Privacy & Information Security Law Blog

On December 19, 2012, the Irish Data Protection Commissioner (“DPC”) wrote to 80 website operators requesting details regarding how they are complying with recent changes to Irish law governing the use of cookies and other similar technologies (SI 336/ 2011, the “Regulations”). The letter expects website operators, which include government departments as well as companies, to comply fully with the Regulations, which took effect 18 months ago and require user consent before deploying or accessing cookies or other information stored on users’ computer equipment. If the relevant organizations have not yet achieved compliance, they are expected to provide an explanation to the DPC explaining “why it has not been possible to comply by now, a clear timescale for when compliance will be achieved, and details of specifically what work is being done to make that happen.”

As reported in the Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives Blog:

Beginning January 1, 2013, employers must issue an updated notice form to applicants and employees when using criminal background information under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act.

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.

U.S. Federal Trade Commission Chairman Jon Leibowitz announced on Monday that David C. Vladeck, director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection, is leaving the Commission on December 31, 2012 to return to the Georgetown University Law Center.

On December 19, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission announced the adoption of its long-awaited amendments to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (the “Rule”). The FTC implemented the Rule, which became effective on April 21, 2000, pursuant to provisions in the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (“COPPA”).

On December 18, 2012, the Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) released an enforcement report (the “Report”) on the extent of compliance with recent changes to UK law governing the use of cookies (The Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) (Amendment) Regulations 2011). The ICO previously issued an interim report on organizations’ attempts to achieve compliance, in which it concluded that organizations “must try harder” with their cookie compliance efforts.

On December 5, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission announced that the online advertising company Epic Marketplace, Inc. (“Epic”) agreed to settle charges that it engaged in “history sniffing” to secretly and illegally collect information about consumers’ interest in sensitive medical and financial issues. History sniffing is the practice of determining whether a consumer has previously visited a webpage by checking how a browser displays a hyperlink. The consent order requires Epic to destroy all data collected from history sniffing and bars Epic from engaging in history sniffing in the future.

On November 30, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission announced the issuance of an interim final rule (“Interim Final Rule”) that makes the definition of “creditor” in the FTC’s Identity Theft Red Flags Rule (“Red Flags Rule”) consistent with the definition contained in the Red Flag Program Clarification Act of 2010.

On November 21, 2012, the UK Committee of Advertising Practice (“CAP”) released new rules on online behavioral advertising (“OBA”). CAP is the UK body which writes and maintains the UK advertising codes, which are administered and enforced by the UK Advertising Standards Authority (“ASA”).

On November 29, 2012, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) issued a declaratory ruling finding that certain text messages businesses send to confirm a consumer’s request to opt out of text message programs do not violate a federal prohibition on sending text messages without prior express consent. This prohibition has spawned class actions against companies that have followed the provisions in the Mobile Marketing Association’s U.S. Consumer Best Practices and other industry guidelines that require companies to send a confirmatory text message in response to a consumer’s opt-out request. The FCC’s finding is limited to sending confirmatory text messages under the following conditions:

On November 22, 2012, the Brussels-based publication European Voice published an editorial by U.S. Department of Commerce General Counsel Cameron Kerry entitled Avoiding a Data Divide Between the US and the EU. The article notes the importance of continued collaboration between the European Union and the United States as both assess their respective privacy frameworks to ensure that any changes encourage enhanced trade and strong economic growth, but also contain robust protections for consumers. Mr. Kerry’s editorial emphasizes the need to foster global privacy ...

On November 27, 2012, the International Chamber of Commerce of the United Kingdom (“ICC UK”) released the second edition of its cookie guidance (the “Guidance”). The ICC UK released the first edition of the Guidance in April of this year, and has produced this latest version to take into account updated guidance released by the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”), the Article 29 Working Party Opinion 04/2012 on cookie consent exemption and new UK advertising rules on online behavioral advertising.

On November 15, 2012, the UK Office of Fair Trading (the “OFT”) launched a call for information to investigate whether offering “personalized pricing” based on data companies collect about consumers’ online behavior violates consumer protection legislation in the UK. The OFT will look at how companies gather data related to “consumers’ browsing history, purchases, demographic, hardware, operating system, etc and use this to personalise products and prices.” In particular, as indicated on the OFT’s website, the OFT will analyze:

In a joint-agency media conference and press release with the Federal Trade Commission today, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) used the “rulemaking-through-enforcement” method of regulation to create several de-facto guidelines for what is “unfair, deceptive, or abusive” in mortgage advertising. Bypassing the more arduous rulemaking process, the CFPB published “sample warning letters” that effectively made the following advertising practices illegal:

Reporting from Washington, D.C., Hunton & Williams partner Frederick Eames writes:

Elections have consequences. What are the consequences of the 2012 election on U.S. federal privacy, data security and breach notice legislation? We outline some key developments in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate and explain how these developments might affect legislative priorities and prospects for the 113th Congress beginning in 2013.

On October 26, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission finalized its settlement agreements with two businesses that allegedly exposed thousands of customers’ sensitive personal information by allowing peer-to-peer (“P2P”) file-sharing software to be installed on the companies’ computer systems. The approved settlements prohibit Georgia auto dealer Franklin’s Budget Car Sales, Inc. (“Franklin”) and Utah-based debt collector EPN, Inc. (“EPN”) from misrepresenting their privacy and information security practices and requires both businesses to establish and maintain a comprehensive information security program subject to biennial, independent, third-party audits for 20 years. The settlement with Franklin also bars the company from violating the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (“GLBA”) Safeguards Rule and Privacy Rule.

On November 7, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it had settled charges against payday lending and check cashing companies alleged to have improperly disposed of consumers’ personal information. In its complaint, the FTC maintained that PLS Financial Services, Inc., and The Payday Loan Store of Illinois violated the FTC’s Disposal Rule as well as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act’s Privacy Rule and Safeguards Rule by disposing of documents that contained consumers’ Social Security numbers, bank account numbers and credit reports in unsecured dumpsters near the companies’ payday lending and check cashing retail stores. The FTC also alleged that the companies violated the FTC Act by misrepresenting that they would reasonably protect consumer information.

On October 22, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission released a report entitled “Facing Facts: Best Practices for Common Uses of Facial Recognition Technologies.” The report focuses on privacy concerns associated with facial recognition technology, which is becoming increasingly ubiquitous across a variety of commercial applications ranging from search engines to video games to password authentication.

On October 22, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission announced a proposed settlement agreement with Compete, Inc. (“Compete”), an online market research company that collects clickstream data from consumers to generate and sell analytical reports about consumer behavior on the Internet.

On September 25, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it had settled a case involving allegations of spying by software company DesignerWare, LLC (“DesignerWare”) and several rent-to-own companies that rent computers to consumers, such as Aaron’s, Inc., ColorTyme, Inc., and Premier Rental Purchase. The FTC collaborated with Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan in its investigation.

On September 12, 2012, Congressman Edward Markey (D-MA) released a bill that would require companies to tell customers about monitoring software installed on their mobile devices and obtain customers’ express consent before engaging in monitoring. These requirements would apply to mobile phone makers, network providers and application developers.

On August 23, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it had filed suit against DISH Network LLC (“DISH Network”) alleging violations of the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”). The FTC’s complaint claims that DISH Network is a “seller” and “telemarketer” as such terms are defined by the TSR because the company sells satellite television programming to consumers and also markets its programming through a variety of methods, including telemarketing. According to the complaint, since September 2007, DISH Network has engaged in initiating ...

On July 31, 2012, Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson announced a $2.5 million settlement with Accretive Health, Inc. (“Accretive”) for violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) and its implementing regulations, and various Minnesota debt collection and consumer protection laws. As we previously reported in January 2012, Accretive, which acted as a business associate to two Minnesota hospital systems, experienced a breach in July 2011 that involved the protected health information of more than 23,000 patients.

On August 8, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission settled with HireRight Solutions, Inc. (“HireRight”) for failure to comply with certain Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) requirements. At first blush, the case may appear to be a simple FCRA matter – the FTC alleged that HireRight functioned as a consumer reporting agency when providing employment screening services to companies, but then failed to take steps to assure the accuracy of those reports and prevented consumers from dispute inaccurate information. Despite initial appearances, however, the case has broader geopolitical implications.

On August 10, 2012, a federal district court in California denied Hulu’s motion to dismiss the remaining claim in a putative class action suit alleging that the online streaming video provider transmitted users’ personal information to third parties in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA”). The VPPA prohibits a “video tape service provider” from transmitting personally identifiable information of “consumers,” except in certain, limited circumstances. According to the complaint, Hulu allegedly allowed KISSmetrics, a data analytics company, to place tracking codes on the plaintiffs’ computers that re-spawned previously-deleted cookies, and shared Hulu users’ video viewing choices and “personally identifiable information” with third parties, including online ad networks, metrics companies and social media networks.

On August 10, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it has accepted the final settlement with Facebook which resolves allegations “that Facebook deceived consumers by telling them they could keep their information on Facebook private, and then repeatedly allowing it to be shared and made public.” As we previously reported, the settlement requires Facebook to (1) not misrepresent how it maintains the privacy or security of users’ personal information; (2) obtain users’ “affirmative express consent” before sharing their information with any third ...

On August 8, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission announced a settlement agreement with employment screening company HireRight Solutions, Inc. (“HireRight”). In its first enforcement action against an employment background screening company for Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) violations, the FTC alleged that HireRight functioned as a consumer reporting agency, but failed to comply with certain FCRA requirements. The proposed consent order imposes a $2.6 million penalty on HireRight and requires the company to remedy the alleged FCRA violations, create and retain certain records and submit reports to demonstrate compliance.

Earlier this year, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) published a Bulletin signaling its intent to regulate and exercise enforcement authority over service providers to financial institutions. Pursuant to Title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and its implementing regulation, Regulation P, the CFPB has authority over certain large banks, credit unions and other consumer financial services companies. The Bulletin notes that the CFPB’s goal is to ensure compliance with “[f]ederal consumer financial law,” which includes the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and its implementing regulations, the Privacy Rule and the Safeguards Rule.

In recent months we have seen a dismissal and two settlements in class action suits alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) by companies that used text messaging as part of advertising campaigns. The TCPA is a federal privacy law that imposes restrictions on telephone solicitations, including telemarketing calls and text messages.

On August 1, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it is seeking public comments on additional proposed modifications to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (“COPPA Rule” or “Rule”). According to the FTC, the second-round revisions modify certain COPPA Rule definitions to “clarify the Rule’s scope and strengthen its protections for the online collection, use, or disclosure of children’s personal information.” The FTC developed these new definitions after reviewing the 350 public comments submitted in response to the Commission’s September 2011 proposal to amend the Rule.

On July 24, 2012, a bipartisan group of eight members of Congress sent letters to nine major data brokerage companies requesting information on how the companies collect, assemble and sell consumer information to third parties. Representatives Ed Markey (D-MA) and Joe Barton (R-TX), who serve as co-chairmen of the Bipartisan Congressional Privacy Caucus, are leading the inquiry. The Privacy Caucus, which is an ad hoc group rather than a formally constituted congressional committee, is comprised of members who have a common interest in privacy issues. The Caucus cannot call formal hearings, compel production of materials or pass legislation.

As reported in BNA’s Privacy & Security Law Report,on June 25, 2012, a federal district court in California ruled that the California Supreme Court’s 2011 Pineda decision, which held that requesting and recording zip codes during credit card transactions violates the state’s Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, applies retrospectively to OfficeMax’s collection of zip codes from its customers. The Plaintiffs in Dardarian v. OfficeMax had filed a class action lawsuit against OfficeMax over the company’s collection of ZIP code information from customers at the point of sale, a practice that OfficeMax ended the day the Pineda decision was handed down.

On July 19, 2012, California Attorney General Kamala Harris announced the formation of a new Privacy Enforcement and Protection Unit (“Privacy Unit”) within the state’s Department of Justice. The new unit will centralize existing Department of Justice efforts to protect privacy, educate consumers and forge partnerships with relevant industry players. According to the Attorney General’s press release, the broad mission of the Privacy Unit will include enforcing laws on issues such as cyber privacy, health privacy, financial privacy, identity theft, government ...

On July 12, 2012, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (“NTIA”) of the U.S. Department of Commerce initiated a multistakeholder process to develop guidance for transparency in the mobile environment. The NTIA has announced that they will schedule a second meeting in August, and encouraged small group discussions in the interim. This is not the first multistakeholder process to wrestle with transparency in the mobile environment, and those previous efforts – which date back almost a decade – may prove useful to such discussions.

On July 12, 2012, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (“NTIA”) of the U.S. Department of Commerce convened the first meeting of its multistakeholder process to develop industry codes of conduct. As we reported in June, the stated purpose for this meeting, entitled “Seeking Common Ground Regarding Mobile Application Transparency,” was to establish “a working dialogue that will eventually lead to a code of conduct that is broadly adopted.” Lawrence Strickling, Department of Commerce Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, opened the session, which he characterized as an effort to highlight the key issues and explore topics to be addressed. Strickling emphasized that the structure and approach to the work would likely differ from that with which participants were familiar, and that it would be important to arrive at a constructive process that encourages collaboration and open engagement.

On June 26, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it had filed suit against Wyndham Worldwide Corporation and three of its subsidiaries (“Wyndham”) alleging failures to maintain reasonable security that led to three separate data breaches involving hackers accessing sensitive consumer data. The FTC’s complaint claims that Wyndham violated the FTC Act by posting misleading representations on Wyndham websites regarding how the company safeguarded customer information, and by failing to provide reasonable security for personal information it collected ...

On May 30, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission hosted a public workshop addressing the need for new guidance on advertising and privacy disclosures online and in mobile environments. During the workshop, the FTC announced that it hopes to release an updated version of its online advertising disclosure guidance this fall that would incorporate input from businesses and consumer advocates. Topics explored at the workshop included:

• Best practices for privacy disclosures on mobile platforms and how they can be short, effective and accessible to consumers;
• how to put disclosures in proximity to offers on mobile platforms;
• social media disclosures; and
• the placement of material information on webpages.

On June 15, 2012, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (“NTIA”) announced that, in response to a substantial number of comments it received regarding mobile privacy issues, it will convene its first multistakeholder meeting on July 12 to begin the process of developing a code of conduct that promotes transparency in the mobile application context.

On June 11, 2012, the Federal Communications Commission published in the Federal Register its final revised rules requiring prior express written consent for all autodialed or prerecorded telemarketing “calls” to wireless phones, and for prerecorded telemarking calls to residential lines. The FCC takes the position that the “calls” covered by this written consent requirement include essentially all marketing-oriented text messages. The FCC’s rules implement the findings of the Commission’s February 2012 Report and Order.

On June 7, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission announced settlement agreements with two businesses that allegedly exposed customers’ sensitive personal information by allowing peer-to-peer (“P2P”) file-sharing software to be installed on their company computers and networks.

In its complaint against Franklin’s Budget Car Sales (“Franklin”), a Georgia automobile dealership that also provides financing services to its customers, the FTC alleged that Franklin failed to implement reasonable security measures to protect the consumer personal information that Franklin routinely collects in connection with its business. The FTC claimed that personal information of approximately 95,000 customers, including names, Social Security numbers, addresses, dates of birth, and drivers’ license numbers were made available and disclosed by a P2P application installed on a computer that was connected to Franklin’s computer network. In addition to alleging violations of Section 5 of the FTC Act, the FTC also claimed that Franklin violated the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act (“GLB”). This is the first FTC case against an auto dealer involving GLB violations. The FTC stated in its complaint that Franklin failed to implement reasonable security policies and procedures in violation of the GLB Safeguards Rule, and also failed to send consumers annual privacy notices and to provide the required opt-out mechanisms in violation of the GLB Privacy Rule.

On June 12, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission announced a settlement agreement with data broker Spokeo, Inc. (“Spokeo”). The FTC alleged that Spokeo operated as a consumer reporting agency and violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), and that certain of its advertisements were deceptive in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. The proposed settlement order imposes a $800,000 civil penalty on Spokeo and prohibits future violations of the FCRA. This is the first FTC case to address the sale of Internet and social media data in the employment screening context.

On May 24, 2012, Hunton & Williams LLP and Jordan Lawrence Group hosted a webcast on “Preparing for a New U.S. Privacy Landscape: An Overview of the FTC and White House Frameworks.” The webcast featured Lisa J. Sotto, partner and head of the Global Privacy and Data Security practice at Hunton & Williams, Aaron P. Simpson, partner at Hunton & Williams, and Rebecca Perry, Executive Vice President of Professional Services of Jordan Lawrence Group.

On May 24, 2012, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley announced that South Shore Hospital agreed to a consent judgment and $750,000 payment to settle a lawsuit stemming from a data breach that occurred in February 2010. At that time, South Shore Hospital shipped several boxes of unencrypted back-up tapes to a service provider in Texas to erase them. The tapes contained the personal and protected health information of approximately 800,000 individuals, including names, Social Security numbers, financial account numbers and medical diagnoses. Several of the boxes went missing and have yet to be recovered, though there is no evidence that the information on the missing tapes has been misused.

On June 1, 2012, the Attorney General of Vermont announced a series of recent legislative moves to enhance the state’s consumer protection laws, including amendments to Vermont’s security breach notification law. The changes, which were signed into law by Governor Peter Shumlin in early May, include a revised definition of “security breach,” the addition of a 45-day timing requirement for notifying affected consumers, and a requirement to notify the state Attorney General within 14 days of discovering the breach (or when notifying consumers, if sooner).

On May 25, 2012, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office posted updated guidance on how to comply with amendments to EU data protection law requiring businesses to obtain consent from website visitors to store information on their computers and retrieve that information in the form of cookies. Last year, the ICO gave organizations a grace period expiring on May 26, 2012, to comply with the new cookie rules.

On May 24, 2012, Hunton & Williams LLP and Jordan Lawrence Group are pleased to present a 45-minute webcast on “Preparing for a New U.S. Privacy Landscape: An Overview of the FTC and White House Frameworks.” Presenters Lisa J. Sotto, partner and head of the Global Privacy and Data Security practice at Hunton & Williams, Aaron P. Simpson, partner at Hunton & Williams, and Rebecca Perry, Executive Vice President of Professional Services of Jordan Lawrence Group, will highlight the key privacy and information security issues contained in these new frameworks and the impact they will ...

As reported in BNA’s Privacy & Security Law Report, on May 4, 2012, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in an action against IKEA U.S. West, Inc. (“IKEA”) under the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 (the “Song-Beverly Act”). The suit alleges that IKEA violated the Song-Beverly Act by requesting that cardholders provide their ZIP codes during credit card transactions, and then recording that information in an electronic database. The Court found that the class definition was not overbroad and that IKEA’s practice of requesting ZIP codes demonstrated common questions of law best resolved through a class action.

On May 2, 2012, Australia’s Attorney General Nicola Roxon announced that the Australian government will introduce a bill to the Australian Parliament that will enact a number of the recommendations from the 2008 Law Reform Commission Report (ALRC Report 108) and reform privacy law in Australia. Discussion drafts of segments of the bill were considered by a Senate Committee in 2011. On May 4, Australian Privacy Commissioner Timothy Pilgrim presented an overview of the draft legislation at an event held during the iappANZ Privacy Awareness Week. Commissioner Pilgrim noted that the legislative package includes:

In the past month, the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) sent its final omnibus rule modifying the HIPAA Privacy, Security and Enforcement Rules to the White House Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) and announced a $100,000 settlement with Phoenix Cardiac Surgery, P.C. for violations of the HIPAA Rules.

Drawing on its eleven years of experience facilitating multistakeholder processes, on April 2, 2012, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership at Hunton & Williams LLP filed comments in response to the Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s request for public comments on the multistakeholder process to develop consumer data privacy codes of conduct. The NTIA’s request relates to the topics and processes that will inform the creation of binding codes of conduct as discussed in the Obama Administration’s February ...

On March 27, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission announced a proposed settlement order with RockYou, Inc. (“RockYou”), a publisher and developer of applications used on popular social media sites. The FTC alleged that RockYou failed to protect the personal information of 32 million of its users, and violated multiple provisions of the FTC’s Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA”) Rule when it collected information from approximately 179,000 children.

On March 26, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission issued a new privacy report entitled “Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change: A Proposed Framework for Businesses and Policymakers.” The report charts a path forward for companies to act in the interest of protecting consumer privacy.

In his introductory remarks, FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz indicated his support for Do Not Track stating, “Simply put, your computer is your property; no one has the right to put anything on it that you don’t want.” In later comments he predicted that if effective Do Not Track mechanisms are not available by the end of this year, the new Congress likely would introduce a legislative solution.

On March 21, 2012, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley announced that Maloney Properties Inc. (“MPI”), a property management firm, executed an Assurance of Discontinuance and agreed to pay $15,000 in civil penalties following an October 2011 theft of an unencrypted company-issued laptop. The laptop contained personal information of more than 600 Massachusetts residents and was left in an employee’s car overnight. MPI has indicated that it has no evidence of unauthorized access to or use of the personal information in connection with this breach.

On March 21, 2012, the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration announced a one-week extension to the deadline for responses to their March 2 request for public comments on the multistakeholder process to develop consumer data privacy codes of conduct. Comments are now due on Monday, April 2, 2012. The request for comments relates to both the topics and processes that will inform the creation of binding codes of conduct as discussed in the Obama Administration’s February release of a framework for a Consumer Privacy Bill of ...

On March 13, 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) announced that it had settled the first case related to the HITECH Act Breach Notification Rule. BlueCross Blue Shield of Tennessee (“BCBS Tennessee”) agreed to pay $1.5 million to settle potential HIPAA violations related to the October 2009 theft of 57 unencrypted hard drives containing protected health information (“PHI”) from a network data closet at a leased facility leased in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

On February 24, 2012, Eric Chabrow of BankInfoSecurity interviewed Lisa J. Sotto, partner and head of the Global Privacy and Data Security practice at Hunton & Williams LLP. Discussing the need for a Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights, Sotto briefly outlined the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed bill, and its potential impact on businesses.

Join us at the International Association of Privacy Professionals (“IAPP”) Global Privacy Summit in Washington, D.C., March 7-9, 2012. Hunton & Williams privacy professionals will be featured speakers in the following sessions:

• Mending Fences after a Breach Thursday, March 8, 12:15 p.m. Speakers include: Lisa J. Sotto, partner and head of the Global Privacy and Data Security practice, Hunton & Williams LLP; Susan Grant, Director of Consumer Protection, Consumer Federation of America; and Joanne B. McNabb, Chief, California Office of Privacy Protection.

The Digital Advertising Alliance (“DAA”) recently announced that its members will work “to add browser-based header signals to the set of tools by which consumers can express their preferences” not to be tracked online and will work with browser providers to develop “consistent language across browsers…that describes to consumers the effect of exercising such choice.”

This announcement came on the heels of the Obama administration’s release of a framework for a Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights. The DAA’s agreement represents the industry’s attempt to appease consumer privacy concerns in the face of the growth of online advertising. The DAA represents over 400 advertising and technology companies.

The White House today released its long-awaited report outlining a framework for U.S. data protection and privacy policy. As expected, “Consumer Data Privacy in a Networked World: A Framework for Protecting Privacy and Promoting Global Innovation in the Global Digital Economy” articulates a Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights based on the individual’s right to exercise control over what personal data companies collect from the individual and how companies use the data. The Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights, which reflects principles of fair information practices and applies to personal data, sets forth individual rights for consumers and corresponding obligations of companies in connection with personal data. It also provides for the consumer’s right to:

• transparent privacy and data security practices;
• expect that companies will collect, use and disclose data in a manner consistent with the context in which it was collected;
• have their data handled in a secure manner;
• access and correct personal data;
• set reasonable limits on the personal data that companies collect and retain; and
• have personal data handled by companies with appropriate measures in place to assure they adhere to the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights.

On February 6, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission warned six marketers of background screening mobile applications that they may be violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). In a sample letter posted on the FTC website, the FTC indicates that at least one of the recipient marketer’s mobile apps involves background screening reports that include criminal history checks. Pursuant to the FCRA, this could make the marketers of the mobile apps “consumer reporting agencies” if they are “providing information to employers regarding current or prospective employees’ criminal histories [that] involves the individuals’ character, general reputation, or personal characteristics.”

On January 24, 2011, Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen and Consumer Protection Commissioner William Rubenstein announced that they had reached an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance (“AVC”) with Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. (“MetLife”) in connection with an incident involving the disclosure of customer personal information on the Internet. In November 2009, a MetLife employee posted the personally identifiable information of current and former MetLife customers, including their Social Security numbers, on the Internet. Following the discovery of the posting, MetLife acted to mitigate possible harm by providing credit monitoring and identity theft insurance to the affected customers.

On January 19, 2012, Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson announced a lawsuit against Accretive Health, Inc., (“Accretive”) for violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) and its implementing regulations, the Minnesota Health Records Act, Minnesota’s debt collection statutes and Minnesota’s consumer protection laws. The suit, which was filed in Federal District Court in Minnesota, alleges that Accretive failed to adequately safeguard patients’ protected health information (“PHI”). This failure contributed to a July 2011 information security breach when an Accretive employee left an unencrypted laptop containing information of approximately 23,500 patients in a rental car. The laptop was stolen and has not yet been recovered.

On December 12, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a decision that employees of Ceridian Corporation's (“Ceridian's") customers did not have standing to sue Ceridian after the payroll processing firm suffered a data breach.

On January 6, 2012, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted Michaels Stores, Inc.’s (“Michaels”) a motion to dismiss against a customer-plaintiff who alleged that Michaels’ in-store information collection practices violated Massachusetts law. Although the court ruled in Michaels’ favor, it found that customer ZIP codes do constitute personal information under Massachusetts state law when collected in the context of a credit card transaction. 

On January 5, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission announced a proposed settlement with Upromise, Inc., a membership reward service that gives cash rebates for college savings accounts to members who purchase products and services from its partner merchants. The FTC alleged that the “Personalized Offers” feature on the Upromise TurboSaver Toolbar (1) collected far more information about users’ browsing behavior than was disclosed at the time of installation, and (2) contrary to representations in the company’s privacy notice, transmitted that information, which included data such as Social Security numbers and financial account numbers, in clear text.

On December 23, 2011, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it is seeking public comments on the privacy and security implications raised by the use of facial recognition technology. The FTC recently held a public workshop entitled “Face Facts: A Forum on Facial Recognition Technology,” that discussed the current and future commercial applications of facial recognition technologies and the associated privacy and security concerns.

On December 13, 2011, the Information Commissioner issued updated guidance on compliance with recent changes to UK law governing the use of cookies (The Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) (Amendment) Regulations 2011 (“Regulations”)). Organizations were given a twelve-month grace period to comply with the new law. Initial guidance on the Regulations was released on May 9, 2011, but the Information Commissioner characterized that guidance as merely a “starting point for getting compliant rather than a definitive guide,” signaling that further advice would follow if appropriate. 

As reported in the Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives Blog:

The U.S. Department of Justice has moved to intervene to defend the constitutionality of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) against a consumer reporting agency accused of violating § 605 of the FCRA.

On November 23, 2010, Shamara T. King filed suit against General Information Services, Inc. (“GIS”) in Pennsylvania federal court claiming violations of the FCRA. (See, King v. General Information Services, Inc., No. 2:10-CV-06850 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 23, 2010). Specifically, King claims that when she applied for a job with the United States Postal Service, GIS performed a background check that included details about a car theft arrest that occurred more than seven years prior to the requested background check. According to § 605(a)(5) of the FCRA, consumer reporting agencies cannot provide adverse information, except for criminal convictions, “which antedates the report by more than seven years.”

On November 29, 2011, the Federal Trade Commission announced that Facebook has settled charges that it deceived consumers by making false privacy promises. The settlement requires Facebook to (1) not misrepresent how it maintains the privacy or security of users’ personal information (2) obtain users’ “affirmative express consent” before sharing their information with any third party that “materially exceeds the restrictions imposed by a user’s privacy setting(s),” (3) implement procedures to prevent a third party from accessing users’ information no later than 30 days after the user has deleted such information or terminated his or her account, (4) establish, implement and maintain a comprehensive privacy program, and (5) obtain initial and biennial assessments and reports regarding its privacy practices for the next 20 years.

On November 17, 2011, the German Association for Data Protection and Data Security (“GDD”) held its 35th Privacy Conference (“DAFTA”) in Cologne, Germany. At the opening plenary session, Paul Nemitz, Director for Fundamental Rights and Citizenship of the European Commission, announced that the European Commission plans to implement a Regulation that is directly applicable to all EU Member States, to harmonize data protection laws in Europe.

On November 17, 2011, Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Chair of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, issued a statement emphasizing the need for increased consumer protection on the Internet. Rockefeller cited “disturbing” reports about Facebook’s ability to track non-members and members who have logged out of the site, stating that companies should not be tracking users without their consent.

This week, the Digital Advertising Alliance (the “DAA”) unveiled new “Self-Regulatory Principles for Multi-Site Data” (the “Principles”), aimed at expanding the scope of industry self-regulation with respect to online data collection. The Principles are designed to supplement the Self-Regulatory Principles for Online Behavioral Advertising which were issued in July 2009. The DAA is composed of several constituent industry groups such as the American Association of Advertising Agencies, Council of Better Business Bureaus, the Direct Marketing Association and the Interactive Advertising Bureau.

On November 8, 2011, the Federal Trade Commission announced that the operator of skidekids.com, a social networking website that advertises itself as the “Facebook and Myspace for Kids,” has agreed to settle charges that he collected personal information from approximately 5,600 children without parental consent, in violation of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA”) Rule. The proposed settlement will bar future violations of COPPA and misrepresentations about the collection, use and disclosure of children’s information.

On November 4, 2011, Congressmen Edward Markey (D-MA) and Joe Barton (R-TX) reiterated their privacy concerns over the handling of customer preferences in connection with Verizon’s new advertising initiative. After learning that Verizon had notified its customers of the implications of a targeted advertising campaign, on October 6, 2011, Reps. Markey and Barton, Co-Chairmen of the bipartisan Congressional Privacy Caucus, wrote a letter containing several inquiries to both Verizon and Verizon Wireless. In particular, Reps. Markey and Barton requested clarification regarding the companies’ potential disclosure of aggregated customer location information and website viewing history to third parties.

On October 27, 2011, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed claims that Facebook misappropriated users’ names and likenesses in promoting its “Friend Finder” feature. Friend Finder identifies potential “friends” for a Facebook user by matching his or her email contacts with users already registered with Facebook, then presenting the user with friend suggestions. Facebook promoted the feature by displaying the names and profile photos of current friends as examples of users who had found friends with Friend Finder.

Last month, two New Jersey judges issued opposing decisions in class action lawsuits regarding merchants’ point-of-sale ZIP code collection practices. The conflicting orders leave unanswered the question of whether New Jersey retailers are prohibited from requiring and recording customers’ ZIP codes at the point of sale during credit card transactions.

On September 27, 2011, OnStar announced it was reversing proposed changes to its Terms and Conditions that would have allowed the company to continue to receive data from former subscribers’ vehicles unless they specifically opted out.  OnStar’s current Privacy Statement indicates that the GM subsidiary collects information regarding its customers’ vehicle operation, location, approximate speed, collision data and safety belt usage in connection with OnStar’s in-vehicle GPS navigation and emergency response services, and that the company “may share or sell” any of this data in anonymized form with third parties.  OnStar recently notified customers by email that it would continue to collect data from former subscribers, and that it reserved the right to distribute such data to third parties.  The announcement prompted a swift and strong reaction from members of Congress skeptical of the proposed policy changes.

On September 15, 2011, the Federal Trade Commission released proposed amendments to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (“COPPA Rule” or “Rule”).  These revisions follow the FTC’s review of the COPPA Rule, which resulted in numerous comments from various groups and individuals, as well as a public round table that took place on June 2, 2010.  The proposed amendments reflect the FTC’s commitment to “helping to create a safer, more secure online experience for children” in the face of rapid technological change.

On September 14, 2011, UK Information Commissioner Christopher Graham said that the private sector “isn’t as good as it thinks it is” when it comes to data protection compliance, and that many of the compliance problems that arise originate in the private sector.  While giving evidence to the House of Commons Justice Select Committee, the Commissioner criticized the private sector and, in particular, banks and other financial services companies.

On September 12, 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (“ONC”) unveiled a model privacy notice for personal health records (the “PHR Model Privacy Notice”).  The PHR Model Privacy Notice was developed by ONC in collaboration with consumers and vendors of personal health records (“PHRs”).  The PHR Model Privacy Notice is intended to enable consumers to “understand privacy and security policies and data sharing practice information, compare PHR company practices, and make informed decisions.”

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Sorrell v. IMS Health, Thomas Julin, partner at Hunton & Williams LLP who represented IMS Health in the case, closely studied the Court’s decision to assess its implications, including with respect to other forthcoming legislation.  In an interview with Marty Abrams, President of the Centre for Information Policy Leadership, during the Centre’s First Friday Call on September 9, 2011, Julin discussed the close parallels between the law invalidated in Sorrell v. IMS Health and proposed federal regulation of behavioral ...

On September 6, 2011, a bankruptcy court approved an agreement between bankrupt bookseller Borders Group, Inc. (“Borders”) and Next Jump, Inc., (“Next Jump”) regarding Next Jump’s alleged trademark infringement and unauthorized use of Borders’ customer information.  Next Jump stipulated that it will not communicate with persons on Borders’ customer list, and that it would remove the Borders name and marks from websites that Next Jump owns or operates.

On August 31, 2011, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law amendments to that state’s security breach notification statute.  The revisions establish new content requirements for breach notification letters to California residents, and mandate notification to the state Attorney General when a breach affects more than 500 Californians.  Senate Bill 24 was the third effort by State Senator Joe Simitian to build on the landmark California breach notification law he authored in 2002.  The two previous bills he proposed were passed by the California legislature, but vetoed by former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Lush Cosmetics Ltd. (“Lush”) has avoided a monetary penalty for its breach of the UK Data Protection Act 1998.  Instead, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (the “ICO”) has required Lush to sign an undertaking that obliges the company to “ensure that future customer credit card data will be processed in accordance with the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard.”

On August 15, 2011, the Federal Trade Commission announced a settlement with W3 Innovations, LLC, doing business as Broken Thumbs Apps (“W3”) for violations of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA”) and the FTC’s COPPA Rule.  This marks the FTC’s first privacy settlement involving mobile applications.

On July 29, 2011, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley announced a $7,500 settlement with Belmont Savings Bank following a May 2011 data breach involving the names, Social Security numbers and account numbers of more than 13,000 Massachusetts residents.  The bank has stated that it has no evidence of unauthorized access to or use of consumers’ personal information in connection with this breach.

As reported in BNA’s Privacy Law Watch, on July 19, 2011, President Obama announced his intention to nominate Maureen K. Ohlhausen to the Federal Trade Commission. Obama sent his official nomination to the Senate on July 21, 2011. If approved, Ohlhausen will serve a seven-year term beginning on September 26, 2011, replacing Commissioner William E. Kovacic.

On July 14, 2011, the U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee convened a joint hearing of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade (chaired by Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-CA)), and the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology (chaired by Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR)), to launch a comprehensive review of Internet privacy.  The series of hearings began with testimony from officials representing three agencies with jurisdiction over consumer privacy issues: FTC Commissioner Edith Ramirez, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, and Department of Commerce Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information Lawrence Strickling.

On July 12, 2011, Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society reported the preliminary results of tests conducted with experimental software designed to detect third-party tracking.  Over the months spent developing “a platform for measuring dynamic web content,” researchers at the Stanford Security Lab analyzed tracking on the websites of Network Advertising Initiative (“NAI”) participants by observing how cookies are altered when a user opts out of behavioral tracking on the NAI website, or enables Do Not Track.

On June 16, 2011, the German Federal Ministry of the Interior officially opened a National Cyber Defense Center as part of the comprehensive cybersecurity strategy that was adopted by the German federal government on February 23, 2011.  The Cyber Defense Center is intended to serve as a common platform for rapid information exchange and better coordination of protective and defensive measures against information technology security incidents.

On July 6, 2011, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (the “ICO”) released its Annual Report and Financial Statements for 2010/11.  Characterizing information as “the currency of democracy,” the report highlights the wide range of the ICO’s activities during the last twelve months, which focused on education and the provision of good practice guidance in addition to enforcement activities.

On June 28, 2011, the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission convened a public education forum entitled “Helping Consumers Harness the Potential of Location-Based Services.”  Representatives of telecommunications carriers, technology companies and consumer advocacy organizations discussed technological developments and how best to realize the benefits of location-based services without compromising privacy.

On June 29, 2011, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation convened a hearing entitled “Privacy and Data Security: Protecting Consumers in the Online World.”  In opening remarks, Committee Chair Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) highlighted that the hearing would consider both privacy and data security and discussed three bills focused on these issues.  

On June 24, 2011, the U.S. Department of Commerce’s International Trade Administration released a PowerPoint presentation on Mexico’s new private sector data protection law that was shared at a meeting of the OECD Working Party on Information Security and Privacy by Mexico’s Ministry of Economy and Federal Institute for Access to Information and Data Protection (“IFAI”).  The presentation provides guidance on the creation of privacy notices and establishment of self-regulatory schemes, and also outlines the responsibilities of the Ministry of Economy and the IFAI ...

Recent developments involving the use of facial recognition technology have raised privacy concerns in the United States, Europe and Canada.  As we reported earlier this month, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (“EPIC”) and several other consumer privacy advocacy groups filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission against Facebook for its use of facial recognition technology.  According to EPIC’s complaint, Facebook’s Tag Suggestions feature recognizes individuals’ faces based on photographs already on Facebook, then suggests that users “confirm Facebook’s identification of facial images in user photos” when they upload new photos to their Facebook profiles.

Speaking at the British Bankers’ Association’s Data Protection and Privacy Conference in London on June 20, 2011, Viviane Reding, Vice President of the European Commission and Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship, signaled her intention to streamline data protection to “simplify the regulatory environment” and “substantially reduce the administrative burden” for businesses.  In return, Reding expects businesses to ensure “safe and transparent digital products and services.”

Two former employees of mobile phone provider T-Mobile have been ordered by a court in the United Kingdom to pay £73,700 (approximately $120,000) for the theft of T-Mobile customers’ personal data.  The Chester Crown Court ordered David Turley and Darren Hames to pay £45,000 and £28,700 respectively, under confiscation orders, along with prosecution costs.

On June 13, 2011, Representative Mary Bono Mack (R-CA) released a discussion draft of the Secure and Fortify Data Act (the “SAFE Data Act”), which is designed to “protect consumers by requiring reasonable security policies and procedures to protect data containing personal information, and to provide for nationwide notice in the event of a security breach.”  Representative Bono Mack is Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade.  In a press release, Representative Bono Mack remarked that “E-commerce is a vital and growing part of our economy.  We should take steps to embrace and protect it – and that starts with robust cyber security.”  She added that “consumers have a right to know when their personal information has been compromised, and companies and other organizations have an overriding responsibility to promptly alert them.”

On June 15, 2011, Senator Al Franken (D-MN) and Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) introduced the Location Privacy Protection Act of 2011 (the “Act”).  As we reported previously, Senator Franken is chairman of the newly-created Senate subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law.   In his press release, Senator Franken explained that the Act is designed to “close current loopholes in federal law” while giving customers the ability to learn about and prevent the collection of their location information.  The Act would apply only to non-government entities and would not impact law-enforcement activities.  At a May 10, 2011 hearing, both Google and Apple were questioned about their privacy practices, and Franken subsequently challenged them to require their application developers to adopt clear and understandable privacy policies.