all apps that collect personal information. Although the letter was addressed to seven specific app marketplaces, the letter notes that it is intended to apply to all companies that operate app marketplaces.

On August 14, 2014, the Center for Digital Democracy (“CDD”) filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission and requested that the Commission investigate 30 companies certified to the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework. In the complaint, CDD maintains that it analyzed 30 data marketing and profiling companies that currently are Safe Harbor-certified and identified the following five overarching themes that CDD claims “underscore the fundamental weakness of the Safe Harbor in its current incarnation,” including that the companies: 

On May 23, 2014, the Federal Trade Commission announced that the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection sent a letter to the court overseeing the bankruptcy proceedings for ConnectEDU Inc. (“ConnectEDU”), an education technology company, warning that the proposed sale of the company’s assets raises privacy concerns. ConnectEDU’s assets include personal information collected from students, high schools and community colleges in connection with the company’s website and affiliated services.

On May 7, 2014, IronBox Secure File Transfer hosted a webinar featuring “Queen of Breach” attorney Lisa Sotto, who shared her top tips in the event of a data breach. Lisa Sotto, partner and head of the Global Privacy and Cybersecurity practice at Hunton & Williams LLP, discussed the current cyber risk landscape and led participants through a hypothetical data breach scenario. She taught participants how to manage a data breach if the worst happens and provided key steps companies should take to prepare proactively for a cybersecurity event.

On May 9, 2014, the Federal Trade Commission announced a settlement with clothing manufacturer American Apparel related to charges that the company falsely claimed to comply with the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework. According to the FTC’s complaint, the company violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by deceptively representing, through statements in its privacy policy, that it held a current Safe Harbor certification even though it had allowed the certification to expire.

On February 18, 2014, the Frankfurt am Main Regional Court issued a ruling addressing the use of opt-out notices for web analytics tools. The case concerned Piwik web analytics software and its “AnonymizeIP” function. The court held that website users must be informed clearly about their right to object to the creation of pseudonymized usage profiles. This information must be provided when a user first visits the website (e.g., via a pop-up or highlighted/linked wording on the first page) and must be accessible at all times (e.g., via a privacy notice).

On April 10, 2014, the Federal Trade Commission announced that the Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection had notified Facebook and WhatsApp Inc., reminding both companies of their obligation to honor privacy statements made to consumers in connection with Facebook’s proposed acquisition of WhatsApp.

On April 7, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey issued an opinion in Federal Trade Commission v. Wyndham Worldwide Corporation, allowing the FTC to proceed with its case against the company. Wyndham had argued that the FTC lacks the authority to regulate data security under Section 5 of the FTC Act. The judge rejected Wyndham’s challenge, ruling that the FTC can charge Wyndham with unfair data security practices. The case will continue to be litigated on the issue of whether Wyndham’s data security practices constituted a violation of Section 5.

On March 28, 2014, the Federal Trade Commission announced proposed settlements with Fandango and Credit Karma stemming from allegations that the companies misrepresented the security of their mobile apps and failed to secure consumers’ sensitive personal information transmitted using their mobile apps.

On February 21, 2014, Peter Hustinx, the European Data Protection Supervisor (“EDPS”), highlighted the need to enforce existing EU data protection law and swiftly adopt EU data protection law reforms as an essential part of rebuilding trust in EU-U.S. data flows.

On February 11, 2014, the Federal Trade Commission announced a proposed settlement with Fantage.com stemming from allegations that the company made statements in its privacy policy that deceptively claimed that Fantage.com was complying with the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework.

On January 21, 2014, the Federal Trade Commission announced settlements with twelve companies that allegedly falsely claimed that they complied with the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework. The settlements stem from allegations that the companies violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by falsely representing that they held current Safe Harbor certifications despite having allowed their certifications to expire. The companies involved represent a variety of industries, ranging from technology and accounting to consumer products and National Football League teams.

On November 27, 2013, the European Commission published an analysis of the EU-U.S. Safe Harbor Framework, as well as other EU-U.S. data transfer agreements. The analysis includes the following documents:

On October 27, 2013, the South Korean Ministry of Security and Public Administration indicated that the government will issue certifications to private and public organizations that meet certain requirements of the Personal Information Protection Act. According to The Korea Times, organizations will be able to apply for the certification with the National Information Society Agency (“NISA”) beginning on November 28, 2013. The number of requirements that an organization will be assessed against will depend on the size of the organization. The Korea Times reports ...

On October 25, 2013, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China passed an amendment to the P.R.C. Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests (the “Amendment”). The Amendment, which was adopted after three readings and will take effect on March 15, 2014, adds provisions designed to respond to the recent boom in online shopping and focuses on improving protections in the area of consumer rights and interests by:

On July 12, 2013, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan announced that she sent letters to operators of eight popular health-related websites requesting information about the websites’ online data collection practices. The Attorney General’s press release underscored how individuals’ health-related information shared online, which would be protected if disclosed in a traditional medical setting, “can be captured, shared and sold when online users enter their information into a website.” The Attorney General also stated that “website disclosure about the extent to which information is captured or shared is buried in privacy policies not found on the websites’ main pages.”

On June 27, 2013, the Colombian Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Tourism issued regulations pursuant to the country’s new data protection law. The regulations, entitled Decreto Número 1377 de 2013, por el cual se reglamenta parcialmente la Ley 1581 de 2012, address a variety of topics, including the following:

• Consent requirements relating to the collection of personal data;
• Restrictions on the processing of children’s personal data;
• Content and delivery of privacy notices;
• Cross-border data transfer restrictions;
• Data transfer agreements;
• Internal privacy ...

Today, July 1, 2013, the Federal Trade Commission’s changes to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (the “Rule”) officially come into effect. On December 19, 2012, the FTC announced that it had published the amended Rule following two years of public comments and multiple reviews of various proposed changes.

The Bavarian data protection authority recently updated its compliance initiative regarding online tracking tools to include Adobe’s online tracking product (Adobe Analytics (Omniture)). As with previous initiatives of this nature, the underlying analyses were carried out in an automated manner, using a program specifically developed by the Bavarian data protection authority to verify compliance.

A state court has dismissed the California Attorney General’s claims that Delta Air Lines Inc. (“Delta”) violated the California Online Privacy Protection Act by failing to have an appropriately posted privacy policy for its mobile application, Bloomberg reports. The California AG sued Delta in December as part of an enforcement campaign that began with the issuance of warning letters to approximately 100 operators of mobile apps, including Delta. According to the Bloomberg report, a basis for the dismissal was the federal Airline Deregulation Act, under which a state ...

On April 30, 2013, the regional court of Berlin enjoined Apple Sales International, which is based in Ireland, (“Apple”) from relying on eight of its existing standard data protection clauses in contracts with customers based in Germany. The court also prohibited Apple’s future use of such clauses.

On April 25, 2013, the Federal Trade Commission released an updated version of its frequently asked questions regarding the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (“COPPA”). The revised FAQs, entitled Complying with COPPA: Frequently Asked Questions (A Guide for Business and Parents and Small Entity Compliance Guide), provide general information on COPPA’s requirements and also include new guidance on the recent amendments to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (“COPPA Rule”).

On February 4, 2013, the German Federal Office for Information Security (Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik or “BSI”) published a paper (in German) providing an overview of the information technology risks inherent in consumerization and bring your own device (“BYOD”) strategies. The Paper responds to what the BSI views as a growing trend of employees making personal use of employer IT systems as well as using their personal IT devices for work purposes.

On February 1, 2013, the Federal Trade Commission issued a new report entitled Mobile Privacy Disclosures: Building Trust Through Transparency. The report makes recommendations “for the major participants in the mobile ecosystem as they work to improve mobile privacy disclosures,” offering specific recommendations for mobile platforms, app developers, advertising networks and other third parties operating in this space. The FTC’s report also makes mention of the Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s efforts to engage in a multistakeholder process to develop an industry code of conduct for mobile apps.

On January 10, 2013, the rapporteur to the EU Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (“LIBE”), Jan Philipp Albrecht, presented his draft report (the “Report”) on the proposed amendments to the European Commission’s proposed General Data Protection Regulation (the “Proposed Regulation”) to the LIBE Committee.

On December 6, 2012, California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris announced a lawsuit against Delta Air Lines, Inc. (“Delta”) for violations of the California Online Privacy Protection Act (“CalOPPA”). The suit, which the Attorney General filed in the San Francisco Superior Court, alleges that Delta failed to conspicuously post a privacy policy within Delta’s “Fly Delta” mobile application to inform users of what personally identifiable information is collected and how it is being used by the company. CalOPPA requires “an operator of a commercial Web site or online service that collects personally identifiable information through the Internet about individual consumers residing in California who use or visit its commercial Web site or online service,” such as a mobile application, to post a privacy policy that contains the elements set out in CalOPPA. According to Attorney General Harris’ complaint, Delta has operated the “Fly Delta” application for smartphones and other electronic devices since at least 2010. The complaint alleges that “[d]espite collecting substantial personally identifiable information (“PII”) such as user’s full name, telephone number, email address, frequent flyer account number and PIN code, photographs, and geo-location, the Fly Delta application does not have a privacy policy. It does not have a privacy policy in the application itself, in the platform stores from which the application may be downloaded, or on Delta’s website.”

On December 5, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission announced that the online advertising company Epic Marketplace, Inc. (“Epic”) agreed to settle charges that it engaged in “history sniffing” to secretly and illegally collect information about consumers’ interest in sensitive medical and financial issues. History sniffing is the practice of determining whether a consumer has previously visited a webpage by checking how a browser displays a hyperlink. The consent order requires Epic to destroy all data collected from history sniffing and bars Epic from engaging in history sniffing in the future.

On November 27, 2012, the International Chamber of Commerce of the United Kingdom (“ICC UK”) released the second edition of its cookie guidance (the “Guidance”). The ICC UK released the first edition of the Guidance in April of this year, and has produced this latest version to take into account updated guidance released by the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”), the Article 29 Working Party Opinion 04/2012 on cookie consent exemption and new UK advertising rules on online behavioral advertising.

In late October 2012, California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris began sending letters to approximately 100 mobile app operators, informing them that they are not in compliance with the California Online Privacy Protection Act (“CalOPPA”). Pursuant to CalOPPA, “an operator of a commercial Web site or online service that collects personally identifiable information through the Internet about individual consumers residing in California who use or visit its commercial Web site or online service” must post a privacy policy that contains specified elements. A mobile app arguably could be an “online service” under CalOPPA, which provides that an online service operator that collects “personally identifiable information” and “fails to post its policy within 30 days after being notified of noncompliance” is in violation of CalOPPA. The law affects a wide range of mobile app operators because of its very broad definition of “personally identifiable information,” which includes any “individually identifiable information about an individual consumer collected online by the operator from that individual and maintained by the operator in an accessible form,” such as a name, an email address or any other identifier “that permits the physical or online contacting of a specific individual.”

On June 26, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it had filed suit against Wyndham Worldwide Corporation and three of its subsidiaries (“Wyndham”) alleging failures to maintain reasonable security that led to three separate data breaches involving hackers accessing sensitive consumer data. The FTC’s complaint claims that Wyndham violated the FTC Act by posting misleading representations on Wyndham websites regarding how the company safeguarded customer information, and by failing to provide reasonable security for personal information it collected ...

On June 15, 2012, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (“NTIA”) announced that, in response to a substantial number of comments it received regarding mobile privacy issues, it will convene its first multistakeholder meeting on July 12 to begin the process of developing a code of conduct that promotes transparency in the mobile application context.

On May 8, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission announced a settlement agreement with the social networking service Myspace LLC (“Myspace”). The FTC alleged that Myspace’s practice of sharing users’ personal information with unaffiliated third-party advertisers conflicted with representations the company made in its privacy policy, and could allow those advertisers to obtain users’ names, publicly available information and information about their online browsing habits.

On March 27, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission announced a proposed settlement order with RockYou, Inc. (“RockYou”), a publisher and developer of applications used on popular social media sites. The FTC alleged that RockYou failed to protect the personal information of 32 million of its users, and violated multiple provisions of the FTC’s Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA”) Rule when it collected information from approximately 179,000 children.

On November 8, 2011, the Federal Trade Commission announced that the operator of skidekids.com, a social networking website that advertises itself as the “Facebook and Myspace for Kids,” has agreed to settle charges that he collected personal information from approximately 5,600 children without parental consent, in violation of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA”) Rule. The proposed settlement will bar future violations of COPPA and misrepresentations about the collection, use and disclosure of children’s information.

On September 15, 2011, the data protection authority of the German federal state of Hamburg (the “DPA”) published a press release confirming that Google has significantly improved compliance with respect to the implementation of Google Analytics in Germany.  This finding is the result of two years of fruitful dialog between Google and the DPA, which was acting on behalf of the conference of German data protection authorities responsible for the private sector (the “Düsseldorfer Kreis”).

On August 24, 2011, the Government of India’s Ministry of Communications & Information Technology issued a clarification regarding India’s new privacy regulations, known as the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules, 2011 (the “Rules”), under Section 43A of the Information Technology Act 2000.

On June 13, 2011, Representative Mary Bono Mack (R-CA) released a discussion draft of the Secure and Fortify Data Act (the “SAFE Data Act”), which is designed to “protect consumers by requiring reasonable security policies and procedures to protect data containing personal information, and to provide for nationwide notice in the event of a security breach.”  Representative Bono Mack is Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade.  In a press release, Representative Bono Mack remarked that “E-commerce is a vital and growing part of our economy.  We should take steps to embrace and protect it – and that starts with robust cyber security.”  She added that “consumers have a right to know when their personal information has been compromised, and companies and other organizations have an overriding responsibility to promptly alert them.”

On June 15, 2011, Senator Al Franken (D-MN) and Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) introduced the Location Privacy Protection Act of 2011 (the “Act”).  As we reported previously, Senator Franken is chairman of the newly-created Senate subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law.   In his press release, Senator Franken explained that the Act is designed to “close current loopholes in federal law” while giving customers the ability to learn about and prevent the collection of their location information.  The Act would apply only to non-government entities and would not impact law-enforcement activities.  At a May 10, 2011 hearing, both Google and Apple were questioned about their privacy practices, and Franken subsequently challenged them to require their application developers to adopt clear and understandable privacy policies.

On April 11, 2011, India adopted new privacy regulations, known as the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules, 2011 (the “Rules”).  The Rules are final versions of the draft regulations issued in February 2011 and impose wide-ranging obligations on any “body corporate” (company) that “collects, receives, possesses, stores, deals or handles” personal information.  These obligations require companies to provide privacy policies, restrict the processing of sensitive personal data, restrict international data transfers and require additional security measures.  The Rules introduce an omnibus privacy law that is similar in many respects to existing EU data protection law, but which raises some fundamental challenges for India’s numerous outsourcing vendors, and their customers.

On April 11, 2011, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California declined to dismiss four of the nine claims in a class action lawsuit filed against RockYou, Inc. (“RockYou”), a publisher and developer of applications used on popular social media sites.  The suit stems from a December 2009 security breach caused by an SQL injection flaw that resulted in the exposure of unencrypted user names and passwords of approximately 32 million RockYou users.  RockYou subsequently fixed the error and acknowledged in a public statement that “one or more individuals had illegally breached its databases” and that “at the time of the breach, the hacked database had not been up to date with industry standard security protocols.”  After receiving notification of the security breach from RockYou in mid-December, on December 28, 2009, a RockYou user who had signed up for a photo-sharing application filed a complaint seeking injunctive relief and damages for himself and on behalf of all other similarly-situated individuals.

On April 13, 2011, Representative Cliff Stearns (R-FL) introduced the Consumer Privacy Protection Act of 2011 (the “Act”), which seeks to “protect and enhance consumer privacy” both online and offline by imposing certain notice and choice requirements with respect to the collection and use of personal information.

As reported in BNA’s Privacy Law Watch, on March 29, 2011, South Korea’s president approved the Act on the Protection of Personal Data.  This comprehensive privacy law will require nearly all businesses and government agencies to provide data breach protection, mandate the use of privacy assessments before establishing certain new databases, and establish a right to file class actions in court over alleged violations of the law.  The implementing rules will be worked out before the law is due to take effect on September 30, 2011.  South Korea first attempted to enact a comprehensive privacy law in 2004; however, for the past seven years, omnibus privacy bills sponsored by the government and lawmakers have stalled in Parliament.

On March 30, 2011, the Federal Trade Commission announced that Google agreed to settle charges that it used deceptive tactics and violated its own privacy promises to consumers when it launched its social network, Google Buzz, in 2010.  According to the FTC’s complaint (main document, exhibits), Google led Gmail users to believe that they could choose whether or not they wanted to join Google Buzz.  The options for declining or leaving Google Buzz, however, were ineffective.  For those who joined Google Buzz, the controls for limiting the sharing of their personal information were difficult to locate and confusing.  Furthermore, the FTC charged that Google violated its privacy policies by using information provided for Gmail for another purpose – social networking – without obtaining consumers’ permission in advance.  Finally, the FTC alleged that Google misrepresented that it was treating personal information from the European Union in accordance with the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor framework because it failed to give consumers notice and choice before using their information for a different purpose from that for which it was collected.

On March 16, 2011, U.S. Department of Commerce Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information Lawrence Strickling called on Congress to enact robust, baseline legislation to “reform consumer data privacy in the Internet economy.” Speaking before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, Assistant Secretary Strickling emphasized the Department of Commerce’s support for a legislative proposal that would adopt many of the recommendations of the “Green Paper,” a Department report authored last December.

On March 11, 2011, the Federal Trade Commission finalized a proposed settlement with Twitter, which resolved allegations that Twitter deceived consumers and failed to safeguard their personal information. The FTC first announced the proposed settlement in June 2010. Specifically, the FTC claimed that Twitter, contrary to its privacy policy statements, did not provide reasonable and appropriate security to prevent unauthorized access to consumers’ personal information and did not honor the consumers’ privacy choices in designating certain tweets as nonpublic. Intruders exploited these failures and obtained administrative control of the Twitter system. These intruders were able to gain unauthorized access to nonpublic tweets and user information, reset any user’s password, and send unauthorized tweets from any user account.

On February 3, 2011, the German Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information issued a press release announcing that it has approved the privacy policy formulated by Deutsche Post DHL.  This allows Deutsche Post DHL to transfer personal data abroad in accordance with its privacy policy without having to obtain approval in individual cases.  Deutsche Post DHL is the first German company to have its binding corporate rules (“BCRs”) approved at the European level, following an extensive consultation process among EU data protection authorities.

David Vladeck, Director of the FTC’s Division of Consumer Protection, this morning previewed the long-awaited FTC report that sums up months of discussion regarding the future of privacy regulation in the United States and examines the viability of a Do Not Track mechanism.  Vladeck indicated at the Consumer Watchdog Policy Conference that the existing privacy framework in the U.S. is not keeping pace with new technologies.  In addition, he stated that the pace of industry self-regulation, while constructive, has been too slow.  According to Vladeck, the report will address several major themes, including the following:

Earlier today, a Department of Commerce official briefed Hunton & Williams and Centre for Information Policy Leadership representatives on the Department’s forthcoming “Green Paper” on privacy.  On November 12, 2010, Telecommunications Reports Daily published an article based on information obtained from an unofficial, pre-release draft version of the Green Paper.  It remains to be seen which portions of the leaked draft ultimately will survive the interagency approval process currently underway.  The Department of Commerce representative emphasized that the content of the draft Green Paper currently undergoing review is consistent with Assistant Secretary of Commerce Larry Strickling’s October 27, 2010, speech in Jerusalem.  In his speech, Secretary Strickling explained that the Department is calling it a “Green” Paper, “not because of its environmental impact, but because it contains both recommendations and a further set of questions on topics about which [the Department] seek[s] further input.”

David Vladeck, Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection of the Federal Trade Commission, today provided a high-level outline of the Commission’s forthcoming report on the future of privacy.

Speaking at the 32nd International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners in Jerusalem, Vladeck said the report reflected two broad conclusions.  First, current privacy law places too much burden on consumers to read and understand privacy notices and make privacy choices.  The second conclusion is that there is a pressing need to reexamine the conception of “harm” in U.S. law to move beyond only economic and physical harms.

As we recently reported, the FTC expressed its opposition to a move by creditors of bankrupt XY Magazine to acquire personal information about the magazine’s subscribers, on the grounds that such a transfer would contravene the magazine’s privacy promises and could violate the Federal Trade Commission Act.  The magazine, which catered to a young gay audience, had a website privacy policy that asserted   “[w]e never give your info to anybody” and “our privacy policy is simple: we never share your information with anybody.”  Readers who submitted online profile information were told that their information “will not be published.  We keep it secret.”  The personal information at issue included the names, postal and email addresses, photographs and online profiles of more than 500,000 users.

David Vladeck, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, recently sent a letter to creditors of XY Magazine, warning that the creditors’ acquisition of personal information about the debtor’s subscribers and readers in contravention of the debtor’s privacy promises could violate the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”).

“The Department of Commerce is back.”  With those words Cameron Kerry, General Counsel of the U.S. Department of Commerce, made it clear the Department intends to take a leading role in shaping domestic privacy policy and representing U.S. privacy interests in international discussions.  The announcement was made at the May 7, 2010, Department of Commerce symposium, “A Dialogue on Privacy and Innovation,” where the mostly business audience welcomed Mr. Kerry’s declaration with great enthusiasm.

The Department of Commerce (“DOC”) will be holding a public meeting on May 7, 2010, in Washington, D.C., to listen to stakeholders’ views on privacy policies in the United States.  This session is part of a broader inquiry by the DOC’s newly created Internet Policy Task Force “whose mission is to identify leading public policy and operational challenges in the Internet environment.”  The DOC’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration and the International Trade Administration will issue a notice of inquiry to look at the nexus between innovation ...

Pursuant to a public complaint, on January 27, 2010, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada announced a new investigation into Facebook.  The investigation concerns the social networking site’s introduction of a tool that required its users to review their privacy settings in December 2009.  According to the complaint, Facebook’s new default settings allegedly made some users’ information more accessible than previously had been the case.  Elizabeth Denham, the Assistant Privacy Commissioner, indicated “[s]ome Facebook users are disappointed by certain changes being ...

In a discussion with The New York Times, Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) Chairman Jon Leibowitz, and chief of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, David Vladeck, indicated that Internet publishers and advertisers can expect the FTC to play a more active role in safeguarding consumer privacy.  Chairman Leibowitz highlighted that, in the past, the FTC’s approach to privacy has focused on consumer notice and consent, and whether consumers were harmed.  From the FTC’s perspective, however, the present model is problematic because companies have failed to provide consumers with meaningful notice that would allow them to make effective choices regarding their privacy.  This “advise-and-consent” model is broken, as it “depended on the fiction that people were meaningfully giving consent.”  In reality, few consumers take the time to inform themselves about the notices and choices outlined in privacy policies.

On December 17, 2009, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (“EPIC”) filed a complaint with the FTC claiming that Facebook is engaging “unfair and deceptive trade practices” by changing its privacy policies.  Notably, the changes allow anyone who browses the Internet to view a Facebook user’s name, profile picture, gender, geographic region and list of friends.  Facebook has stated that it implemented these changes to make it easier to find individual users among the estimated 350 million Facebook users.

The court in In re Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 09-1043 (D. N.J. Dec. 12, 2009) recently dismissed a class action lawsuit brought by investors in Heartland, a processor of payment card transactions whose stock value dropped significantly after it suffered a data security breach in which hackers allegedly stole 130 million payment card numbers.  The plaintiffs argued that Heartland’s statements to the effect that it had adequate security systems and that it took the issue of computer network security very seriously were fraudulent because Heartland knew it had poor data security and failed to remedy critical problems soon enough to prevent the theft.