At the end of June, the California legislature passed its Bill 375, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018. The Act contains a number of concepts that would be familiar to those who are working to bring their companies and organizations into compliance with GDPR. The new law defines a category of “Personal Information” that
Seyfarth Shaw Offers Data Privacy & Protection in the EU-U.S. Desktop Guide and On-Demand Webinar Series
On May 25, 2018, the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) will impose significant new obligations on all U.S. companies that handle personal data of any EU individual. U.S. companies can be fined up to €20 million or 4%…
Cross-posted from Employment Law Lookout.
Seyfarth Synopsis: A string of recent class action lawsuits regarding businesses’ use of employees’ biometric data should put employers on heightened alert regarding compliance with various state biometric privacy laws.
As biometric technology has become more advanced and affordable, more employers have begun implementing procedures and systems that rely on employees’ biometric data. “Biometrics” are measurements of individual biological patterns or characteristics such as fingerprints, voiceprints, and eye scans that can be used to quickly and easily identify employees. However, unlike social security numbers or other personal identifiers, biometrics are biologically unique and, generally speaking, immutable. Thus, unlike a bank account or a social security number, which can be changed if it is stolen, biometric data, when compromised, cannot be changed or replaced, leaving an affected individual without recourse and at a heightened risk for identity theft. Given the serious repercussions of compromised biometric data, a number of states have proposed or passed laws regulating the collection and storage of biometric data. And plaintiffs’ attorneys are taking notice, as the number of class action lawsuits in this area has surged in recent months.
Currently, there are three states that have statutes regulating the collection and storage of biometric data: Illinois, Texas, and Washington. In 2008, Illinois passed the Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”). Texas followed suit in 2009, and Washington passed its biometric privacy law in 2017.…
Cross-posted from Carpe Datum Law.
On May 25, 2018, the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) will impose significant new obligations on all U.S. companies that handle personal data of any EU individual. U.S. companies can be fined up to €20 million or 4% of their global annual revenue for the most egregious violations. What does the future passage of GDPR mean for your business?
Our experienced eDiscovery and Information Governance (eDIG) and Global Privacy and Security (GPS) practitioners will present a series of four 1-hour webinars in August through October of 2017. The presenters will provide a high-level discussion on risk assessment tools and remediation strategies to help prepare and reduce the cost of EU GDPR compliance.…
The General Data Protection Regulation is coming, and along with it, a significant expectation of increased harmonization in the privacy rules across the EU. Considering the 60-plus articles which directly impose obligations on controllers and processors, this isn’t an unreasonable sentiment. However (as is often the case with the EU), reality is a bit more…
Cross-posted from Carpe Datum Law.
Beginning on April 12, 2017, U.S. organizations that are subject to the investigatory and enforcement powers of the FTC or the Department of Transportation will be able to self-certify to the newly adopted Swiss–U.S. Privacy Shield Framework (“Swiss Privacy Shield”). The Swiss Privacy Shield will allow transfers of Swiss personal data to the United States in compliance with Swiss data protection requirements. The Swiss Privacy Shield will replace the U.S.–Swiss Safe Harbor Framework and will impose similar data protection requirements established last summer for cross-border transfers of personal data from the EU under the EU–U.S. Privacy Shield (“Privacy Shield”).
Organizations with active Privacy Shield certifications will be able to add the Swiss Privacy Shield registration to their existing Privacy Shield accounts, at a separate annual fee. Similarly to the Privacy Shield, the fee for participation in the Swiss Privacy Shield will be tiered based on the organization’s annual revenue. The exact fee structure will be made available sometime before April 12.
Notably, organizations with dual registrations, would need to recertify under both the Privacy Shield and the Swiss Privacy Shield one year from the date the first of their two certifications was finalized. That means, for instance, that an organization that registered for the Privacy Shield on September 1, 2016, which then registers for the Swiss Privacy Shield on May 1, 2017, would need to complete its annual recertification under both frameworks by September 1, 2017.
Cross Posted from California Peculiarities Employment Law Blog
Hernandez v. Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc., a case stemming from a phishing scam, emphasizes the need for California employers to implement comprehensive data protection and data breach notification policies and practices for personal employee information under the CDPA.
A story of a company suffering a data breach tops newspaper headlines almost daily. So how can you stay out of the “fuego,” and stay compliant with California laws about your employees’ and customers’ data?
California’s Data Protection Act—“Army Of One”
In 2003 California passed the nation’s first data breach notification statute: the CDPA. Since then, over 30 states have enacted similar statutes, but California remains the national leader in privacy and data security standards.
The CDPA mandates that any business that “owns or licenses personal information about a California resident shall implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices appropriate to the nature of the information, to protect the personal information from unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure.” And it requires a company to notify affected individuals of a data breach “in the most expedient time possible and without unreasonable delay.”…
The clock is now ticking. On May 4th the European Parliament published the final text of the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), and the rules of the game have significantly changed – at least in the context of EU data protection law. First, the GDPR changes the underlying approach to data protection law, with a new emphasis placed on accountability and risk-based approaches. “Privacy by Design” and “Privacy by Default” have been included in the regulatory ecosystem. Second, significant changes have been made to the obligations of “controllers” and “processors”. These include specific criteria for having compliant privacy notices and vendor management contracts. Third, enforcement is now a very real, and potentially risky, thing. With the possibility of administrative fines being up to 4% of a business’ global gross revenue, private rights of action by individuals, and non-profit privacy watchdog groups (also known as “Civil Society”) having the right to complain of a company’s privacy practices directly to the local Data Protection Authorities; compliance with the GDPR will now be one of those risks that any business who touches EU data will need to seriously consider. Fortunately, the GDPR won’t go into effect until May 25th 2018. However, businesses with significant data from the EU need to start considering how to comply now.…
It is the beginning of 2016, and American companies are anxiously awaiting news of whether or not a new “Safe Harbor 2.0” will emerge. In October of 2015, the European Court of Justice declared invalid Safe Harbor 1.0 in the Schrems decision. This had an immediate effect on any American company collecting personal data from the EU by removing the legal basis for this kind of data transfer. As of October 2015, consumer, client, and even employee data cannot be legally transferred to the US under the Safe Harbor Framework.
Fortunately, the data protection regulators (“DPAs”)recognized the turmoil this decision created within the business community on both sides of the Atlantic. As a result, the Article 29 Working Party (which is the convention of DPAs from each of the EU Member States) issued an enforcement moratorium on enforcement actions until the end of January 2016, so that they could assess the effectiveness of data transfer tools available. As part of this moratorium, the Working Party called on “…Member States and European institutions to open discussions with U.S. authorities in order to find legal and technical solutions”; and that the “current negotiations around a new Safe Harbor could be part of the solution.”…
Last week, the government of Australia released an “Exposure Draft” of a bill that, if passed into law, would amend Australia’s Privacy Act to require notification to the government and affected individuals in the event of a data breach. Currently, although Australian law requires government agencies and businesses subject to the Privacy Act to take reasonable steps to protect personal information, it does not mandate notification following a data breach. The proposed Australian law requires notification only in the event of a “serious data breach,” which is defined as unauthorized access to, or disclosure/loss of, personal and certain other information that results in a “real risk of serious harm” to any of the individuals to whom the information relates. …