Photo of John Tomaszewski

John Tomaszewski

Subscribe to John Tomaszewski's Posts
Contact:Read more about John Tomaszewski
Priv Shield

On July 10th, the European Commission issued its Implementing Decision regarding the adequacy of the EU-US Data Privacy Framework (“DPF”). The Decision has been eagerly awaited by US and Europe based commerce, hoping it will help business streamline cross-Atlantic data transfers, and by activists who have vowed to scrutinize the next framework arrangement (thereby maintaining their relevance). Regardless of the legal resiliency of the decision, it poses an interesting set of considerations for US businesses, not the least of which is whether or not to participate in the Framework.

For those who followed the development and demise of the Privacy Shield program and the Schrems II case, it has been apparent for some time that the fundamental objection of the activists and the Court of Justice of the EU (“CJEU”) to the original Privacy Shield was the perception that the US intelligence community had an ability to engage in disproportional data collection without any possibility of recourse by EU residents whose personal information may be swept into an investigation. The actual functioning of the program for the certifying businesses were much less controversial.

Since the structure of the program wasn’t the primary reason for Privacy Shield’s revocation, from a business perspective, the current DPF looks a lot like the old Privacy Shield. For businesses who made the decision to participate in the Privacy Shield program in the past, the operational burden shouldn’t be much different under the new DPF, if they have already taken steps to operationalize the requirements.

What is interesting about the new DPF is how it may impact a company’s decision to choose  between the Standard Contractual Clauses (“SCCs”) and the alternative adequacy mechanism for transfers. There is also some interest vis-à-vis the DPF and its interactions with state privacy laws.Continue Reading Adequacy for the US (kind of) – But What Are the Side Effects?

CCPA

The California Superior Court in Sacramento decided to give businesses in California an early present for the 4th of July. The regulations promulgated by the California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA”) back in March will not be enforceable on July 1, 2023. The new enforcement date will be March 29, 2024.

This is a result of the Court finding (account to access required) that it was the intent of the voters to require a 12-month “grace period” for businesses to build out their CCPA compliance programs. As a bit of background, and as we mentioned in our article back in April that you can find here, the California Chamber of Commerce (“the Chamber”) filed suit against the CPPA in March of this year seeking a delay in enforcement. The suit argued  that the CCPA regulations passed by the CPPA should only be enforceable only after 12 months from the final promulgation of all the required regulations set out in Proposition 24 and sought injunctive relief to delay CPPA’s enforcement. The Chamber lawsuit was filed the day after the CPPA finalized their regulations across 12 of the 15 areas of the CCPA which rulemaking is required under Proposition 24.Continue Reading California Courts Give an Independence Day Present – CCPA Regulation Enforcement Delayed

2023 has brought several states into the privacy limelight. On June 18, Governor Abbott signed the Texas Data Privacy and Security Act (“TDPSA”) into law, making the Lone Star state the eleventh in the U.S. to pass a comprehensive data privacy and security law. The Act provides Texas consumers the ability to submit requests to exercise privacy rights, and extends to parents the ability exercise rights on behalf of their minor children.

The Texas Act provides the usual compliment of data subject rights relating to access, corrections, data portability, and to opt out of data being processed for purposes of targeted advertising, the sale of personal information, and profiling where a consumer may be significantly or legally effected. It also requires that covered businesses provide a privacy notice and other disclosures relevant to how they use consumer data.Continue Reading Texas Joins the Privacy Party

markus-spiske-gcgves5H_Ac-unsplash

With the passage of Senate Bill 262, Florida has become the latest state who has woken up to the political capital that a state privacy law can provide. And while we see a lot of the “usual suspects” which populate other state privacy laws (e.g. notice, consumer rights, collection and use restrictions, etc.) – which we have posted on frequently – Florida didn’t just look to privacy with SB 262.  It also addressed two other issues which seem to be on the mind of Governor DeSantis – government censorship of online social media platforms, and protection of a minor’s personal information.Continue Reading Florida’s SB 262 – What Florida Thinks of Privacy (and more)

michal-jakubowski-oQD9uq4Rd4I-unsplash

Tennessee and Montana are now set to be the next two states with “omnibus” privacy legislation. “Omnibus” privacy legislation regulates personal information as a broad category, as opposed to data collected by a particular regulated business or collected for a specific purpose, like health information, financial or payment card information. As far as omnibus laws go, Tennessee and Montana are two additional data points informing the trend we are seeing at the state level regarding privacy and data protection. Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on your point of view) these two states have taken the model which was initiated by Virginia and Colorado instead of following the California model.

Is there Really Anything New?

While these two new laws may seem to be “more of the same”, the Tennessee law contains some new interesting approaches to the regulation of privacy and data protection. While we see the usual set of privacy obligations (notice requirements, rights of access and deletion, restrictions around targeted advertising and online behavioral advertising, et cetera) in both the Tennessee and Montana laws, Tennessee has taken the unusual step of building into its law specific guidance on how to actually develop and deploy a privacy program in the Tennessee Information Protection Act (“TIPA”).Continue Reading Two New State Privacy Laws – But What is Really New?

Introduction

On June 10, 2021, China officially passed China’s first Data Security Law, which will take effect on September 1, 2021. Following the introduction of the Data Security Law, together with the Cybersecurity Law, which has been implemented since June 1, 2017, and the Personal Information Protection Law, which is undergoing public comment…

In a long awaited decision, the European Commission (“Commission’) adopted two new sets of standard contractual clauses (“SCCs”) to reflect the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (“EU GDPR”) and ‘the realities faced by modern business’ (see the Commission’s press release). These replace the current SCCs that were adopted over 10 years ago under the, now repealed, Data Protection Directive. The EU’s Commissioner for Justice, Didier Reynders, cited the SCCs as providing companies with ‘more safety and legal certainty’ and as being ‘user friendly tools’.

It is important to note that the new set of SCCs is significantly different than the previous set. For example, instead of focusing on the status of the parties as “controller” or “processor”, the new SCCs focus on the location of the parties, regardless of status. This is a significant departure from the prior form.
Continue Reading Out With the Old, In With the New: New GDPR Standard Contractual Clauses

This was originally published as a Seyfarth Legal Update.

Seyfarth Synopsis: As the world progresses with COVID vaccinations, the scenario where you have to show a COVID passport before crossing a border, taking a public mode of transportation, or entering a public space like a cinema no longer seems like a scene out of a dystopian sci-fi movie. Colloquially dubbed the “COVID passport,” the concept refers to various forms of a certificate of COVID vaccination and/or negative test status recognized on a national or inter-state basis, the use of which remains a controversial topic at this juncture, giving rise to technical, legal and ethical concerns.

Having said that, some countries have already adopted or proposed adopting various versions of COVID passports on a national or inter-member states basis, such as the “Green Pass” for visiting certain premises or events within Israel[1], the “Green Health Code” for domestic travel and entry into certain premises within mainland China[2], and the proposed “Digital Green Certificate” for travelling between member countries of EU and abroad[3]. The decentralized initial approach and the practical challenges of implementing an universally recognized COVID passport remains as the world grapples with the COVID-19 pandemic.
Continue Reading Overview of Technology and Data Privacy Issues Arising from COVID Passports

California has once again decided it needed to pass privacy legislation to protect the residents of the great state from the nefarious actions of Big Tech.  However, this time they did it with a ballot initiative and not via the thoughtful (mostly) mechanism of the legislative process.  The proponents of the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (“CPRA”) touted this as an improvement over the CCPA – but is it really?  To listen to the proponents of the CPRA, it aims to strengthen California consumer privacy rights, while for the most part, avoiding the imposition of overly-burdensome requirements on a business, particularly those businesses that are already CCPA compliant.  So, what’s changed, really?
Continue Reading California Prop 24 – Is the New Privacy Law Really New (Or Is the Sky Falling)

Today, the Court of Justice of the EU has handed down its judgment in the highly-anticipated Facebook Ireland case (aka Schrems II) and invalidated the Privacy Shield Decision. For those of you who have followed this case, the CJEU took a “left turn at Albuquerque” in its decision since the primary contention of Mr. Schrems was that the Commission Decision around Standard Contractual Clauses (“SCCs”) was invalid.

While the Court did opine on the SCC issue, it didn’t stop there. The Court actually took up a broader scope and addressed the validity of the Privacy Shield decision. In a mentally acrobatic exercise, we ended up with a judgment that preserved the SCCs decision (kind of), but invalidated the Privacy Shield Decision – even after there had been multiple renewals of the adequacy finding of Privacy Shield in the past. Additionally, along with the logical gymnastics around Privacy Shield, the SCCs aren’t quite out of the woods yet.
Continue Reading CJEU Invalidates EU-US Privacy Shield Framework