Privacy & Information Security Law Blog

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, the state’s highest appellate court, recently held that website operators’ use of third-party tracking software, including Meta Pixel and Google Analytics, is not prohibited under the state’s Wiretap Act.

On July 22, 2024, Google announced that the company is scrapping its plans to phase out the use of third-party cookies in its Chrome browser. Google previously announced plans in 2020 to phase out third-party cookies, a digital advertising tool that tracks consumers’ Internet activity across websites. The company intended to replace third-party cookies with privacy-protective APIs through its Privacy Sandbox initiative.

On July 22, 2024, Google announced that the company had scrapped its plan to phase out the use of third-party cookies in its Chrome browser.

On September 14, 2023, California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced a $93 million settlement with Google, LLC (“Google”) resolving alleged violations of California’s false advertising law and unfair competition law.

On May 24, 2023 Google LLC (“Google”) announced its recently updated privacy terms providing that, for many of Google’s advertising services, it will no longer act as a service provider for the purposes of the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (“CPRA”). The change may affect businesses’ prior determinations of whether they “sell” personal information under the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”). The updated terms take effect on July 1, 2023, the day CPRA enforcement begins.

On May 22, 2023, the Federal Trade Commission filed an amicus brief in support of a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that COPPA does not preempt state laws claims that are consistent with COPPA.

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 15, 2022, the Italian Supreme Court held that an Italian court or competent data protection authority has jurisdiction to issue a global delisting order. A delisting order requires a search engine to remove certain search results about individuals if the data subject’s privacy interests prevail over the general right to expression and information, and the economic interest of the search engine. The case was brought by an Italian individual, who requested a worldwide delisting order, concerning all versions of the search engine, due to potential damage to the applicant's professional interests outside of the European Union.

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 31, 2022, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) announced that it will re-open the public comment period on their October 2021 Orders for six large technology companies operating payments platforms to provide information about their business practices. The October 2021 Orders requested that Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, PayPal and Square provide information about their data collection and use, their policies for removing individuals and businesses from their platforms, and their policies and practices for providing consumer protections such as addressing disputes and errors.

On October 25, 2022, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ” or the “Department”) announced that Google had entered into an agreement to resolve a dispute over the loss of data responsive to a search warrant issued in 2016.

On October 20, 2022, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton brought suit against Google alleging various violations of Texas’s biometric privacy law, including that the company unlawfully collected and used the biometric data of millions of Texans without obtaining proper consent. The lawsuit alleges that, since 2015, Google has collected millions of biometric identifiers of Texas consumers, such as voiceprints and records of face geometry, through Google’s various products, including Google Photos, Google Assistant and Nest Hub Max, in violation of Texas’s biometric privacy law. Texas’s biometric privacy law prohibits the collection of biometric identifiers for a commercial purpose unless the individual whose biometric identifiers are collected is informed of the collection and provides consent. The law also requires companies to destroy biometric identifiers within a reasonable time, but not later than the first anniversary of the date the purpose for collecting the biometric identifier expires (except in limited circumstances).

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 September 21, 2022, Denmark’s data protection authority Datatilsynet (“Danish DPA”) announced its guidance that Google Analytics, Google’s audience measurement tool, is not compliant with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), as the tool transfers personal data to the United States which, following Schrems II, does not offer an adequate level of data protection.

On July 27, 2022, Google announced that it is delaying its plans to phase out third-party cookies in the Chrome web browser. Google’s Vice President of Privacy Sandbox, Anthony Chavez, announced the company is extending the full deprecation of third-party cookies to “the second half of 2024,” to continue the testing window for the Privacy Sandbox.

On June 23, 2022, Italy’s data protection authority (the “Garante”) determined that a website’s use of the audience measurement tool Google Analytics is not compliant with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), as the tool transfers personal data to the United States, which does not offer an adequate level of data protection. In making this determination, the Garante joins other EU data protection authorities, including the French and Austrian regulators, that also have found use of the tool to be unlawful.

On March 16, 2022, Google announced the launch of its new analytics solution, “Google Analytics 4.” Google Analytics 4 aims, among other things, to address recent developments in the EU regarding the use of analytics cookies and data transfers resulting from such use.

The Austrian data protection authority (the “Austrian DPA”) recently published a decision in a case brought against an Austrian website provider and Google by the non-governmental organization co-founded by privacy activist Max Schrems, None of Your Business (“NOYB”). The Austrian DPA ruled that the use of Google Analytics cookies by the website operator violates both Chapter V of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), which establishes rules on international data transfers, and the Schrems II judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

On December 31, 2021, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) imposed a €150,000,000 fine on Google and a €60,000,000 fine on Facebook (now Meta) for violations of French rules on the use of cookies.

On November 10, 2021, the UK Supreme Court issued its long-awaited judgment in the Lloyd v Google case. The decision is expected to make it difficult in practice for a future class action lawsuit that is brought on behalf of a class of individuals who have not actively opted in to being represented by the lead claimant to proceed under UK law.

Beginning in 2022, Apple and Google will impose new privacy requirements on mobile apps available for download in the Apple App Store and Google Play Store, respectively. As described further below, Apple’s new account deletion requirement will apply to all mobile app submissions to the Apple App Store beginning January 31, 2022. Similarly, Google’s new Data Safety section will launch in February 2022, and app developers will be required to submit to the Google Play Store Data Safety forms and Privacy Policies by April 2022.

On October 21, 2021, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) issued orders to Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Square and PayPal requesting detailed information about their business practices in relation to payment systems they operate. The CFPB issued the orders pursuant to its statutory authority under the Consumer Financial Protection Act.

On June 24, 2021, Google announced that it will delay its plan to replace the use of third-party cookies on its Chrome web browser with new technologies. This delay comes amid antitrust and privacy concerns, as well as scrutiny from the advertising industry that the changes will strengthen Google’s own advertising business.

On June 3, 2021, Google informed app developers that beginning in late 2021, when Android 12 OS users opt out of personalized ads, the advertising ID provided by Google Play services (the Google Ad ID, or “GAID”) will not be made available to app developers for any purpose.

On May 6, 2021, Google announced that beginning in the second quarter of 2022, mobile app developers submitting new apps and app updates to the Google Play store will be required to disclose certain information regarding their apps’ data collection, use, sharing and security practices, as well as provide a privacy policy for their apps. This information will be displayed in a new “safety section” of Google Play.

On December 10, 2020, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) announced that it has levied fines of €60 million on Google LLC and €40 million on Google Ireland Limited under the French cookie rules for their alleged failure to (1) obtain the consent of users of the French version of Google's search engine (google.fr) before setting advertising cookies on their devices; (2) provide users with adequate information about the use of cookies; and (3) implement a fully effective opt-out mechanism to enable users to refuse cookies. On the same date, the CNIL announced that it has levied a fine of €35 million on Amazon Europe Core under the same rules for its alleged failure to (1) obtain the consent of users of the amazon.fr site before setting advertising cookies on their devices; and (2) provide adequate information about the use of cookies.

On November 27, 2020, New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in the lawsuit it brought against Google on February 20, 2020, regarding alleged violations of the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA”) in connection with G-Suite for Education (“GSFE”). As we previously reported, the U.S. District Court of New Mexico had granted Google’s motion to dismiss, in which it asserted that its terms governed the collection of data through GSFE and that it had complied with COPPA by using schools both as “intermediaries” and as the parent’s agent for parental notice and consent, in line with Federal Trade Commission Guidance.

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

2019 was the “Year of the CCPA” as companies around the world worked tirelessly to comply with the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”). The CCPA aims to provide data privacy rights for California residents and imposes significant new requirements on covered businesses.

On October 2, 2019, the UK Court of Appeal handed down its judgment on the appeal in Richard Lloyd v. Google LLC, in which Richard Lloyd, a consumer protection advocate, seeks to bring a representative action on behalf of four million Apple iPhone users against Google LLC in the United States. Previously, the High Court had refused to grant permission for the proceedings to be served outside the UK. The Court of Appeal reversed the High Court’s judgment, granting permission for service outside the UK and allowing the representative action to proceed. The judgment is significant as it paves the way for representative actions (equivalent to class actions) for data protection infringements in the UK.

On September 24, 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) released its judgments in cases C-507/17, Google v. CNIL and C-136/17, G.C. and Others v. CNIL regarding (1) the territorial scope of the right to be forgotten, referred to in the judgement as the “right to de-referencing,” and (2) the conditions in which individuals may exercise the right to be forgotten in relation to links to web pages containing sensitive data. The Court’s analysis considered both the EU Data Protection Directive and the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”).

On May 27, 2019, the Irish government announced that Helen Dixon, who currently serves as Irish Data Protection Commissioner, was appointed to a second five-year term in her position. Her reappointment was approved by a May 27 Cabinet vote.

On January 21, 2019, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) imposed a fine of €50 million on Google LLC under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”) for its alleged failure to (1) provide notice in an easily accessible form, using clear and plain language, when users configure their Android mobile device and create a Google account, and (2) obtain users’ valid consent to process their personal data for ad personalization purposes. The CNIL’s enforcement action was the result of collective actions filed by two not-for-profit associations. This fine against Google is the first fine imposed by the CNIL under the GDPR and the highest fine imposed by a supervisory authority within the EU under the GDPR to date.

On July 28, 2015, the UK Supreme Court announced its decision to grant permission in part for Google Inc. (“Google”) to appeal the England and Wales Court of Appeal’s decision in Google Inc. v Vidal-Hall and Others.

On March 27, 2015, the England and Wales Court of Appeal issued its judgment in Google Inc. v Vidal-Hall and Others. Google Inc. (“Google”) appealed an earlier decision by Tugendhat J. in the High Court in January 2014. The claimants were users of Apple’s Safari browser who argued that during certain months in 2011 and 2012, Google collected information about their browsing habits via cookies placed on their devices without their consent and in breach of Google’s privacy policy.

On November 26, 2014, the Article 29 Working Party (the “Working Party”) published an Opinion (the “Opinion”) on the Guidelines on the Implementation of the Court of Justice of the European Union Judgment on “Google Spain and Google Inc. v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja González” C-131/12 (the “Judgment” or “Costeja”). The Opinion constitutes guidance from the Working Party on the implementation of Costeja for search engine operators.

On September 18, 2014, the Article 29 Working Party (the “Working Party”) announced its decision to establish a common approach to the right to be forgotten (the “tool-box”). This tool-box will be used by all EU data protection authorities (“DPAs”) to help address complaints from search engine users whose requests to delete their search result links containing their personal data were refused by the search engines. The development of the tool-box follows the Working Party’s June 2014 meeting discussing the consequences of the European Court of Justice’s judgment in Costeja of May 13, 2014.

On September 4, 2014, the Federal Trade Commission announced a proposed settlement with Google Inc. (“Google”) stemming from allegations that the company unfairly billed consumers for mobile app charges incurred by children. The FTC’s complaint alleges that since 2011, Google violated the FTC Act’s prohibition on unfair commercial practices by billing consumers for in-app charges made by children without the authorization of the account holder.

On August 1, 2014, the Federal Trade Commission released a new staff report examining the consumer protection implications of popular mobile device applications that provide shopping and in-store purchase services. The report, What’s the Deal? An FTC Study on Mobile Shopping Apps, details the findings from a recent FTC staff survey that studied consumer rights and data protection issues associated with some of the most popular mobile shopping apps on the market.

On July 15, 2014, Hunton & Williams’ Global Privacy and Cybersecurity practice group hosted the latest webcast in its Hunton Global Privacy Update series. The program covered a number of privacy and data protection topics, including the recent judgment in the Costeja case, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership’s work on a risk-based approach to privacy, the new Canadian anti-spam legislation that went into effect on July 1, and other developments in the U.S. and EU.

On June 3 and 4, 2014, the Article 29 Working Party held a meeting to discuss the consequences of the European Court of Justice’s May 13, 2014 judgment in Costeja, which is widely described as providing a “right to be forgotten.” Google gave effect to the Costeja decision by posting a web form that enables individuals to request the removal of URLs from the results of Google searches that include that individual’s name. The Working Party announced that it welcomed Google’s initiative, but pointed out that it is “too early to comment on whether the form is entirely satisfactory.” The Working Party also announced that it will prepare guidelines to ensure a common approach to the implementation of Costeja by the national data protection authorities. Finally, the Working Party called on search engine operators to implement user-friendly processes that enable users to exercise their right to deletion of search result links containing their personal data.

On May 30, 2014, Google posted a web form that enables individuals to request the removal of URLs from the results of searches that include that individual’s name. The web form acknowledges that this is Google’s “initial effort” to give effect to the recent and controversial decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Costeja, widely described as providing a “right to be forgotten.” That Google has moved quickly to offer individuals a formal removal request process will be viewed favorably, but the practicalities of creating a removals process that satisfies all interested parties will remain challenging, and not just for Google.

On February 18, 2014, the Frankfurt am Main Regional Court issued a ruling addressing the use of opt-out notices for web analytics tools. The case concerned Piwik web analytics software and its “AnonymizeIP” function. The court held that website users must be informed clearly about their right to object to the creation of pseudonymized usage profiles. This information must be provided when a user first visits the website (e.g., via a pop-up or highlighted/linked wording on the first page) and must be accessible at all times (e.g., via a privacy notice).

On November 19, 2013, the Federal Trade Commission held a workshop in Washington, D.C. to discuss The Internet of Things: Privacy & Security in a Connected World. FTC Chair Edith Ramirez and FTC Senior Attorney Karen Jagielski provided the opening remarks. Chairwoman Ramirez raised three key issues for workshop participants to consider:

Senior Attorney Rosemary Jay reports from London:

On June 25, 2013, Advocate-General Jääskinen of the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) delivered his Opinion in Google Spain S.L. and Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (Case C-131/12, “Google v AEPD” or the “case”).

The case concerns Google Search results, and whether individuals have a right to erasure of search result links about them. The Opinion concludes that under current law, individuals have no such right. The European Commission’s proposed General Data Protection Regulation (the “Proposed Regulation”) would introduce a right to be forgotten. However, this Opinion appears to demonstrate unease with the basic concept of such a right.

On June 18, 2013, the New York office of Hunton & Williams LLP office hosted Cornell University’s Privacy and Data Security Symposium, Privacy, Security & Your Data - Concerns in a Changing World. The program focused on global privacy and cybersecurity issues, including protecting the personal information of Internet users, balancing user privacy with law enforcement concerns, and implementing responsible data stewardship and governance. Moderated by Cornell University’s Tracy Mitrano, Director of IT Policy and Institute for Computer Policy and Law, the panel included:

On March 12, 2013, Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen announced that a coalition of 38 states had entered into a $7 million settlement with Google Inc. (“Google”) regarding its collection of unsecured Wi-Fi data via the company’s Street View vehicles between 2008 and 2010. The settlement is the culmination of a multi-year investigation by the states that we first reported on in 2010.

As reported in the Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives Blog:

Employees use social media extensively in communication for personal and business reasons. Employers are increasingly monitoring this use, and insisting on access to some of the more popular sites. California took notice of this trend and passed legislation to protect employee privacy. On September 27, 2012, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. signed AB 1844 making California the third state to limit access to employees’ social media account, joining Maryland and Illinois.

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 November 16, 2011, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) published its Annual Activity Report for 2010 (the “Report”) highlighting its main 2010 accomplishments and outlining some of its priorities for the upcoming year. This year’s Report covers events that occurred since last year’s publication of the Annual Activity Report for 2009.

On November 2-3, 2011, Mexico’s Federal Institute for Access to Information and Data Protection (“IFAI”) will host the 33rd International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners in Mexico City. Marty Abrams, President of the Centre for Information Policy Leadership at Hunton & Williams LLP, is the chairman of the Conference’s advisory panel and principal advisor to Conference organizers on program content. Hunton & Williams is a proud sponsor of the event which will feature Hunton representatives as speakers or moderators on multiple panels and plenary sessions, including the following:

On September 15, 2011, the data protection authority of the German federal state of Hamburg (the “DPA”) published a press release confirming that Google has significantly improved compliance with respect to the implementation of Google Analytics in Germany.  This finding is the result of two years of fruitful dialog between Google and the DPA, which was acting on behalf of the conference of German data protection authorities responsible for the private sector (the “Düsseldorfer Kreis”).

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.

On June 9, 2011, two plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against Google in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  The complaint alleges that Google’s Android phone “engaged in illegal tracking and recording of [p]laintiffs’ movements and locations … without their knowledge or consent” and that Google violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and Florida statutory and common law by failing to inform Android users that their movements were being tracked and recorded through their phones.

On May 27, 2011, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Google and its recently acquired subsidiary, Slide, alleging that they violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) when they sent text messages to people’s cell phones without first obtaining their consent.

On May 31, 2011, an Order was filed in the District Court for the Northern District of California granting final approval of the Google Buzz class action settlement and cy pres awards for organizations focused on Internet privacy policy or privacy education. Pursuant to the Order, the court adopted the Google Buzz settlement agreement and certified the proposed settlement class, which includes “all Gmail users in the United States presented with the opportunity to use Google Buzz through the Notice Date.” The court also approved the following list of organizations and ...

A new bill proposed in California, the Social Networking Privacy Act (the “Act”), would force social networking websites to establish default privacy settings for their users that prohibit such sites from publicly displaying most information about users without the users’ consent.  Given that many social networking websites currently have default settings that make user personal information and photos public unless the user changes those settings, the Act would represent a fundamental shift in social networking privacy.

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 30, 2011, the Federal Trade Commission announced that Google agreed to settle charges that it used deceptive tactics and violated its own privacy promises to consumers when it launched its social network, Google Buzz, in 2010.  According to the FTC’s complaint (main document, exhibits), Google led Gmail users to believe that they could choose whether or not they wanted to join Google Buzz.  The options for declining or leaving Google Buzz, however, were ineffective.  For those who joined Google Buzz, the controls for limiting the sharing of their personal information were difficult to locate and confusing.  Furthermore, the FTC charged that Google violated its privacy policies by using information provided for Gmail for another purpose – social networking – without obtaining consumers’ permission in advance.  Finally, the FTC alleged that Google misrepresented that it was treating personal information from the European Union in accordance with the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor framework because it failed to give consumers notice and choice before using their information for a different purpose from that for which it was collected.

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.

Connecticut’s newly-elected Attorney General George Jepsen recently announced an agreement with Google, Inc. concerning the company’s refusal to comply with a Civil Investigative Demand brought by his predecessor, freshman Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT).  According to a January 28, 2011 press release, to facilitate settlement discussions with the Connecticut-led, 40-state coalition, Google will stipulate that “payload data” compiled in 2008 and 2009 “contained URLs of requested Web pages, partial or complete e-mail communications or other information, including confidential and private information” transmitted by individuals across unsecured wireless networks.

On January 24, 2011, the data protection authority of the German state of Rhineland-Palatinate issued a press release regarding significant breaches of data protection law by companies that maintain websites and create user profiles.

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.

In late December 2010, consumers filed two class action lawsuits against Apple Inc., claiming that several applications they downloaded from Apple’s App Store sent their personal information to third parties without their consent.  Specifically, the consumers claim that Apple allowed third party advertising networks to follow user activity through the Unique Device Identifiers that Apple assigns each device that downloads applications.  The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, also named several application developers such as Pandora and The Weather Channel as co-defendants.

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.

On November 19, 2010, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (the “ICO”) announced that Google has signed an undertaking committing it to improve its data processing practices.  The undertaking follows an ICO investigation into the collection of payload data by Google Street View cars in the UK.  Google’s Senior Vice President, Alan Eustace, signed the undertaking on behalf of Google, Inc.

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.

According to a press report dated October 2, 2010, the German state data protection authorities responsible for the private sector (also known as the “Düsseldorfer Kreis”) continue to consider the use of Google Analytics on company websites to be illegal.  The Düsseldorfer Kreis reached this decision at a recent meeting of its Telemedia working group.  The group has indicated that it hopes to continue negotiations with Google.  Dr. Alexander Dix, the Berlin Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information who was interviewed on this issue, stated that although ...

On September 2, 2010, police in New Zealand issued a statement to confirm that there was no evidence Google committed a criminal offense in relation to the data it collected from unsecured WiFi networks during the Street View photography capture exercise.  The case has now been referred back to the New Zealand Privacy Commissioner.  A spokesperson from the New Zealand police force took the opportunity to underline the need for Internet users to make sure that security measures are properly implemented when using WiFi connections in order to prevent their information from being improperly accessed.

In a statement released on July 29, 2010, the UK Information Commissioner's Office ("ICO") has found that the information collected by Google from unsecured WiFi networks during the Street View photography capture exercise "does not include meaningful personal details that could be linked to an identifiable person."  This follows an assessment carried out by the ICO on a sample of the data in question at Google's London offices.

On July 21, 2010, a coalition of 38 states sent a letter to Google demanding more information about the company’s collection of data from unsecured wireless networks by its Google Street View vehicles.  The letter was sent by Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal on behalf of the executive committee of a multistate working group investigating Google Street View practices.  As we reported on June 22, Blumenthal has spearheaded the nationwide investigation into Google Street View.  Among other things, the letter asks Google to identify who was responsible for the software code that allowed the Street View cars to collect data broadcast over Wi-Fi networks, and for a list of states where unauthorized data collection occurred.  The letter also asks Google for details regarding whether any of the data was disclosed to third parties or used for marketing purposes.

On June 17, 2010, the French data protection authority (the “CNIL”) reported that it had conducted an on-site investigation at Google on May 19 to examine activities by Google’s Street View cars.  This investigation followed Google’s May 14 announcement that it had inadvertently captured Wi-Fi signals emitted in locations where its vehicles were taking photos.

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal recently announced that his office will lead a multistate investigation into the “deeply disturbing” unauthorized collection of personal data from wireless computer networks by Google’s Street View cars.  Attorney General Blumenthal noted that Google “must provide a complete and comprehensive explanation of how this unauthorized data collection happened, why the information was kept if collection was inadvertent and what action will prevent a recurrence.”  A significant number of states are expected to ...

In a letter to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission dated May 26, 2010, the Article 29 Working Party expressed concerns regarding the retention and anonymization policies of Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft.  Specifically, the Working Party requested that the FTC examine the compatibility of the three search engine providers’ actions with provisions of Section 5 of the FTC Act which prohibits unfair or deceptive trade practices.

On April 19, 2010, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Jennifer Stoddart, and the heads of nine other international data protection authorities took part in an unprecedented collaboration by issuing a strongly worded letter of reproach to Google’s Chief Executive Officer, Eric Schmidt.  The joint letter, which was also signed by data protection officials from France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain and the United Kingdom, highlighted growing international concern that “the privacy rights of the world’s citizens are being forgotten as Google rolls out new technological applications.”

Following up on our previous post on the sentencing of three Google executives by an Italian court, the New York Times reports that an 111-page explanation of the verdict has been released.  Judge Oscar Magi found that Google had an obligation to make users more aware of its EU privacy policies, and cited Google’s active marketing of its Google Video site as indicative of the company’s profit motive for not removing the video sooner.

Today three advocacy organizations filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), demanding that it investigate and impose drastic requirements on entities involved in online data analytics and behavioral advertising.  In their complaint, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (“U.S. PIRG”), the Center for Digital Democracy and the World Privacy Forum target Google, Yahoo!, BlueKai, PubMatic, TARGUSinfo and others for allegedly participating in what the U.S. PIRG terms a “Wild West” of online collection and auctioning of data for marketing purposes.

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that outgoing FTC Commissioner Pamela Jones Harbour criticized technology companies for publicly exposing consumer data, particularly during the rollout of new products.  Ms. Harbour lamented that companies do not take consumer privacy seriously.  She singled out the launch of Google Buzz as irresponsible conduct by “one of the greatest technology leaders of our time.”  Consumer advocates raised alarm when Google Buzz initially established Google Gmail users’ social network connections automatically based on the users’ email and chat contacts, and made that list public by default.  Ms. Harbour reiterated the advocates’ sentiment by stating that, from the time the product launched, consumers rather than Google should have decided whether or not to subscribe to the features that could expose their contact data.  Soon after the launch, Google changed the defaults to allow users more control.  Google put forth a conciliatory message, stating that user transparency and control are top priorities for the company and that Google is continuing to improve Buzz based on the feedback the company receives.

In February 24, 2010, an Italian court in Milan found three Google executives guilty of violating applicable Italian privacy laws.  The executives were accused of violating Italian law by having allowed a video showing an autistic teenager being bullied to be posted online.  The Google executives, Senior Vice President and Chief Legal Officer David Drummond, Chief Privacy Counsel Peter Fleischer and former Chief Financial Officer George Reyes, were fined and received six-month suspended jail sentences.

Google Earth and Google Street View, two popular applications offered by Google that enable users to view detailed satellite images of buildings or street-level panoramas of major roads and neighborhoods, have recently engendered controversy.  In the United States, legislators in California and Texas have introduced bills directed at Google Earth and other similar applications.  The proposed California bill prohibits operators of commercial Internet websites that make a “virtual globe browser available to members of the public” from providing “aerial or satellite photographs or imagery” of schools, religious facilities or government buildings, unless those images have been blurred.  Violators could be fined at least $250,000 and natural persons who knowingly violate the provisions could face imprisonment between one to three years.  The proposed Texas bill prohibits any person from publishing on the Internet “an image capable of zooming into greater detail than that of an aerial photograph taken without a magnifying lens 300 feet or higher of private property not visible from the public right-of-way,” and classifies the offense as a Class B misdemeanor, which is punishable by a fine up to $2,000 or 180 days in prison.

Behavioral targeting on the Internet has recently come under the scrutiny of lawmakers and privacy advocates.  This increased interest has been triggered in part by Facebook’s and Google’s recent adoption of targeted advertising practices.  In response to growing concerns over behavioral tracking, three U.S. congressmen are preparing a draft bill that would mandate the disclosure of monitoring practices for advertising purposes.  The goal of the bill is to increase transparency and provide individuals with the opportunity to learn what information is being collected about them, by whom and how the information will be used.  At present, there are suggested best practices set forth in the Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC’s”) Staff Report on Self-Regulatory Principles for Online Behavioral Advertising.  These Self-Regulatory Principles are designed to encourage industry self regulation for the protection of consumer privacy in online advertising activities.  The FTC is in the process of reviewing the privacy issues raised by online behavioral advertising over the course of the last decade.  An FTC Town Hall meeting to address behavioral advertising practices was hosted in November 2007.  In response to the comments received at the Town Hall meeting, the FTC issued Self-Regulatory Principles to promote industry self-regulation.  If enacted, the proposed bill would frustrate industry’s nascent efforts to self-regulate in this area.

The Criminal Court of Milan has suspended proceedings against four Google executives to allow time to address relevant procedural considerations.  The proceedings mark the culmination of a two-year investigation conducted by Italian authorities.  The investigation focused on video footage made available on Google Video that depicted a disabled boy being taunted by his fellow classmates.  As result of the video footage, Google executives face charges of defamation and privacy infringement.

For purposes of the criminal proceedings, Google is considered an internet content ...