Privacy & Information Security Law Blog

The U.S. Department of Commerce has issued two new sets of FAQs in light of the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (“CJEU’s”) recent decision to invalidate the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield in Schrems II. We previously reported on the Schrems II ruling and its implication for businesses that transfer personal data to the U.S. The new FAQs from the Department of Commerce address the impact of the decision on the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework and the Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield framework.

On July 27, 2020, the Enforcement Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission (the “FCC”) designated the Industry Traceback Group (“ITG”) as the FCC’s official consortium for coordinating efforts to trace illegal robocalls. The ITG is a collaboration of wireline, wireless, VoIP and cable industry companies, led by USTelecom, with the mission of tracing and identifying the source of illegal robocalls. According to the ITG, it conducted more than 1,000 trace-back operations in 2019 and unmasked the source of more than 10 million robocalls.

On July 28, 2020, German supervisory authorities (Datenschutzkonferenz, the “DSK”) issued a statement reiterating the requirement for additional safeguards when organizations rely on Standard Contractual Clauses (“SCCs”) or Binding Corporate Rules (“BCRs”) for the transfer of personal data to third countries in the wake of the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (the “CJEU”) invalidation of the Privacy Shield Framework. In its July 16, 2020 judgment, the CJEU concluded that SCCs issued by the European Commission for the transfer of personal data to data processors established outside of the EU are valid, subject to the need to assess whether additional safeguards are required depending on the recipient jurisdiction. In this same decision, the CJEU struck down the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is investigating Facebook Inc. (“Facebook”) for alleged violations of the Texas Business and Commercial Code, which contains provisions governing the collection, retention and disclosure of biometric data. As we previously reported, Facebook recently reached a $650 million settlement for alleged violations of Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act for their use of facial recognition software without permission from affected users.

On July 23, 2020, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (the “ICO”) published the first two reports of its Data Protection Regulatory Sandbox Beta phase (the “Beta phase”) involving projects by Jisc (a not-for-profit organization serving the higher and further education and skills sectors) and Heathrow Airport Ltd.

On July 22, 2020, the European Data Protection Board (the “EDPB”) adopted an information note (the “Note”) to assist organizations relying on Binding Corporate Rules (“BCRs”) for international personal data transfers, as well as supervisory authorities, in preparing for the end of the Brexit implementation period on December 31, 2020. The Note is provided specifically for those groups of undertakings and enterprises that have the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) as the competent supervisory authority for their BCRs.

On July 24, 2020, the European Data Protection Board (the “EDPB”) published a set of Frequently Asked Questions (the “FAQs”) on the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) in the Schrems II case (case C-311/18). In its judgment, the CJEU concluded that the Standard Contractual Clauses (the “SCCs”) issued by the European Commission for the transfer of personal data to data processors established outside of the EU are valid, but it struck down the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework. With its FAQs, the EDPB sought to provide responses to some of the many questions organizations are asking in the aftermath of the Schrems II ruling.

On Wednesday, July 22, the New York Department of Financial Services (the “NYDFS”) announced that it had filed administrative charges against First American Title Insurance Co. under the NYDFS Cybersecurity Regulation, marking the agency’s first enforcement action since the rules went into effect in March 2017.

On July 16, 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) invalidated the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework as part of its judgment in the Schrems II case (case C-311/18). In its judgment, the CJEU concluded that the Standard Contractual Clauses (the “SCCs”) issued by the European Commission for the transfer of personal data to data processors established outside of the EU are valid, but it struck down the Privacy Shield framework on the basis that the limitations on U.S. public authorities’ access to EU personal data were not sufficient for the level of protection in the U.S. to be considered equivalent to that ensured in the EU, and that the framework does not grant EU individuals actionable rights before a body offering guarantees that are substantially equivalent to those required under EU law.

On July 16, 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) issued its landmark judgment in the Schrems II case (case C-311/18). In its judgment, the CJEU concluded that the Standard Contractual Clauses (the “SCCs”) issued by the European Commission for the transfer of personal data to data processors established outside of the EU are valid. Unexpectedly, the Court invalidated the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework.

On July 6, 2020, the Dutch Data Protection Authority (Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens, the “Dutch DPA”) imposed a €830,000 fine on the Dutch Credit Registration Bureau (Stichting Bureau Krediet Registration, “BKR”) for non-compliance with Articles 12(2) and 12(5) of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”) between May 2018 and March 2019.

On June 30, 2020, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced it had entered into a consent agreement (the “Proposed Settlement”) with NTT Global Data Centers Americas, Inc. (“NTT”), a successor in interest to RagingWire Data Centers, Inc. (“RagingWire”), to settle allegations in a November 2019 Administrative Complaint that RagingWire misrepresented its participation in and compliance with the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework (“Privacy Shield”), in violation of the FTC Act.

In one of the most important cases on global data transfers, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) will rule on the validity of the Standard Contractual Clauses (“SCCs”) in the Schrems II case (case C-311/18) on July 16, 2020. Invalidation of the SCCs would leave businesses scrambling to find an alternative data transfer mechanism. But there may be significant practical challenges for businesses even if the SCCs survive.

On July 14, 2020, the Litigation Chamber of the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “Belgian DPA”) imposed a €600,000 fine on Google Belgium SA (“Google”) for non-compliance with the right to be forgotten.

On July 8, 2020, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) at Hunton Andrews Kurth submitted its White Paper (the “Paper”) as input for the European Data Protection Board’s (the “EDPB”) future guidelines on data subject rights (“DSRs”) (the “Guidelines”). The Paper, titled “Data Subject Rights under the GDPR in a Global Data Driven and Connected World,” was drafted following the EDPB stakeholders’ event on DSR in Brussels on November 4, 2019.

In a case that has garnered widespread interest, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) will deliver its judgment in the Schrems II case (case C-311/18) on July 16, 2020, determining the validity of the controller–to-processor Standard Contractual Clauses (“SCCs”) as a cross-border data transfer mechanism under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). If the SCCs are invalidated, the judgment would deliver a significant blow to the numerous businesses that rely on them, leaving many scrambling to find a suitable alternative transfer mechanism. Even if the SCCs survive, they may become more cumbersome to use.

On July 9, 2020, the European Commission (the “Commission”) adopted a Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions entitled: “Getting ready for changes – Communication on readiness at the end of the transition period between the European Union and the United Kingdom” (the “Communication”).

On July 13, 2020, the Italian Data Protection Authority (Garante per la protezione dei dati personali, “Garante”) announced that it levied a €16,729,600 fine on telecoms provider Wind Tre S.p.A. (“Wind Tre”) for several unlawful data processing activities, mostly related to direct marketing.

On June 16, 2020, the Litigation Chamber of the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “Belgian DPA”) imposed a fine on a company (the “defendant”) for unlawful and incorrect processing of personal data and non-compliance with the EU General Data Protection Regulation’s (the “GDPR”) data subject rights provisions.

On June 26, 2020, New Zealand Justice Minister Andrew Little announced that the bill to repeal and replace New Zealand’s existing Privacy Act 1993 (the “Privacy Bill”) had passed its third reading in Parliament. The Privacy Bill received royal assent on June 30, 2020.

The Civil Code of China (the “Civil Code”) was approved by the National People's Congress of China on May 28, 2020 and will take effect January 1, 2021. Part Four of the Civil Code explicitly stipulates that the “Right of Privacy” is one of the “Rights of Personality” covered therein and includes a chapter on “Privacy and Personal Information Protection,” which contains detailed provisions to protect privacy and personal information.

On July 1, 2020, the Dubai International Financial Centre (“DIFC”) Data Protection Law No. 5 of 2020 came into effect (“New DP Law”). Due to the current pandemic, a three-month grace period, running until October 1, 2020, has been provided for companies to comply. The New DP Law replaces DIFC Law No. 1 of 2007. The release of the New DP Law is, in part, an effort to ensure that the DIFC, a financial hub for the Middle East, Africa and South Asia, meets the standard of data protection required to receive an “adequacy” finding from the European Commission and the United Kingdom, meaning that companies may transfer EU/UK personal data to the DIFC without putting in place a transfer mechanism (such as Standard Contractual Clauses).

On July 1, 2020, the Dutch Data Protection Authority (Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens, the “Dutch DPA”) published its 2019 annual report (the “Report”). The Report shows that in 2019, the Dutch DPA focused on enforcement actions, after having raised awareness about the EU General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”) in 2018. Below are key findings from the Report.

When compared to the EU or the U.S., China has lacked a comprehensive data protection and data security law that regulates in detail requirements and procedures relating to the collection, processing, control and storage of personal data. In recent years, China has seen developments on data protection both in legislation and in practice. Recently, another significant draft law on data security was issued by the Chinese legislative authority. On June 28 to June 30, 2020, the 20th Session of the 13th Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of China (the “NPC”) deliberated on the draft of the Data Security Law (the “Draft”), and on July 3, published the Draft on the NPC’s official website for public comment. The public comment period for the Draft will end on August 16, 2020. It is expected that the Draft will be finalized within the year and that the regulatory requirements relating to data security eventually will be reflected in law in China.

Last month, in In re: Capital One Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, E.D. Va., No. 1:19-md-02915, U.S. Magistrate Judge John Anderson (the “Judge”) ordered Capital One Financial Corp. (“Capital One”) to disclose a forensic report to the plaintiffs in a lawsuit stemming from Capital One’s 2019 data breach. In doing so, the Judge rejected Capital One’s argument that the report is protected from disclosure to the plaintiffs by the work product doctrine.

On June 24, 2020, the Washington State Attorney General (“Washington AG”) announced that it had settled an enforcement action against the owners of the “We Heart It” social media platform for alleged violations of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA”) and the Washington State Consumer Protection Act. Under the consent decree, the defendants must pay $100,000, with an additional $400,000 suspended contingent upon compliance with the consent decree.

On July 1, 2020, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) launched a joint endeavor with the Competition and Markets Authority (“CMA”) and Office of Communications (“Ofcom”), named the Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum (“DRCF”). The DRCF is intended to promote collaboration between the three regulators and pool their collective expertise with regard to data, privacy, competition, communications and content in digital markets and services. It also intends to engage regularly with the UK government.

On July 1, 2020, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”) became enforceable by the California Attorney General. Under the statute, businesses are granted 30 days to cure any alleged violations of the law after being notified of alleged noncompliance. If a business fails to cure the alleged violation, it may be subject to an injunction and liable for a civil penalty of up to $2,500 for each violation or $7,500 for each intentional violation.

The Italian Data Protection Authority (Garante per la protezione dei dati personali, “Garante”) recently announced that it levied a €600,000 fine on banking institution UniCredit for several violations of the Italian Personal Data Protection Code, in its pre-General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) form.