Privacy & Information Security Law Blog

As an update to our previous blog post, according to media reports, Google has reached a settlement with the FTC in the range of $150 to $200 million over the agency’s investigation into the company’s alleged violations of COPPA through its YouTube platform. The settlement has not been announced by the FTC or Google, and the details of the settlement have not been made publicly available. These reports follow Google’s announcement earlier this week that it has created a separate YouTube Kids site, which will include different content for different age groups. This news also ...

On August 21, 2019, the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “Belgian DPA”) published a press release informing of its intention to further investigate a data breach that was notified by Adecco Belgium, a temporary employment agency. The data breach affected thousands of biometric data, including fingerprints and images allowing facial recognition, and was suffered by the company Suprema. The compromised data included approximately 2,000 fingerprints of Adecco Belgium’s employees.

On August 21, 2019, the Swedish Data Protection Authority (the “Swedish DPA”) imposed its first fine since the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) came into effect in May, 2018. The Swedish DPA fined a school 200,000 Swedish Kroner for creating a facial recognition program in violation of the GDPR.

On August 8, 2019, the FTC announced that Unrollme Inc. (“Unrollme”), an email management company, agreed to settle allegations the company deceived consumers about how it accesses and uses their personal emails. Unrollme offered users a service whereby the company would help unsubscribe users from unwanted subscription emails. In connection with this service, Unrollme required users to provide the company with access to their email accounts. The FTC alleged that Unrollme falsely told consumers it would not “touch” their personal emails. In fact, the FTC alleged, Unrollme shared its users’ email receipts (“e-receipts”) (i.e., emails sent to consumers following a completed transaction) with its parent company, Slice Technologies, Inc. The FTC’s complaint alleged that the parent company used information from the e-receipts (such as the user’s name, address, and information about products or services the individual purchased) for purposes of its own market research analytics products.

On August 15, 2019, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) announced that it had launched an investigation into the use of live facial recognition technology at the King’s Cross development in London. This follows a letter sent by the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, to the owner of the development inquiring as to whether the use of the software was legal. The company responsible for the technology said it was used for the purposes of public safety.

On August 15, 2019, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office updated its guidance on the timescale for responding to data subject access requests under the EU General Data Protection Regulation, following a ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union . The guidance now states that the time limit should be calculated from the day that the request is received, whether or not it is a working day. For example, if a request is received on September 3, the time limit will commence on that date and the response should be provided to the data subject by October 3 ...

On August 12, 2019, the Dutch Data Protection Authority (Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens, the “Dutch DPA”) announced its intent to approve Nederland ICT’s Data Pro Code (the “Code”), a code of conduct for the ICT sector. Nederland ICT represents data processors from the IT sector. Data processors that process personal data on behalf of and for a data controller can join this code of conduct. The draft decision of the Dutch DPA regarding the Code was published in the Official Journal of the Netherlands (the “Staatscourant”) on August 12 and interested parties have six weeks to submit their opinion on the draft decision.

On August 7, 2019, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) at Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP issued a white paper titled Key Issues Relating to Standard Contractual Clauses for International Transfers and the Way Forward for New Standard Contractual Clauses under the GDPR (the “White Paper”). The White Paper was submitted to the European Commission as part of its ongoing work to update EU Standard Contractual Clauses for international transfers (“SCCs”).

On August 8, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit allowed a class action brought by Illinois residents to proceed against Facebook under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) (740 ICLS 14/1, et seq.).

On August 5, 2019, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) at Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP responded to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada’s (“OPC”) reframed consultation on transfers for processing. The reframed consultation replaced a previously suspended OPC consultation dealing with the same topic to which CIPL had also responded.

On August 2, 2019, New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu signed into law SB 194 (the “Bill”), which requires insurers licensed in the state (“licensees”) to put in place data security programs and report cybersecurity events. Although the Bill takes effect January 1, 2020, licensees have one year from the effective date to implement relevant cybersecurity requirements and two years from the effective date to ensure that their third-party vendors also implement appropriate safeguards to protect and secure the information systems and nonpublic information accessible to, or held by, the third-party service providers.

On July 29, 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) released its judgment in case C-40/17, Fashion ID GmbH & Co. KG vs. Verbraucherzentrale NRW eV. The Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf (Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf) requested a preliminary ruling from the CJEU on several provisions of the former EU Data Protection Directive of 1995, which was still applicable to the case since the court proceedings had started before the implementation of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”).