On June 28, 2019, the German parliament (Bundestag) passed new legislation imposing several changes to the current German Federal Data Protection Act (“BDSG”). Although many of the changes addressed privacy aspects of criminal proceedings, the new legislation makes an important change for small companies by increasing the threshold to designate a Data Protection Officer (“DPO”). Whereas currently companies have to designate a DPO if they constantly employ at least 10 employees who deal with the automated processing of personal data, the new legislation increases the minimum number of employees from 10 to 20, significantly decreasing the financial and administrative burden for small companies doing business in Germany. This article explains the changes and their impact and explains what companies should do.
While the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) has inspired many states to consider their own consumer privacy bills, including Nevada which recently enacted a new law, not to be lost in the CCPA-focused frenzy is the fact that states continue to revise their data breach notification statutes. In recent weeks, the new Massachusetts breach notification amendment has gone into effect, New Jersey, Maryland, Oregon, Texas, and Washington have enacted their own breach notification amendments, and Illinois has proposed a bill that is poised to become law in the near term. READ MORE
Webinar (recording available) | June.25.2019
Click to Play
Download Powerpoint Presentation
Please join Heather Sussman and Matthew Coleman in the Cyber, Privacy & Data Innovation group’s webinar, “California’s and Nevada’s New Privacy Laws – What Companies Need to Know.”
California was the first U.S. state to enact a sweeping new privacy law, known as the CCPA, with an effective date of January 2020. Nevada has now enacted a scaled-down version of the CCPA that is slated to take effect even sooner – as early as October 2019.
Following in California’s footsteps, Nevada has passed a new privacy law providing consumers the right to opt out of the sale of their personal information. Senate Bill 220 (SB-220), signed into law by Governor Steve Sisolak on May 29, 2019, amends Nevada’s existing online privacy statute, NRS 603A.340, to include a requirement that online operators provide consumers with a means to opt out of the sale of specific personal information collected by websites or online services. The act goes into effect on October 1, 2019 – three months ahead of the January 1, 2020 effective date of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) – which may force companies to fast track implementation efforts for opt-out requests in particular. 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.
At the beginning of this month, more than 4,000 privacy professionals from around the globe gathered in Washington, D.C. for the International Association of Privacy Professionals’ Global Privacy Summit 2019. The conference focused on lessons learned from the first year of GDPR enforcement in Europe, the expansion of European-style rights to more jurisdictions around the world, plans for addressing new obligations imposed by the CCPA in California, and the future of privacy law in the United States including whether federal legislature is likely or desired – especially in light of the CCPA and similar proposed legislation in states throughout the nation. READ MORE
In 2018, the California legislature made headlines with its game-changing data protection law: the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018. Other state legislators across the country appear to be hot on its heels as a flurry of CCPA-like bills have been introduced across the United States. While it is too early to predict which of these bills, if any, will be enacted, this increased focus on privacy in the state legislatures is clearly a sign that the privacy landscape—and consequent compliance challenges for companies—is going to get more complicated. READ MORE
In June 2018, medical laboratory LabMD obtained the first-ever court decision overturning a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) cybersecurity enforcement action. (The team directing that effort – led by Doug Meal and Michelle Visser – joined Orrick in January 2019). There, the Eleventh Circuit held that an FTC cease-and-desist order imposing injunctive relief requiring LabMD to implement “reasonable” data security was impermissibly vague. In the wake of LabMD, the FTC’s new Chairman, Joseph Simons, stated that he was “very nervous” that the agency lacked the remedial authority it needed to deter allegedly insufficient data security practices and that, among other things, the FTC was exploring whether it has additional untapped authority it could use in this space. In this regard, Chairman Simons and Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter announced that the FTC is examining whether it can “further maximize its enforcement reach, in all areas, through strategic use of additional remedies” such as “monetary relief.” READ MORE
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