Privacy & Information Security Law Blog

On December 6, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, which is set to take effect on January 19, 2025, and make the distribution of TikTok illegal in the U.S. if parent company ByteDance has not divested. The D.C. Circuit is now considering a request for emergency injunction pending Supreme Court review. 

Last week, the House Energy and Commerce Committee advanced the Kids Online Safety Act (H.R. 7891) and the Children and Teen’s Online Privacy Protection Act (H.R. 7890).

On September 19, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission announced the publication of a staff report entitled, A Look Behind the Screens: Examining the Data Practices of Social Media and Video Streaming Services. The Report documents the data collection and use practices of major social media and video streaming services and provides recommendations for better protecting users’ data and privacy, with a particular focus on children and teens.

On July 30, 2024, in a 91-3 vote, the U.S. Senate passed two bills aimed at protecting youth online: the Kids Online Safety Act and the Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act.

On June 27, 2024, the U.S. House of Representatives cancelled the scheduled House Energy and Commerce Committee markup of the American Privacy Rights Act, the latest version of which contains significant changes from earlier drafts.

The Maryland legislature recently passed the Maryland Online Data Privacy Act of 2024 (“MODPA”), which was delivered to Governor Wes Moore for signature and, if enacted, will impose robust requirements with respect to data minimization, the protection of sensitive data, and the processing and sale of minors’ data.

On April 7, 2024, U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and U.S. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) released a discussion draft of the latest federal privacy proposal, known as American Privacy Rights Act (“APRA” or the “Act”). The APRA builds upon the American Data Privacy and Protection Act (“ADPPA”), which was introduced as H.R. 8152 in the 117th Congress and advanced out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee but did not become law. As the latest iteration of a federal privacy proposal, the APRA signals that some members of Congress continue to seek to create a federal standard in the wake of—and in spite of—the ever-growing patchwork of state privacy laws.

On March 20, 2024, the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation that will prohibit data brokers from transferring U.S. residents’ sensitive personal data to foreign adversaries, including China and Russia. The House bill HR 7520 (the “Bill”), also known as the Protecting Americans’ Data from Foreign Adversaries Act of 2024, marks a significant development in executive and legislative action related to foreign access to U.S. data. The Bill follows a similarly groundbreaking Executive Order and Department of Justice Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued at the end of February that will establish strict protective measures against data exploitation by countries considered national security threats for U.S. sensitive personal data and U.S. government-related data. The Bill also comes after the House overwhelmingly passed HR 7521, (the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act) resulting from concerns that the Chinese government would compel TikTok (or other foreign adversary-controlled apps) to turn over U.S. data. HR 7521 would effectively require TikTok to divest from parent company ByteDance in order to avoid a ban in the U.S.

On February 26, 2024, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) announced the release of Version 2.0 of its voluntary Cybersecurity Framework (“CSF”).

The first iteration of the CSF was released in 2014 as a result of an Executive Order, to help organizations understand, manage, and reduce their cybersecurity risks. The original CSF was developed for organizations in the critical infrastructure sector, such as hospitals and power plants, but has since been voluntarily implemented across various sectors and industries, including throughout schools and local governments.

On October 30, 2023, U.S. President Biden issued an Executive Order on Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence. It marks the Biden Administration’s most comprehensive action on artificial intelligence policy, building upon the Administration’s Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights (issued in October 2022) and its announcement (in July 2023) of securing voluntary commitments from 15 leading AI companies to manage AI risks.

On September 5, 2023, all 50 state attorneys general and four attorneys general from U.S. territories urged Congress to take action on the use of artificial intelligence (“AI”) to exploit children. In their letter to Congress, the AGs address how AI can be used to exploit children, including tracking children’s location, mimicking them and generating child sexual abuse materials such as deepfakes. Based on these concerns, the AGs collectively request that Congress establish an expert commission to study the means and methods of how AI can be used to exploit children. The AGs ...

On March 3, 2023, the California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA”) Board held a public meeting regarding the Agency’s priorities, budget, the status of the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (“CPRA”) rulemaking process and the activities of the CPPA subcommittees. The meeting focused on the following topics:

On February 24, 2023, Representative Patrick T. McHenry of North Carolina introduced a bill proposing the creation of the Data Privacy Act of 2023. The bill proposes to amend the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (“GLBA”) by making the following changes:

On March 1, 2023, the U.S. House of Representatives Innovation, Data and Commerce Subcommittee (“Subcommittee”) of the Energy and Commerce Committee (“Committee”) held a hearing to restart the discussion on comprehensive federal privacy legislation. Last year, the full Committee reached bipartisan consensus on H.R. 8152, the American Data Privacy and Protection Act (“ADPPA”), by a vote of 53-2.  With many of the same players returning in the 118th Congress, House members are eager to advance bipartisan legislation again.

On August 25, 2022, the FTC issued its Federal Trade Commission Report to Congress on COPPA Staffing, Enforcement and Remedies. The document was prepared in response to the joint explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022, which directed the FTC to provide a report detailing (1) the current amount of resources and personnel focused on enforcing the COPPA Rule; (2) the number of investigations into violations of the COPPA Rule in the past five years; and (3) the types of relief obtained, if any, for completed COPPA investigations.

On August 11, 2022, the Federal Trade Commission announced it is seeking public comment regarding its advance notice of proposed rulemaking (“ANPR”) on commercial surveillance and data security, on which we previously reported. The FTC defines “commercial surveillance” as the business of collecting, analyzing and profiting from consumer data.

On July 28, 2022, the California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA”) Board held a special public meeting to discuss agency staff’s recommendations that the Board formally oppose the draft federal American Data Privacy and Protection Act (“ADPPA”). The latest version of the ADPPA recently was voted out of the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee, and is set to advance to the House Floor.

On July 20, 2022, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce (the “Committee”) passed H.R. 8152, the American Data Privacy and Protection Act (“ADPPA”) (as amended), by a vote of 53-2. The ADPPA next will be put before the full House for a vote.

On July 1, 2022, the California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA”) sent U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi a memo outlining how H.R. 8152, the bipartisan American Data Privacy and Protection Act (“ADPPA” or the “Act”), would lessen privacy protections for Californians, and California Democrats have joined the cause.

The CPPA’s memo asserts that the ADPPA, by preempting the California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”) and other state privacy laws, proposes to eliminate:

On June 21, 2022, President Biden signed into law, the State and Local Government Cybersecurity Act of 2021 (S. 2520) (the “Cybersecurity Act”) and the Federal Rotational Cyber Workforce Program Act (S. 1097) (the “Cyber Workforce Program Act”), two bipartisan bills aimed at enhancing the cybersecurity postures of the federal, state and local governments.

On June 16, 2022, the Federal Trade Commission issued a report to Congress titled Combatting Online Harms Through Innovation (the “Report”) that urges policymakers and other stakeholders to exercise “great caution” about relying on artificial intelligence (“AI”) to combat harmful online content.

On June 23, 2022, the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce passed by voice vote H.R. 8152, the American Data Privacy and Protection Act (“ADPPA”). This bipartisan legislation, sponsored by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone (D-NJ), committee Ranking Republican Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), subcommittee Chairman Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) and subcommittee Ranking Republican Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), is based on the bipartisan, bicameral “Three Corners” draft bill released on June 2, 2022 with the support of Pallone, Rodgers and Senate Commerce Committee Ranking Republican Roger Wicker (R-MS). 

On April 5, 2022, North Carolina became the first state in the U.S. to prohibit state agencies and local government entities from paying a ransom following a ransomware attack.

North Carolina’s new law, which was passed as part of the state’s 2021-2022 budget appropriations, prohibits government entities from paying a ransom to an attacker who has encrypted their IT systems and subsequently offers to decrypt that data in exchange for payment. The law prohibits government entities from even communicating with the attacker, instead directing them to report the ransomware attack to the North Carolina Department of Information Technology in accordance with G.S. 143B‑1379.

On April 11, 2022, Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan spoke at the opening of the International Association of Privacy Professionals’ Global Privacy Summit. This speech marks Khan’s first major privacy address since her appointment last June.

On March 11, 2022, the U.S. Senate passed an omnibus spending bill that includes language which would require certain critical infrastructure owners and operators to notify the federal government of cybersecurity incidents in specified circumstances. The bill  previously was passed by the House of Representatives on March 9, 2022. President Biden is expected to sign the bill and has until March 15, 2022, to do so before the current spending authorization expires.

On March 1, 2022, President Biden, in his first State of the Union address, called on Congress to strengthen privacy protections for children, including by banning online platforms from excessive data collection and targeted advertising for children and young people. President Biden called for these heightened protections as part of his unity agenda to address the nation’s mental health crisis, especially the growing concern about the harms of digital technologies, particularly social media, to the mental health and well-being of children and young people. President Biden not only urged for stronger protections for children’s data and privacy, but also for interactive digital service providers to prioritize safety-by-design standards and practices. In his address, President Biden called on online platforms to “prioritize and ensure the health, safety and well-being of children and young people above profit and revenue in the design of their products and services.” President Biden also called for a stop to “discriminatory algorithmic decision-making that limits opportunities” and impacts the mental well-being of children and young people.

On March 2, 2022, the Senate unanimously passed the Strengthening American Cybersecurity Act of 2022 (“SACA” or the “Bill”). The Bill is now with the House of Representatives for a vote and, if passed, will be sent to President Biden’s desk for signature.

On September 28, 2021, Senators Gary Peters (D-MI) and Rob Portman (R-OH), Chairman and Ranking Member of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, respectively, introduced a bipartisan bill (the “Bill”) that would require owners and operators of critical infrastructure to notify the Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (“CISA”) within 72 hours of having a reasonable belief that a covered cyber incident has occurred. Additionally, the Bill would require most entities (including businesses with 50 or more employees) that make ransom payments following ransomware attacks to report those payments to the CISA within 24 hours of payment. Notably, any entity required to submit a ransom payment report would first be required to conduct a due diligence review of alternatives to paying ransom, including an analysis of whether recovery from the ransomware attack is possible through other means, before making such a ransom payment. Critical infrastructure owners and operators also would be required to provide supplemental reports to the CISA in light of new or different information becoming available. All entities subject to these requirements would face data preservation obligations.

On September 14, 2021, the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce (“E&C Committee”) voted in favor of a legislative recommendation that would create a new Federal Trade Commission privacy bureau as part of the proposed $3.5 trillion federal budget reconciliation package.

On July 21, 2021, a bipartisan group of Senators introduced the Cyber Incident Notification Act of 2021 (the “Act”). The Act would require federal government agencies, federal contractors and operators of critical infrastructure to notify the federal government in the event of a cybersecurity incident.

On July 8, 2021, Colorado Governor Jared Polis signed SB21-190, the Colorado Privacy Act (“the Act”), into law, making Colorado the third state to have a comprehensive data privacy law on the books, following California and Virginia. The Colorado House voted 57-7 in favor of the Act on June 7 after it had previously passed the Senate unanimously on May 26. The Senate voted unanimously to adopt the House’s amendments to the Act on June 8. The Act will go into effect on July 1, 2023, with some specific provisions going into effect at later dates.

On June 17, 2021, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) announced the reintroduction of the Data Protection Act of 2021 (the “bill”), which would create an independent federal agency, the Data Protection Agency, to “regulate high-risk data practices and the collection, processing, and sharing of personal data.” The bill was first introduced in 2020 and has since been revised to include updated provisions intended to protect against privacy harms, oversee the use of “high-risk data practices” and examine the social, ethical, and economic impacts of data collection.

On June 15, 2021, the U.S. Senate confirmed Lina Khan to the Federal Trade Commission by a vote of 69-28. Khan will fill the vacancy left by former Chairman Joseph Simons (R) who resigned from the FTC in January 2021.

As reported on the Hunton Retail Law Blog, on April 22, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in a highly-anticipated case, AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC, that the FTC cannot seek or obtain equitable monetary relief pursuant to §13(b) of the FTC Act.

On April 12, 2021, the Biden administration announced it intends to nominate Chris Inglis, a former Deputy Director of the National Security Agency, to be the first U.S. National Cyber Director (“NCD”), subject to Senate confirmation. The newly established NCD position, which will serve as the President’s principal cybersecurity policy and strategy advisor, and the Office of the National Cyber Director (the “ONCD”) were created under the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (the “NDAA”), which became law on January 1, 2021.

As we previously reported, significant data privacy bills, titled the Consumer Data Protection Act, are working their way through the Virginia legislature. If enacted, Virginia would be the second state to enact major data privacy legislation of general applicability.

On February 5, 2021, the state Senate of Virginia voted unanimously to approve Senate Bill 1392, titled the Consumer Data Protection Act, after the House of Delegates approved an identical House bill by an 89-9 vote. Each bill likely will be heard in committee next week by the opposite chamber, which provides additional opportunities to make amendments. Minor, clarifying amendments will likely be added in committee, but they are not expected to alter the main components of the bill. Virginia’s General Assembly will adjourn Sine Die on March 1, and legislators have until then to finalize the details of the legislation. Virginia’s Governor Ralph Northam would be in a position to sign the bill later in March. Notably, the Governor has line item veto authority, so the bill could also possibly be amended after it passes the General Assembly.

On December 9, 2020, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation held a hearing on the Invalidation of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield and the Future of Transatlantic Data Flows. The hearing explored the policy issues that led to the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (“CJEU”) invalidation of the Privacy Shield framework in the Schrems II ruling. The hearing also discussed effects of the CJEU’s decision on U.S. businesses and what steps the U.S. government may take to develop a successor data transfer framework, including comprehensive federal privacy legislation.

On November 17, 2020, the Senate passed by unanimous consent H.R. 1668, the Internet of Things (“IoT”) Cybersecurity Improvement Act (the “IoT Bill”). The House previously passed the IoT Bill in September after negotiations with the Senate to resolve differences in their respective bills. The IoT Bill now heads to the President’s desk for signature.

As part of its regulatory review of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (“GLB”) Safeguards Rule, the Federal Trade Commission will hold a workshop, Information Security and Financial Institutions: An FTC Workshop to Examine the Safeguards Rule. The workshop, originally scheduled for May, has been postponed until July 13, 2020.

On February 12, 2020, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand announced a plan to create a Data Protection Agency through her proposed legislation, the Data Protection Act of 2020. According to Senator Gillibrand, the purpose of the law is to create the new agency and bring the protection of privacy and freedom into the digital age.

On November 18, 2019, the ranking members from four Senate Committees (Senator Maria Cantwell (WA) from Commerce, Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA) from Judiciary, Senator Sherrod Brown (OH), and Senator Patty Murray (WA) from Health, Education, Labor and Pensions) released a set of “core principles” for federal privacy legislation.

Recent headlines underscore the security challenges faced by public-facing businesses. From physical threats to cyber attacks targeting a wide range of critical infrastructure, companies in diverse sectors, such as the financial, retail, entertainment, energy, transportation, real estate, communications and other areas, face a challenging landscape of risks and potential liabilities. Join us on October 28, 2019, at 12:00 p.m. EST, for a webinar to discuss these issues, including why companies should consider SAFETY Act protection and how to obtain it.

There are six bills pending before the California legislature that would amend the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”). These bills could significantly alter the law’s application and associated compliance obligations, including with respect to HR data, B2B customer data, loyalty programs and the definition of “personal information.” As of September 12, three bills have passed out of the California Senate and are pending before the Assembly for a concurring vote: AB 874, AB 1146 and AB 1564. The California legislature must vote on all pending CCPA ...

As an update to our previous blog posts, the FTC announced that it and the New York Attorney General reached a $170 million agreement with Google to resolve allegations that the company violated COPPA through its YouTube platform. Under the agreement, Google will pay $136 million to the FTC and $34 million to New York. The FTC voted 3-2 to authorize the action.

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 ...

In addition to Facebook’s record-breaking Federal Trade Commission penalty and settlement order, on July 24, 2019, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced charges against Facebook for inadequate and misleading disclosures over its privacy practices. Facebook, without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations, has agreed to the entry of a final judgment ordering a fine of $100 million.

As previously reported on July 12, 2019, Facebook will pay a $5 billion penalty to the Federal Trade Commission to resolve a privacy probe into whether Facebook violated a prior FTC consent decree requiring the company to better protect user privacy. The $5 billion penalty is the largest imposed on any company for violating consumers’ privacy – nearly 20 times the largest privacy or data security penalty to date.

According to media reports, the Federal Trade Commission has approved a multimillion dollar fine as part of a settlement with Google related to the FTC’s investigation into YouTube’s children’s data privacy practices. The FTC found that, in violation of COPPA, Google had failed to adequately protect children under 13 who used the video-streaming service and improperly collected their data.

According to media reports, the Federal Trade Commission has approved a roughly $5 billion settlement with Facebook, Inc. to resolve a privacy probe investigating whether Facebook had violated a prior FTC consent decree requiring the company to better protect user privacy. The investigation followed reports that Cambridge Analytica improperly accessed the personal data of 87 million Facebook users.

On June 4, 2019, Hunton hosted a webinar with partners Lisa Sotto, Aaron Simpson, Brittany Bacon and Fred Eames on the evolving U.S. privacy landscape. The past year has seen highly consequential legislative developments in U.S. privacy law affecting compliance obligations for businesses that have or use consumer data. Various states and the U.S. Congress are considering bills that could transform privacy in the United States. In this program, our speakers discuss the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”) and other significant state and federal privacy legislation.

On March 27, 2019, Utah Governor Gary Herbert signed HB57, the first U.S. law to protect electronic information that individuals have shared with certain third parties. The bill, called the “Electronic Information or Data Privacy Act,” places restrictions on law enforcement’s ability to obtain certain types of “electronic information or data” of a Utah resident, including (1) location information, stored data or transmitted data of an electronic device, and (2) data that is stored with a “remote computing service provider” (i.e., data stored in digital devices or servers).  The law provides for situations in which law enforcement may obtain such information without a warrant.

On March 5, 2019, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it is seeking comment on proposed changes to the FTC’s Safeguards Rule and Privacy Rule under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (“GLB”).

The proposed amendments to the Safeguards Rule, which went into effect in 2003 and imposes data security obligations on financial institutions over which the Commission has jurisdiction, are based primarily on the cybersecurity regulations issued by the New York Department of Financial Services and the insurance data security model law issued by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. The proposed changes would add more detailed requirements on how financial institutions must protect customer information.

In 2002, Congress enacted the Supporting Anti-Terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act (“the SAFETY Act”) to limit the liabilities that energy, financial, manufacturing and other critical infrastructure companies face in the event of a serious cyber or physical security attack.

On September 26, 2018, the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation convened a hearing on Examining Consumer Privacy Protections with representatives of major technology and communications firms to discuss approaches to protecting consumer privacy, how the U.S. might craft a federal privacy law, and companies’ experiences in implementing the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) and the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”).

On May 8, 2018, Senator Ron Wyden (D–OR) demanded that the Federal Communications Commission investigate the alleged unauthorized tracking of Americans’ locations by Securus Technologies, a company that provides phone services to prisons, jails and other correctional facilities. Securus allegedly purchases real-time location data from a third-party location aggregator and provides the data to law enforcement without obtaining judicial authorization for the disclosure of the data. In turn, the third-party location aggregator obtains the data from wireless carriers. Federal law restricts how and when wireless carriers can share certain customer information with third parties, including law enforcement. Wireless carriers are prohibited from sharing certain customer information, including location data, unless the carrier has obtained the customer’s consent or the sharing is otherwise required by law.

On April 26, 2018, the U.S. Senate confirmed by unanimous consent all five pending nominees to the Federal Trade Commission. Once installed, the agency will have a full complement of Commissioners for the first time in nearly three years. The FTC will be comprised of three Republicans — Joseph Simons (Chairman), Noah Joshua Phillips and Christine Wilson — and two Democrats — Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Rohit Chopra.

On February 6, 2017, the House of Representatives suspended its rules and passed by voice vote H.R 387, the Email Privacy Act. As we previously reported, the Email Privacy Act amends the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (“ECPA”) of 1986. In particular, the legislation would require government entities to obtain a warrant, based on probable cause, before accessing the content of any emails or electronic communications stored with third-party service providers, regardless of how long the communications have been held in electronic storage by such providers.

On February 24, 2016, President Obama signed the Judicial Redress Act (the “Act”) into law. The Act grants non-U.S. citizens certain rights, including a private right of action for alleged privacy violations that occur in the U.S. The Act was signed after Congress approved an amendment that limits the right to sue to only those citizens of countries which (1) permit the “transfer of personal data for commercial purposes” to the U.S., and (2) do not impose personal data transfer policies that “materially impede” U.S. national security interests.

On February 16, 2016, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), in collaboration with other federal agencies, released a series of documents outlining procedures for both federal and non-federal entities to share and disseminate cybersecurity information. These documents were released as directed by the Cybersecurity Act of 2015 (the “Act”), signed into law on December 18, 2015. The Act outlines a means by which the private sector may enjoy protection from civil liability when sharing certain cybersecurity information with the federal government and private entities. These documents represent the first steps by the executive branch to implement the Act.

On February 10, 2016, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Judicial Redress Act, which had been approved by the Senate the night before and included a recent Senate amendment. The House of Representatives previously passed the original bill in October 2015, but the bill was sent back to the House due to the recent Senate amendment. The Judicial Redress Act grants non-U.S. citizens certain rights, including a private right of action for alleged privacy violations that occur in the U.S. The amendment limits the right to sue to only those citizens of countries that (1) permit the “transfer of personal data for commercial purposes” to the U.S., and (2) do not impose personal data transfer policies that “materially impede” U.S. national security interests. The bill now heads to President Obama to sign.

On January 28, 2016, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the Judicial Redress Act (the “Act”), which would give EU citizens the right to sue over certain data privacy issues in the U.S. The Act passed after an amendment was approved which would condition EU citizens’ right to sue on EU Member States (1) allowing companies to transfer personal data to the U.S. for commercial purposes and (2) having personal data transfer policies which do not materially impede the national security interests of the U.S. The vote was initially set to take place on January 21, 2016, but was delayed.

On January 21, 2016, a Senate Judiciary Committee vote on the Judicial Redress Act, which would give EU citizens the right to sue over certain data privacy issues in the U.S., has reportedly been postponed. As reported by Forbes, the vote may have been delayed due to amendments to the fifth paragraph of the bill, which deals with litigation pursuant to the act. The vote was initially scheduled for today.

On December 16, 2015, leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate released a $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill that contained cybersecurity information sharing language that is based on a compromise between the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, which passed in the Senate in October, and two cybersecurity information sharing bills that passed in the House earlier this year. Specifically, the omnibus spending bill included Division N, the Cybersecurity Act of 2015 (the "Act"). 

On November 5, 2015, the White House released the proposed text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (the “TPP”) containing a chapter on cross-border data transfers in the context of electronic commerce. In the chapter on Electronic Commerce, Chapter 14, the TPP includes commitments from participating parties to adopt and maintain a legal framework to protect personal information, and encourages cross-border data transfers to help facilitate business and trade.

On November 3, 2015, John Murphy, Senior Vice President for International Policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, testified about the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (“CJEU’s”) EU-U.S. Safe Harbor Decision at a joint hearing of the House Commerce and Communications and Technology Subcommittees.

On October 27, 2015, the U.S. Senate passed S.754 - Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015 (“CISA”) by a vote of 74 to 21. CISA is intended to facilitate and encourage the sharing of Internet traffic information between and among companies and the federal government to prevent cyber attacks, by giving companies legal immunity from antitrust and privacy lawsuits. CISA comes in the wake of numerous recent, high-profile cyber attacks.

On September 8, 2015, representatives from the U.S. Government and the European Commission initialed a draft agreement known as the Protection of Personal Information Relating to the Prevention, Investigation, Detection and Prosecution of Criminal Offenses (the “Umbrella Agreement”). The European Commission’s stated aim for the Umbrella Agreement is to put in place “a comprehensive high-level data protection framework for EU-U.S. law enforcement cooperation.” The Umbrella Agreement has been agreed upon amid the ongoing uncertainty over the future of the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor, and was drafted shortly before the release of the September 23 Advocate General’s Opinion in the Schrems v. Facebook litigation. The content of the Umbrella Agreement is in its final form, but its implementation is dependent upon revisions to U.S. law that are currently before Congress.

On August 24, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued its opinion in Federal Trade Commission v. Wyndham Worldwide Corporation (“Wyndham”), affirming a district court holding that the Federal Trade Commission has the authority to regulate companies’ data security practices.

On July 10, 2015, the United States House of Representatives passed the 21st Century Cures Act (the “Act”), which is intended to ease restrictions on the use and disclosure of protected health information (“PHI”) for research purposes.

On April 28, 2015, the Florida House of Representatives passed a bill (SB 766) that prohibits businesses and government agencies from using drones to conduct surveillance by capturing images of private real property or individuals on such property without valid written consent under circumstances where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists.

The House of Representatives passed two complimentary bills related to cybersecurity, the “Protecting Cyber Networks Act” (H.R. 1560) and the “National Cybersecurity Protection Advancement Act of 2015” (H.R. 1731). These bills provide, among other things, liability protection for (1) the use of monitoring and defensive measures to protect information systems, and (2) the sharing of cybersecurity threat information amongst non-federal entities and with the federal government. With the Senate having just recently overcome disagreement on sex trafficking legislation and the Attorney General nomination, that body is now expected to consider similar information sharing legislation entitled the “Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act” (S. 754) in the coming weeks. Assuming S. 754 also is passed by the Senate, the two Chambers of Congress will convene a Conference Committee to draft a single piece of legislation which will be then voted on by the House and Senate, before heading to the President’s desk. The White House has not committed to signing any resulting legislation, but has signaled some positive support.

On April 13, 2015, the Senate of Washington State unanimously passed legislation strengthening the state’s data breach law. The bill (HB 1078) passed the Senate by a 47-0 vote, and as we previously reported, passed the House by a 97-0 vote.

On March 3, 2015, the Third Circuit heard oral arguments in FTC v. Wyndham Worldwide Corp. (“Wyndham”) on whether the FTC has the authority to regulate private companies’ data security under Section 5 of the FTC Act.

On February 27, 2015, the White House released a highly-anticipated draft of the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights Act of 2015 (the “Act”) that seeks to establish baseline protections for individual privacy in the commercial context and to facilitate the implementation of these protections through enforceable codes of conduct. The Federal Trade Commission is tasked with the primary responsibility for promulgating regulations and enforcing the rights and obligations set forth in the Act.

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller has prepared a new bill that, although styled a “security breach” bill, would impose substantial new privacy obligations on companies holding the personal data of Indiana residents. Introduced by Indiana Senator James Merritt (R-Indianapolis) on January 12, 2015, SB413 would make a number of changes to existing Indiana law. For example, it would amend the existing Indiana breach notification law to apply to all data users, rather than owners of data bases. The bill also would expand Indiana’s breach notification law to eliminate the requirement that the breached data be computerized for notices to be required.

On December 15, 2014, Microsoft reported the filing of 10 amicus briefs in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals signed by 28 leading technology and media companies, 35 leading computer scientists, and 23 trade associations and advocacy organizations, in support of Microsoft’s litigation to resist a U.S. Government’s search warrant purporting to compel the production of Microsoft customer emails that are stored in Ireland. In opposing the Government’s assertion of extraterritorial jurisdiction in this case, Microsoft and its supporters have argued that their stance seeks to promote privacy and trust in cross-border commerce and advance a “broad policy issue” that is “fundamental to the future of global technology.”

In a flurry of activity on cybersecurity in the waning days of the 113th Congress, Congress unexpectedly approved, largely without debate and by voice vote, four cybersecurity bills that: (1) clarify the role of the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) in private-sector information sharing, (2) codify the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (“NIST”) cybersecurity framework, (3) reform oversight of federal information systems, and (4) enhance the cybersecurity workforce. The President is expected to sign all four bills. The approved legislation is somewhat limited as it largely codifies agency activity already underway. With many observers expecting little legislative activity on cybersecurity before the end of the year, however, that Congress has passed and sent major cybersecurity legislation to the White House for the first time in 12 years may signal Congress’ intent to address systems protection issues more thoroughly in the next Congress.

On December 5, 2014, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) released an update on the implementation of the Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity (“Framework”). NIST issued the Framework earlier this year in February 2014 at the direction of President Obama’s February 2013 Critical Infrastructure Executive Order. The update is based on feedback NIST received in October at the 6th Cybersecurity Framework Workshop as well as from responses to an August Request for Information.

On October 17, 2014, the White House announced that the President signed a new executive order focused on cybersecurity.  The signed executive order, entitled Improving the Security of Consumer Financial Transactions (the “Order”), is focused on securing consumer transactions and sensitive personal data handled by the U.S. Federal Government.

On June 4, 2014, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) testified before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law on GAO’s findings regarding (1) companies’ use and sharing of consumer location data, (2) privacy risks associated with the collection of location data, and (3) actions taken by certain companies and federal agencies to protect the privacy of location data. GAO’s testimony relates to its 2012 and 2013 reports that examined the collection of location data by certain mobile industry companies and in-car navigation providers.

On May 27, 2014, the Federal Trade Commission announced the release of a new report entitled Data Brokers: A Call for Transparency and Accountability, detailing the findings of an FTC study of nine data brokers, representing a cross-section of the industry. The Report concludes that the data broker industry needs greater transparency and recommends that Congress consider enacting legislation that would make data brokers’ practices more visible and give consumers more control over the collection and sharing of their personal information.

On May 22, 2014, the United States House of Representatives passed H.R. 3361, a bill aimed at limiting the federal government’s ability to collect bulk phone records and increasing transparency regarding decisions by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (“FISC”). The bill was approved by a vote of 323-121 by majorities of both Democrat and Republican members of the United States House of Representatives. It now moves to the Senate where it is likely to pass.

On May 1, 2014, the White House released a report examining how Big Data is affecting government, society and commerce. In addition to questioning longstanding tenets of privacy legislation, such as notice and consent, the report recommends (1) passing national data breach legislation, (2) revising the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (“ECPA”), and (3) advancing the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights.

On February 12, 2014, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) issued the final Cybersecurity Framework, as required under Section 7 of the Obama Administration’s February 2013 executive order, Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity (the “Executive Order”). The Framework, which includes standards, procedures and processes for reducing cyber risks to critical infrastructure, reflects changes based on input received during a widely-attended public workshop held last November in North Carolina and comments submitted with respect to a preliminary version of the Framework that was issued in October 2013.

On January 8, 2014, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Chair of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, reintroduced the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2014, comprehensive information security legislation that would establish a national standard for data breach notification and require businesses to safeguard customers’ sensitive personal information from cyber threats. The bill also would establish criminal penalties for individuals who intentionally or willfully conceal a security breach involving personal data when the incident causes economic damage to consumers.

On November 15, 2013, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) released a report (the “Report”) finding that the current federal statutory privacy scheme contains “gaps” and “does not fully reflect” the Fair Information Practice Principles (“FIPPs”). The Report focused primarily on companies that gather and resell consumer personal information, and on the use of consumer personal information for marketing purposes.

On October 22, 2013, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) issued the Preliminary Cybersecurity Framework (the “Preliminary Framework”), as required under Section 7 of the Obama Administration’s February 2013 executive order, Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity (the “Executive Order”). The Preliminary Framework includes standards, procedures and processes for reducing cyber risks to critical infrastructure. It will be published in the Federal Register within a few days for public comment. Under the Executive Order, NIST is required to issue a final version of the Framework in February 2014. NIST is planning to host a public workshop on the Preliminary Framework in mid-November to give industry and other groups an opportunity to provide their views on this document.

On September 25, 2013, Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Chair of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, expanded his investigation of the data broker industry by asking twelve popular health and personal finance websites to answer questions about their data collection and sharing practices.

On August 6, 2013, the Obama Administration posted links on The White House Blog to reports from the Departments of Commerce, Homeland Security and Treasury containing recommendations on incentivizing companies to align their cybersecurity practices with the Cybersecurity Framework. These reports respond to the Administration’s February 2013 executive order entitled Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity (the “Executive Order”).

On July 1, 2013, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) issued a preliminary draft outline of the Cybersecurity Framework that is being developed pursuant to the Obama Administration’s February 2013 executive order, Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity (the “Executive Order”).

The Obama Administration is in the process of finalizing its review of a statutory electronic surveillance proposal initially developed by the FBI, and is expected to support the introduction of a modified version as legislation. The proposal addresses concerns raised by law enforcement and national security agencies regarding the widening gap between their legal authority to intercept real-time electronic communications pursuant to a court order, and the practical difficulties associated with actually intercepting those communications. According to the government, this gap increasingly prevents the agencies from collecting Internet-based phone calls, emails, chats, text messages and other communications of terrorists, spies, organized crime groups, child pornography distributors and other dangerous actors. The FBI refers to this as the “going dark” problem.

On April 16, 2013, the Office of the President issued a Statement of Administration Policy that includes a threat to veto the U.S. House of Representatives’ Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (“CISPA” or H.R. 624) if further changes are not made to the bill’s privacy protections. Specifically, the Obama Administration recommends that the bill require private entities to remove personal information when sharing cybersecurity information with the government or other private entities.

On February 26, 2013, the United States Supreme Court decided in Clapper v. Amnesty International that U.S. persons who engage in communications with individuals who may be potential targets of surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”) lack standing to challenge the statute’s constitutionality. The Supreme Court determined that the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries were not “certainly impending” and that the measures they claimed to have taken to avoid surveillance were not “fairly traceable” to the challenged statute. Although this 5-4 decision would not be considered a “privacy” or “data breach” case, the Court’s analysis will have a significant impact on such cases going forward, and may thwart the ability of individuals affected by data breaches to assert standing based on possible future harm.

On February 20, 2013, Hunton & Williams LLP hosted a webinar on cybersecurity risks and the Obama Administration’s recently-issued Executive Order on cybersecurity issues related to critical infrastructure. The webinar, entitled “The Cybersecurity Executive Order: Understanding Its Impact on Your Business,” covered issues such as the current threat landscape, U.S. and EU regulatory initiatives related to cybersecurity, and guidelines to help businesses prevent and manage cyber events.

On February 8, 2013, during the Centre for Information Policy Leadership’s First Friday call, Hunton & Williams partner Frederick Eames offered insights on how key U.S. government players are likely to approach privacy and data security initiatives this session. Eames discussed upcoming privacy legislation and outlined his predictions regarding how several Congressional committees, including the House of Representatives Energy & Commerce Committee and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation, will address privacy-related issues.

On February 11, 2013, the Federal Trade Commission announced that a congressionally-mandated study of the U.S. credit reporting industry found that 26 percent of consumers identified at least one error that might affect their credit score. The study reported that 5 percent of consumers had errors on their credit reports that could result in less favorable terms for loans and insurance.

Today, the Obama Administration released an executive order, Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity (the “Executive Order”), which is focused primarily on government actions to support critical infrastructure owners and operators in protecting their systems and networks from cyber threats. The Executive Order requires administrative agencies with cybersecurity responsibilities to (1) share information in the near-term with the private sector within the scope of their current authority and to develop processes to address cyber risks; and (2) review and report to the President on the sufficiency of their current cyber authorities. The requirements to review and report to the President likely will serve to pressure Congress to pass more comprehensive legislation that should, inter alia, address issues that an executive order cannot, such as the provision of liability protection, incentives for compliance, and regulatory authority to compel compliance.

On December 18, 2012, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 6671, a bill that would amend the Video Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA”) consent requirements for disclosing consumers’ viewing information. The Senate approved the bill without changes on December 20, 2012. The bill would make it easier for companies to develop innovative technologies for the sharing of consumers’ video viewing habits. The current version of the VPPA requires certain video providers to obtain a consumer’s consent each time they wish to share the consumer’s viewing information ...

On December 18, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission issued Orders to File Special Report (the “Orders”) to nine data brokerage companies, seeking information about how these companies collect and use personal data about consumers. In the Orders, the FTC requests detailed information about the data brokers’ privacy practices, including:

• the data brokerage companies’ online and offline products and services that use personal data;
• the sources and types of personal data the data brokerage companies collect;
• whether, and how, the companies acquire consumer consent before obtaining, collecting, generating, deriving, disseminating or storing the personal data;
• whether, and how, the personal data is aggregated, anonymized or de-identified;
• how the companies monitor, audit or evaluate the accuracy of the personal data they obtain;
• if, and how, consumers are able to access, correct, delete or opt out of the collection, use or sharing of the personal data the data brokerage companies maintain about the consumers;
• how the data brokerage companies provide notice to consumers about their data privacy practices;
• the advertisements or promotional materials the companies use to describe their products and services; and
• information about any complaints or disputes, or governmental or regulatory inquiries or actions, related to the companies’ data privacy practices.