Data Collection

Subscribe to Data Collection

The United Kingdom may be headed for a major break from EU GDPR. In mid-2022, the UK began studying potential reform of GDPR. This was revived with the United Kingdom’s Data Protection and Digital Information (No. 2) Bill (Bill 265, 58/3), introduced on March 8, 2023. It includes 106 groups of line-item amendments to the General Data Protection Act 2018 (UK GDPR). Particularly significant is a modification to what qualifies “personal data” under the prior act (and the EU GDPR). Article 4(1) of GDPR (and present UK GDPR) sweeps into “personal data;”

“any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (‘data subject’); an identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that natural person…”

(emphasis added).

Continue Reading UK GDPR Reform: A Bridge Too Far?

Iowa became the sixth state to pass a comprehensive data privacy law, joining California, Colorado, Connecticut, Utah, and Virginia. Instead of standing out from the crowd, the Iowa legislature passed a law that imposes attenuated obligations stated in those other states’ laws . Below are some highlights from the Act relating to consumer data protection (the “Iowa Act”):…

Continue Reading If You Pass It, They Will Comply (Someday): Iowa Becomes Latest State to Pass Comprehensive Data Privacy Law

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) recently issued a proposed order requiring BetterHelp, an online counseling service, to pay $7.8 million over misrepresentations to consumers and improper disclosures of consumers’ health information to advertisers, such as Facebook, Snapchat, Criteo, and Pinterest.[1] This order and consent agreement comes a month after the FTC entered a settlement with GoodRx for similar privacy violations, which we examined in the following article here.…

Continue Reading BetterHelp… Themselves: FTC Fines Company for Improper Deceptive Advertising Practices

How does Facebook know you want sugar-free snacks? These personal ads may have targeted you based on your online searches or a refill of your diabetes medicine collected by the digital health company GoodRx. GoodRx has been sending this personal health information such as prescription information to ad platforms like Facebook and Google to use and monetize your data.

But the Federal Trade Commission did not approve of GoodRx’s actions and, last Wednesday, fined the digital health company for its “deceptive practices” in the disclosure of personal and health information to third-party advertising companies and platforms like Meta and Google for advertisement purposes.[1] At the core of the complaint, the FTC cited the inconsistencies between the statements made in GoodRx’s privacy policy and its actual business practices, specifically, the company’s use of online tracking tools such as web beacons and software development kits (generally referred to as pixels) for targeted and personalized ads.…

Continue Reading From Your “Clicks” To Targeted Ads: FTC Fines Company for Its “Deceptive” Use of Pixels

Today, the Illinois Supreme Court issued a long-awaited and highly-anticipated decision in Tims v. Black Horse Carriers, Inc., which is sure to have a long-term ripple effect on litigation under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) going forward. With no dissenting opinion, the Supreme Court reversed the Illinois First District Appellate Court’s decision applying two separate statutes of limitation depending on the section under which a plaintiff’s BIPA claim is brought. The Supreme Court held instead that the five-year catchall statute of limitations period contained in the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure applies to all BIPA claims. Specifically, the Supreme Court held that two separate statutes of limitation go against Illinois public policy and could cause an “unclear, inconvenient, inconsistent, and potentially unworkable regime” for BIPA litigation.…

Continue Reading Bad News for BIPA Defendants: Illinois Supreme Court Holds That Five-Year Statute of Limitations Applies to All BIPA Claims

On Wednesday, a federal jury broke new ground for lawsuits alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). Rogers v. BNSF Railway Co. is the first BIPA class action to go to trial in Illinois, and after only five days of trial and a mere hour of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff resulting in a whopping $228 million damage award to the class. …
Continue Reading Are BIPA Claims a Runaway Train? Defendant Hit With $228 Million Federal Jury Verdict in Rogers v. BNSF Railway

School is in session and companies are preparing for the slew of new data privacy laws taking effect through 2023 into 2024 but California piled on more homework for those companies handling data of minors. On September 15, 2022, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (the “Act”).[1] Modeled from UK’s Age-Appropriate Design Code, the Act imposes novel legal obligations on entities that provide “an online service, product, or feature likely to be accessed by children.” The obligations stem from the common belief that “children are particularly vulnerable from negotiating perspective with respect to their privacy rights.” [2]
…
Continue Reading Another Brick in the Wall: California’s Age-appropriate Design Code Act

The Illinois Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Thursday that the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) is not preempted by the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act (IWCA).

This decision clears the way for employees to pursue BIPA statutory damages ($1,000 for each negligent violation or $5,000 for each intentional or reckless violation), a significant and costly defeat for employers in a case that was followed closely by attorneys on both sides of the bar.…

Continue Reading BIPA Lives On: Illinois Supreme Court Rejects Common Employer Defense of Workers’ Comp Preemption

SEC Logo Image

On January 27, the SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (“OCIE”) issued a statement designed “to assist market participants in their consideration of how to enhance cybersecurity preparedness and operational resiliency.” Companies regulated by the SEC, or organizations that work with companies the SEC regulates, should review OCIE’s observations of best practices and consider whether they are meeting OCIE’s expectations.

OCIE’s observations fall into several categories.

Governance and Risk Management. As OCIE notes, “[e]ffective cybersecurity programs start with the right tone at the top . . . .” OCIE also notes that effective programs include, among other things, (i) a risk assessment of cybersecurity threats; (ii) written cybersecurity policies and procedures to address said risks; and (iii) implementation and enforcement of those policies, including testing and monitoring and continuous evaluation of those policies. …
Continue Reading SEC Issues Statement on Cybersecurity and Operational Resiliency

Vehicle Data 2 Image

The California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”), Cal. Civ. Code 1798.100-199, presents some interesting questions for mobility businesses and service providers that handle data developed or transmitted by vehicles. Although the CCPA was passed with an effective date of January 1, 2020, the regulations implementing it are still in flux—and are on their second iteration. But whether final regulations are in place or not, enforcement by the California Attorney General’s office could start as early as July 1, 2020.  Because the CCPA provided only limited exemptions for information collected by the automotive industry—information collected under the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act of 1994 and certain information developed and exchanged by new auto dealers and vehicle manufacturers in connection with warranty work or vehicle/part recalls—significant questions remain as to how the CCPA will be applied to the mobility industry.

For the past hundred or so years, most vehicles did not have the electronic brains to require a CCPA “gut check.” When electronics made their debut in automobiles, tools like OBD allowed vehicles to store diagnostic codes, and eventually event recorders (now regulated by the Driver Privacy Act of 2015) recorded pre-accident conditions. Telematics began to change the picture in the late 1990s, with automobiles transmitting information to central locations using cellular (and now wireless) technology. Modern connected vehicles can collect vast amounts of data when driven—and they can pass large amounts of it to manufacturers and service providers. And even when they are not actively transmitting this information, such information can be extracted from vehicles by service personnel. SAE Level 4 and Level 5 autonomous vehicles will necessarily be more dependent on connectivity both to central data sources and to each other—and can be expected to drive an explosion in data transmitted and analyzed on a central basis. Some of this will be regulated by data privacy laws, such as the CCPA, despite the above noted exceptions for automotive information.
Continue Reading CCPA: Keeping the Wheels on the Road