Privacy & Information Security Law Blog

On October 21, 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice National Security Division issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking implementing Executive Order 14117 that will restrict certain transactions with high-risk countries.

On October 16, 2024, the European Data Protection Board announced it had adopted Guidelines 2/2023 on Technical Scope of Art. 5(3) of ePrivacy Directive following a public consultation.

On September 18, 2024, the National Technical Committee 260 on Cybersecurity Standardization Administration of China released the Cybersecurity Standard Practice Guideline – Sensitive Personal Information Identification Guideline.

On August 2, 2024, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office issued a statement confirming that it has identified 11 social media and video sharing platforms that must improve their children’s privacy practices.

The Texas Attorney General’s Office joined the recent swell of regulatory and judicial scrutiny into privacy issues related to connected cars, driving data and telematics, launching an investigation on the data practices of several car manufacturers. 

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 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 28, 2024, President Biden released an Executive Order (“EO”) “addressing the extraordinary and unusual national security threat posed by the continued effort of certain countries of concern to access Americans’ bulk sensitive personal data and certain U.S. Government-related data.” In tandem with the EO, the Department of Justice’s (“DOJ’s”) National Security Division is set to issue an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (“ANPRM”) pursuant to the EO, which directs the DOJ to “establish, implement and administer new and targeted national security programming” to address the threat. The DOJ regulations will identify specific categories of “data transactions” that are prohibited or restricted due to their “unacceptable risk to national security.” 

On March 1, 2024, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) announced that it had issued an enforcement notice and a warning to the UK Home Office for failing to sufficiently assess the privacy risks posed by the electronic monitoring of people arriving in the UK via unauthorized means. The Home Office is the ministerial department of the UK government responsible for immigration, security, and law and order.

On January 18, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission announced a proposed order against geolocation data broker InMarket Media (“InMarket”), barring the company from selling or licensing precise location data. According to the FTC’s charges, InMarket failed to obtain informed consent from users of applications developed by the company and its third-party partners.  

On November 16, 2023, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) published its Guidelines 2/2023 on the Technical Scope of Art. 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive (the “Guidelines”).

On June 2 and June 5, 2023, the Connecticut and Nevada state legislatures, respectively, voted in favor of sending legislation to their governors for signature that would impose restrictions, among others, on the processing of consumer health data, including geofencing provisions.  Nevada S.B. 370 was signed by Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo on June 16, 2023. These bills contain provisions similar to Washington’s My Health My Data Act and expand on protections in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and other privacy laws.

On March 28, 2023, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL” or “French DPA”) announced a €125,000 fine on the e-scooter rental company Cityscoot for breaching EU and French data protection rules, in particular in the context of geolocation and use of Google reCAPTCHA. The fine was imposed on March 16, 2023.

On November 14, 2022, Google LLC (“Google”) agreed to a $391.5 million settlement with the attorneys general of 40 U.S. states over the company’s location tracking controls available in its user account settings.   

The investigation by the state attorneys general found that, between 2014 and 2020, Google misled users by failing to disclose that toggling the “Location History” setting to off did not disable all tracking activities. The settlement noted that Google retained the ability to track users’ location via the “Web & App Activity” setting, and used the information for targeted advertising purposes.

On October 3, 2022, Google LLC (“Google”) agreed to pay the State of Arizona $85 million to settle a consumer privacy lawsuit that alleged the company surreptitiously collected consumers’ geolocation data on smartphones even after users disabled location tracking. 

On August 29, 2022, the Federal Trade Commission announced a civil action against digital marketing data broker Kochava Inc. for “selling geolocation data from hundreds of millions of mobile devices that can be used to trace the movements of individuals to and from sensitive locations.” The lawsuit seeks a permanent injunction to stop Kochava’s sale of geolocation data and to require the company to delete the geolocation data it has collected.  

On September 15, 2022, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (the “Act”). The Act, which takes effect July 1, 2024, places new legal obligations on companies with respect to online products and services that are “likely to be accessed by children” under the age of 18.

On July 8, 2022, the California Privacy Protection Agency Board (“CPPA Board”) began the formal rulemaking process to establish regulations promulgating the amendments made to the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) by the California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”) (collectively, the “CCPA/CPRA”). The CPPA Board issued a formal Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Initial Statement of Reasons, and released the proposed regulations. The 45-day public comment period has now begun.

On April 19, 2022, the California state legislature and an industry self-regulatory group each separately took steps to enhance online privacy protections for children who are not covered by the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA”), which applies only to personal information collected online from children under the age of 13.

On January 18, 2022, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed into law Assembly Bill No. 3950, requiring employers to provide written notice to employees prior to the use of tracking devices in vehicles used by employees (the “Act”). The Act will go into effect on April 18, 2022.

On January 24, 2022, a group of state attorneys general (Indiana, Texas, D.C. and Washington) (the “State AGs”) announced their commitment to ramp up enforcement work on “dark patterns” that are used to ascertain consumers’ location data. The State AGs created a plan to initiate lawsuits alleging that consumers of certain online services are falsely led to believe that they can prevent the collection of their location data by changing their account and device settings, when the online services do not, in fact, honor such settings. The State AGs have alleged that this practice constitutes a deceptive and unlawful trade practice under applicable state consumer protection law. The State AGs’ announcement highlights the underlying concern that consumers may be provided with a choice to opt out of location tracking but still have their location data made accessible to certain online service providers.

On December 15, 2021, the Federal Trade Commission announced a $2 million settlement with OpenX Technologies (“OpenX”) in connection with alleged violations of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act Rule (“COPPA Rule”) and the FTC Act. According to the FTC’s complaint, OpenX knowingly collected personal information from children under age 13 without parental consent, and collected geolocation data from users of all ages who opted out of being tracked.

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

On April 8, 2020, the European Commission adopted a recommendation to develop a common European approach to using mobile applications and mobile location data in response to the coronavirus pandemic (the “Recommendation”).

On September 24, 2019, Alastair Mactaggart, drafter of the 2018 California ballot initiative that served as the basis for the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”), announced that he is filing a new initiative for California’s November 2020 ballot, the California Privacy Enforcement Act (“CPEA”).

On July 23, 2019, New York City Council members introduced Int. 1632-2019 (the “Bill”), an amendment to the administrative code of New York City that would prohibit telecommunications carriers and mobile applications from sharing a customer’s location data if such data was collected from a device in the five boroughs.

On May 6, 2019, the Federal Trade Commission announced that Meet24, FastMeet and Meet4U—three dating apps owned by Ukrainian-based company Wildec LLC—were removed from the Apple App Store and Google Play Store following an FTC letter alleging that the apps potentially violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA”) and the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”). According to the letter and contrary to what was claimed in their privacy policies, the apps, which collect dates of birth, email addresses, photographs and real-time location date, failed to block users who indicated they were under the age of 13.

On April 15, 2019, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (the “ICO”) issued for public consultation a draft code of practice, “Age Appropriate Design,” that will regulate the provision of online services likely to be accessed by children in the UK. Given the extraterritorial reach of the UK Data Protection Act 2018, organizations based outside of the UK may be subject to the code, which is expected to take effect by the end of 2019. The deadline for responding to the public consultation is May 31, 2019.

The European Commission has issued an EU-wide recall of the Safe-KID-One children’s smartwatch marketed by ENOX Group over concerns that the device leaves data such as location history, phone and serial numbers vulnerable to hacking and alteration. The watch is equipped with GPS, a microphone and speaker, and has a companion app that grants parents oversight of the child wearer. According to a February 1, 2019 alert posted on the EU's recall and notification index for nonfood products, flaws in the product could permit malicious users to send commands to any Safe-KID-One watch ...

On August 13, 2018, the Federal Trade Commission approved changes to the video game industry’s safe harbor guidelines under the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA”) Rule. COPPA’s “safe harbor” provision enables industry groups to propose self-regulatory guidelines regarding COPPA compliance for FTC approval. 

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.

The Article 29 Working Party (“Working Party”) recently issued its Opinion on data processing at work (the “Opinion”). The Opinion, which complements the Working Party’s previous Opinion 08/2001 on the processing of personal data in the employment context and Working document on the surveillance of electronic communications in the workplace, seeks to provide guidance on balancing employee privacy expectations in the workplace with employers’ legitimate interests in processing employee data. The Opinion is applicable to all types of employees and not just those under an employment contract (e.g., freelancers).

On April 4, 2017, the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office announced a settlement with Copley Advertising LLC (“Copley”) in a case involving geofencing.

This post has been updated. 

On October 27, 2016, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) announced the adoption of rules that require broadband Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) to take steps to protect consumer privacy (the “Rules”). According to the FCC’s press release, the Rules are intended to “ensure broadband customers have meaningful choice, greater transparency and strong security protections for their personal information collected by ISPs.” 

On October 27, 2016, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) will vote on whether to finalize proposed rules (the "Proposed Rules”) concerning new privacy restrictions for Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”). The Proposed Rules, which revise previous versions introduced earlier this year, would require customers’ explicit (or “opt-in”) consent before an ISP can use or share a customer’s personal data, including web browsing and app usage history, geolocation data, children’s information, health information, financial information, email and other message contents and Social Security numbers.

On October 3, 2016, the Texas Attorney General announced a $30,000 settlement with mobile app developer Juxta Labs, Inc. (“Juxta”) stemming from allegations that the company violated Texas consumer protection law by engaging in false, deceptive or misleading acts or practices regarding the collection of personal information from children.

On April 12, 2016, the French Data Protection Authority (“CNIL”) announced that it will participate in a coordinated online audit to analyze the impact of everyday connected devices on privacy. The audit will be coordinated by the Global Privacy Enforcement Network (“GPEN”), a global network of approximately 50 data protection authorities (“DPAs”) from around the world.

On June 18, 2014, the German state data protection authorities responsible for the private sector (the Düsseldorfer Kreis) issued guidelines concerning the data protection requirements for app developers and app publishers (the “Guidelines”). The Guidelines were prepared by the Bavarian state data protection authority and cover requirements in Germany’s Telemedia Act as well as the Federal Data Protection Act. Topics addressed in the 33-page document include:

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 13, 2014, the French data protection authority (“CNIL”) decided to examine 100 mobile apps most commonly used in France.

On May 8, 2014, the Federal Trade Commission announced a proposed settlement with Snapchat, Inc. (“Snapchat”) stemming from allegations that the company’s privacy policy misrepresented its privacy and security practices, including how the Snapchat mobile app worked. Snapchat’s app supposedly allowed users to send and receive photo and video messages known as “snaps” that would “disappear forever” after a certain time period. The FTC alleged that, in fact, it was possible for recipients to save snaps indefinitely, regardless of the sender-designated expiration time.

On March 28, 2014, the 87th Conference of the German Data Protection Commissioners concluded in Hamburg. This biannual conference provides a private forum for the 17 German state data protection authorities (“DPAs”) and the Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information, Andrea Voßhoff, to share their views on current issues, discuss relevant cases and adopt Resolutions aimed at harmonizing how data protection law is applied across Germany.

On December 5, 2013, the Federal Trade Commission announced a proposed settlement with mobile app developer Goldenshores Technologies, LLC (“Goldenshores”) following allegations that Goldenshores’ privacy policy for its popular Brightest Flashlight Free app deceived consumers regarding how the app collects information, including geolocation information, and how that information may be shared with third parties. Brightest Flashlight Free, developed for the Android operating system, allows its users to use their cell phones as flashlights.

Today, July 1, 2013, the Federal Trade Commission’s changes to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (the “Rule”) officially come into effect. On December 19, 2012, the FTC announced that it had published the amended Rule following two years of public comments and multiple reviews of various proposed changes.

On April 30, 2013, the regional court of Berlin enjoined Apple Sales International, which is based in Ireland, (“Apple”) from relying on eight of its existing standard data protection clauses in contracts with customers based in Germany. The court also prohibited Apple’s future use of such clauses.

On April 25, 2013, the Federal Trade Commission released an updated version of its frequently asked questions regarding the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (“COPPA”). The revised FAQs, entitled Complying with COPPA: Frequently Asked Questions (A Guide for Business and Parents and Small Entity Compliance Guide), provide general information on COPPA’s requirements and also include new guidance on the recent amendments to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (“COPPA Rule”).

On April 2, 2013, the Article 29 Working Party (the “Working Party”) adopted an Opinion (the “Opinion”) that elaborates on the purpose limitation principle set out in Article 6(1)(b) of the current EU Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC (the “Data Protection Directive”). The Opinion analyzes the scope of this principle under the Data Protection Directive, clarifies its limits and makes recommendations to strengthen it in the proposed General Data Protection Regulation (the “Proposed Regulation”). It also focuses on how to apply this principle in the context of Big Data and open data.

On March 7, 2013, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) published guidance (the “Guidance”) on Bring Your Own Device (“BYOD”) to explain to data controllers “what they need to consider when permitting the use of personal devices to process personal data for which they are responsible.” BYOD refers to the use of individuals’ personal devices to access and store corporate information.

On March 8, 2013, the Federal Trade Commission issued a staff report entitled Paper, Plastic… or Mobile? An FTC Workshop on Mobile Payments (the “Report”). The Report is based on a workshop held by the FTC in April 2012 and highlights key consumer and privacy issues resulting from the increasingly widespread use of mobile payments.

Although the FTC recognizes the benefits of mobile payments, such as ease and convenience for consumers and potentially lower transaction costs for merchants, the Report notes three areas of concern with the mobile payments system: (1) dispute resolution, (2) data security and (3) privacy.

Reporting from Washington, D.C., Hunton & Williams associate Andrew Walsh writes:

Data embedded in photos can make a picture worth far more than a thousand words. To provide an example rich in irony, a well-known figure in Internet security who was wanted for police questioning recently inadvertently pinpointed his location for the authorities with an online posting of a photo containing Exchangeable Image File (“EXIF”) data. EXIF data is saved with JPG files on digital cameras and, if the camera has GPS, the EXIF data may include geolocation information such as the date, time, longitude, latitude and altitude of the photo.

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 10, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission issued a new report, Mobile Apps for Kids: Disclosures Still Not Making the Grade, which follows up on the FTC’s February 2012 report, Mobile Apps for Kids: Current Privacy Disclosures are Disappointing. The FTC conducted a follow-up survey regarding pre-download mobile app privacy disclosures, and whether those disclosures accurately describe what occurs during use of the apps.

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 5, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission issued guidelines for mobile app developers entitled “Marketing Your Mobile App: Get It Right from the Start.” The guidelines are largely a distillation of the FTC’s previously expressed views on a range of topics that have relevance to the mobile app space. They are summarized below:

On May 24, 2012, the German Federal Government submitted to the Parliament (Bundestag) a proposal to amend the Geodatenzugangsgesetz, a federal law concerning access to geographical data that has been in force since 2009.

The current law implements Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (“INSPIRE”). In addition to establishing a national geographical data infrastructure, the law aims to provide a legal framework for (1) accessing geographical data, geographical data services and metadata of organizations that maintain such data, and (2) using such data and services, in particular with regard to measures that may affect the environment. The law applies to federal agencies and corporations under public law.

On January 23, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in the landmark United States v. Jones case, holding 9-0 that attaching a GPS device to a suspect’s car to monitor the vehicle’s movements constitutes a Fourth Amendment search that requires a warrant.  Writing for the Court, Justice Scalia found that it was not necessary to determine whether Jones had a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in the underbody of his Jeep parked on a public street because the search violated the Court’s traditional common-law trespass test.  Scalia stated:

“It is important to be ...

On November 3, 2011, the Labor Chamber of the French Court of Cassation (the “Court”) upheld a decision against a company that unlawfully used a geolocation device to track the company car of one of its salesmen. Although the company notified the salesman that a geolocation device would be used to optimize productivity by analyzing the time he spent on business trips, the device was in fact used to monitor his working hours, which ultimately led to a pay cut.

On November 8, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in United States v. Jones, a case examining the Fourth Amendment implications of warrantless GPS tracking of suspects’ vehicles. The Court directed the parties to brief and argue “whether the government violated respondent’s Fourth Amendment rights by installing the GPS tracking device on his vehicle without a valid warrant and without his consent.”

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 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 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 May 16, 2011, the Article 29 Working Party (the “Working Party”) adopted an Opinion on geolocation services on smart mobile devices (the “Opinion”).  The Opinion clarifies the legal framework and obligations applicable to geolocation services such as maps and navigation tools, geo-personalized services, geotagging of content on the Internet, child control and location-based advertising.

Austrian DPA Gives Green Light Subject to Conditions

On April 21, 2011, the Austrian Data Protection Commission (“Austrian DPA”) published its decision allowing Google to register its Google Street View application on the Austrian DPA’s data processing register.  As part of the registration procedure, Google agreed to blur images of faces and license plates prior to publishing them on the Internet, and to provide information to the public about the right to object to publication of certain images.  Further, the Austrian DPA required Google to:

On March 21, 2011, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) published its decision to fine Google €100,000 for violating the French Data Protection Act.

In 2009, the CNIL inspected Google’s geolocation service (“Street View”), which revealed that Google had collected huge quantities of undeclared personal data (e.g., navigation data, email content, logins and passwords) through Wi-Fi connections accessed by its Street View cars.  Google responded that the personal data had been collected by mistake, and promised to stop the Wi-Fi data collection.

Earlier this month, the Belgian Privacy Commission (the “Belgian DPA”) published its December 15, 2010 Recommendation on Mobile Mapping (Recommandation d’initiative en matière de Mobile Mapping, or “the Recommendation”).  The Recommendation defines Mobile Mapping as “technology by which a vehicle equipped with a camera and/or a scanner can digitally record all data on a specific road, including by taking 360° photos.”  The scope of the Recommendation covers not only applications such as Google Street View, but also other types of Mobile Mapping such as mapping by public authorities, mapping for tourism, real estate applications and GPS navigation mapping.

Early this week, the Article 29 Working Party issued its December 16, 2010 Opinion on applicable law, providing guidance on the scope of EU data protection law and the practical implications of Article 4 of the EU Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC, the “Directive”).

The purpose of the Working Party’s Opinion 8/2010 (the “Opinion”) is twofold.  First, it intends to clarify the current scope of EU data protection law with regard to the processing of personal data within and outside the European Economic Area (the “EEA”).  The clarifications by the Working Party are aimed at enhancing legal certainty for data controllers, providing a clearer framework for individuals and stakeholders and avoiding legal loopholes and potential conflicts between overlapping national data protection laws.  Throughout the Opinion, practical examples are used to demonstrate the clarifications, such as in the context of centralized HR databases, geolocation services, cloud computing and online social networks.  Furthermore, in light of the general revision of the EU data protection framework, the Opinion includes suggestions to improve the existing applicable law provisions in the EU Data Protection Directive.

On December 1, 2010, the German Federal Ministry of the Interior (the “BMI”) issued a paper entitled “Data Protection on the Internet,” which contains a draft law to protect against particularly serious violations of privacy rights online.

Regulation of Geo Data Services

The BMI’s paper was developed in context of recent discussions regarding the regulation of geo data services.  A draft data protection code for geo data services (the “Code”), prepared by businesses under the leadership of the German Federal Association for Information Technology, Telecommunications and New Media (“BITKOM e.V.”), was also published on December 1, and now will be assessed by the BMI.

In its paper, the BMI rejects the adoption of a specific law to regulate services such as Google Street View.  The BMI believes that, to the extent service providers implement sufficient technical and organizational measures to protect data, statutory regulation is not necessary.

The UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) has announced the outcome of its investigation into the collection of payload data by Google Street View cars in the UK.  The ICO has concluded that there was a “significant breach” of the UK Data Protection Act in that “the collection of this information was not fair or lawful and constitutes a significant breach of the first principle [of the Act].”

While the ICO has the power to impose monetary penalties for serious breaches of the Act, capped at £500,000 per breach, in this case the ICO has determined that the appropriate course is to secure an undertaking from Google, requiring it to implement additional data protection safeguards.

On September 20, 2010, the German government under the leadership of the Federal Minister of the Interior held a summit on “Digitization of Cities and States - Opportunities and Limits of Private and Public Geo Data Services.”  Approximately 50 experts attended, including the Federal Minister of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection, the Federal Minister of Justice and representatives from various companies, such as Deutsche Telekom, Google, Microsoft, Apple Inc., OpenStreetMap and panogate.  Numerous data protection authorities attended as well, including the Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information, the Chair of the Düsseldorfer Kreis and the DPA of Hamburg.  The discussions at the summit were based on a discussion paper issued by the Federal Minister of the Interior.

On October 4, 2010, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) stated in a press release that a recently enacted environmental law (Act No. 2010-788 of July 12, 2010, known as “Grenelle II”) expands the CNIL’s authority to regulate devices used to measure the viewership of advertisements in public places like shopping malls, train stations and airports.  Grenelle II introduces a new provision under Article L. 581-9 of the French Environmental Code, which states: “Any system that automatically measures the audience of an advertising device or which analyzes the typology or behavior of individuals passing within the vicinity of such advertising device requires prior approval of the CNIL.”

On September 14, 2010, a French Appeals Court in Dijon (the “Court”) upheld a decision against an employer that had terminated an employee who not only used a company car for personal reasons, but also committed serious traffic violations while using the vehicle.  The Court rejected evidence collected using a Global Positioning System (“GPS”) device embedded in the company’s vehicle on the grounds that the employer (1) had failed to register this data processing activity with the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) and (2) had not given proper notice to employees regarding the use of GPS devices in company cars.  Nevertheless, the Court ruled that the use of a geolocation device in the employment context does not necessarily constitute an invasion of an employee’s right to privacy, provided the employer complies with applicable laws.