Privacy & Information Security Law Blog

On February 12, 2024, a federal court in the Southern District of Ohio issued an order granting a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, prohibiting the Ohio Attorney General from implementing and enforcing the Parental Notification by Social Media Operators Act, Ohio Rev. Code § 1349.09(B)(1) (the “Act”).

On February 15, 2024, Senators Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.) announced the addition of co-sponsors Senators Ted Cruz (R-Texas) Chair and Ranking Member of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) to an updated version of the proposed Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA 2.0”) bill. The bill contains what the sponsors call “small modifications based on conversations with stakeholders and additional technical corrections.”

Recent developments in the Shanghai Pilot Free Trade Zone to facilitate cross-border data transfers are expected to provide greater flexibility in exporting data from China, which has been stymied by the Cyberspace Administration of China (“CAC”)’s strict cross-border data transfer regulations proposed in December 2023. In recent years, the legal framework and practical enforcement for cross-border data transfers in China have undergone significant developments, especially with respect to the CAC’s cross-border data transfer security reviews and standard contractual clauses. The lack of clarity around the CAC’s strict rules for security assessment reviews appears to have caused significant delays in the approval process for cross-border data transfers and concern among international companies who regularly transfer data outside of China. However, it appears that the Shanghai government is likely to permit international companies to transfer data offshore by leveraging its sprawling free trade zones. Shanghai, for example, has recently unveiled new measures aimed at accelerating cross-border data transfers.

On February 13, 2024, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) adopted Opinion 04/2024 on the notion of the main establishment of a controller in the Union under Article 4(16)(a) of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) (the “Opinion”).

On February 9, 2024, Hunton Andrews Kurth attorneys, David Dumont and Laura Léonard, and Centre for Information Policy Leadership Director of Privacy and Data Policy, Natascha Gerlach, published an op-ed discussing the implications of the European Commission’s proposal for a Regulation laying down additional procedural rules relating to the enforcement of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (the “Draft GDPR Procedural Regulation”) and the draft report on the Draft GDPR Procedural Regulation by the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (the “Draft LIBE Report”).

On February 9, 2024, a California state court of appeal ruled in favor of the California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA”) and vacated the lower court order postponing enforcement of the CPPA’s final regulations under the California Consumer Privacy Act.

On February 8, 2024, the Federal Communications Commission declared that calls using AI- generated, cloned voices fall under the category of “artificial or prerecorded voice” within the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) and therefore are generally prohibited without prior express consent, effective immediately. Callers must obtain prior express consent from the recipient before making a call using an artificial or prerecorded voice, absent an applicable statutory exemption or emergency.

On February 8, 2024, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) announced the priority topics for its inspections in 2024.  

Hunton Andrews Kurth is hosting a webinar discussing the Federal Trade Commission’s proposed revisions to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (i.e., the COPPA Rule) on February 20, 2024, at 12:00 p.m. (ET). Hunton partners Phyllis Marcus and Lisa Sotto will discuss the FTC’s recent proposal to strengthen federal protections for children’s privacy and the implications of the new changes, if enacted, for organizations. 

In the latest evolution of lawsuits challenging technologies that track website users, California class action plaintiffs have begun to file under a new theory—the pen register and trap and trace device theory under Section 638.51 of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”).