Brazil’s long-anticipated data protection law, Lei Geral De Proteção de Dados Pessoais (“General Law for Data Protection” or “LGPD”), now appears positioned to take effect in a matter of days. Ever since the law was originally passed in August 2018, implementation and enforcement timelines have been in flux. In a rather sudden turn of events last week, however, dramatic back-to-back votes by each house of Brazil’s National Congress now put the substantive provisions of the LGPD on track to take effect in a few days’ time, upon approval by Brazil’s president. The LGPD’s administrative fines and sanctions provisions remain scheduled to take effect next year in August 2021. READ MORE
On May 5, 2020, the Seventh Circuit held in Bryant v. Compass Group USA, Inc. that a plaintiff who asserted a violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act’s (“BIPA’s”) notice and consent requirements had Article III standing to pursue her claim in federal court. With respect to BIPA’s retention schedule posting requirement, however, the Seventh Circuit found that allegations of a statutory violation did not, on their own, suffice to confer Article III standing. This decision will make it easier for defendants to keep BIPA claims in federal court, and its standing analysis has significant implications for BIPA cases, as well as other privacy and data security cases more broadly.
Happy New Year! At long last, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”) went into effect yesterday, January 1, 2020. For those who have not yet heard, the CCPA establishes a comprehensive legal framework to govern the collection and use of personal information, both online and offline, and provides unprecedented privacy rights to California consumers, in effect becoming the de facto national standard for U.S. privacy law. The law introduces new legal risks and considerations for companies that collect information from California consumers, due to the law’s expansive scope, broad definition of personal information, increased disclosure obligations, enhanced consumer rights, potential for statutory fines and, in the event of a security incident, the potential for consumer class action litigation. READ MORE
With the January 1, 2020 effective date of the California Consumer Privacy Act (the “CCPA”) rapidly approaching, all eyes have been on the California legislature’s consideration of a robust suite of amendments that would clarify ambiguities and address discrepancies underlying the prominent privacy statute. On October 11, 2019, six CCPA amendments were signed into law by the California Governor, as well as an amendment to the state’s breach notification statute. The rest of the CCPA amendments have either failed or will have to wait until next year for further consideration.
On October 10, 2019, the California Attorney General added to the complexity of the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”) by releasing long-awaited proposed regulations that provide guidance on various elements of the CCPA. The text of the proposed regulations is available here and the California Attorney General has made other documents and information relating to the proposed regulations available here. The comment period for the proposed regulations will close on December 6, 2019. Interested parties may review and provide written comments addressing the proposed regulations prior to that date or attend one of four scheduled public hearings on the proposed regulations to be held on December 2-5, 2019. READ MORE
Privacy & Cybersecurity Litigation partner Michelle Visser, counsel David Cohen and associate Nicole Gelsomini authored this blog post for the Washington Legal Foundation on the unsettled state of the law on constitutional standing in privacy and cybersecurity cases in the wake of two recent Supreme Court developments. Constitutional standing challenges are, and will continue to be, an important potential tool for privacy and cybersecurity defendants seeking to dismiss certain class actions brought in federal court. To establish standing, a private plaintiff must show, among other things, that he or she faces an actual or imminent concrete injury from the defendant’s conduct. As explained in the Washington Legal Foundation post, however, the Supreme Court recently passed on two chances to clarify the test that will govern this standing inquiry, leaving defendants to wade through conflicting and ambiguous lower court precedent. The uncertain and nuanced state of this area of law underscores the importance of retaining experienced cybersecurity and privacy defense counsel when faced with this type of suit.
A recent decision from the Supreme Court of Illinois heightens the risks faced by companies collecting biometric information by holding that an individual who is the subject of a violation of Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act—but who suffered no separate harm from the violation—is an “aggrieved party” with a cause of action under the statute. Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp., No. 123186 (Ill. Jan. 25, 2019). This decision will only further embolden plaintiffs’ lawyers to bring biometric privacy suits, and the risk to companies collecting biometric information will likely increase as newly enacted and proposed legislation comes into effect. In this post, we discuss what happened, what is on the horizon, and some steps to consider. READ MORE
Rivera v. Google, a recent federal court decision from the Northern District of Illinois, highlights how challenges to Article III standing are a versatile and useful tool for corporate defendants in privacy and cybersecurity litigation. At the same time, the litigation underscores the significant legal risk faced by entities that collect biometric information and the consequent need to proactively assess and mitigate that risk. READ MORE
This past September Governor Brown signed into law Senate Bill 327, which is the first state law designed to regulate the security features of Internet of Things (IoT) devices. The bill sets minimum security requirements for connected device manufacturers, and provides for enforcement by the California Attorney General. The law will come into effect on January 1, 2020, provided that the state legislature passes Assembly Bill 1906, which is identical to Senate Bill 327. READ MORE