Thursday, October 5, 2023
1:00 p.m. – 2:00 p.m. ET
12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m. CT
11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. MT
10:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. PT
Seyfarth is pleased to offer this Masterclass, hosted by Lexology, which is designed to familiarize in-house counsel and privacy professionals, in and
This blog post is co-authored by Seyfarth Shaw and The Chertoff Group and has been cross-posted with permission.
On July 26, the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted its Cybersecurity Risk Management, Strategy, Governance, and Incident Disclosure final rule on a 3-2 vote. The final rule is a modified version of the SEC’s earlier Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) released in March 2022. The final rule formalizes and expands on existing interpretive guidance requiring disclosure of “material” cybersecurity incidents.
Continue Reading SEC Publishes Public Company Cybersecurity Disclosure Final Rule
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?
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.
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)
On Tuesday, June 13 at 1:00 p.m. Eastern, Seyfarth attorneys Kristine Argentine, John Tomaszewski, and Paul Yovanic will present at the Association of National Advertisers webinar, “Emerging Issues Surrounding Privacy Class Actions and Compliance in 2023.”
The webinar will address the recent surge in consumer class actions, compliance considerations, and recent developments
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?
We have seen a market driven push for companies to embrace diversity and inclusion (D&I) policies over the last few years, which reflects a key shift in social and cultural norms for many organisations. Increasingly, consumers, staff and senior business leaders expect proactive steps to be taken for D&I objectives. Research demonstrates a strong business case for promoting diversity, although some suggest that viewing it through a lens of fairness is more effective. Regardless of the rationale, there are very sound reasons for companies to be embracing a diverse and inclusive workforce.
In pursuit of this objective, global businesses might assume that diversity reporting obligations apply in Australia in the same way they do in other jurisdictions and that overseas policies will be suitable for use here. With the best of intentions, following guidance from reputable external organisations focussed on general strategies to promote D&I, businesses might default to policies and practices designed overseas.
So what’s the problem? Many companies are unaware of the local compliance issues in Australia that need to be met when collecting diversity data and implementing these programs:
Continue Reading When Good Intentions Fail: Is Your D&I Policy Inadvertently Unlawful?
Seyfarth Synopsis: On May 12, 2021, President Joe Biden issued a very broad, 34 page “Executive Order on Improving the Nation’s Cybersecurity.” The Executive Order, or “EO”, can be found here. This order comes six months after the notorious SolarWinds attack, and mere weeks after other high-profile attacks have invaded our networks, and shut
There have been seminal events in the cybersecurity space since 2012, but there has likely been no event in recent times bigger than the SolarWinds attack which was first announced in December 2020. Though it likely had “nation-state” origins, the SolarWinds attack raised a number of serious issues for US companies and indeed the US