Privacy & Information Security Law Blog

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 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 7, 2022, the Cyberspace Administration of China (the “CAC”) issued the Measures on Security Assessment on Cross-border Transfer (the “Measures”), which became effective on September 1, 2022, and provide a six-month grace period to the relevant data handlers. On August 31, 2022, the CAC issued the Guidelines on Application for Security Assessment on Cross-border Transfer (the “Guidelines”), which further clarify certain issues and provide specific application documents for security assessments (including templates of application forms for security assessment on cross-border transfer and self-assessments report for risks of cross-border transfer).

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.

On February 6, 2017, the FTC announced that it has agreed to settle charges that VIZIO, Inc. (“VIZIO”), installed software on about 11 million consumer televisions to collect viewing data without consumers’ knowledge or consent. The stipulated federal court order requires VIZIO to pay $2.2 million to the FTC and New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs. 

On October 19, 2016, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) issued its judgment in Patrick Breyer v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, following the Opinion of Advocate General Manuel Campos Sánchez-Bordona on May 12, 2016. The CJEU followed the Opinion of the Advocate General and declared that a dynamic IP address registered by a website operator must be treated as personal data by that operator to the extent that the user's Internet service provider ("ISP") has - and may provide - additional data that in combination with the IP address that would allow for the identification of the user.

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 May 12, 2016, the Advocate General (“AG”) of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) issued an opinion stating that Internet Protocol (“IP”) addresses are personal data and data protection law should apply to IP addresses. Specifically, the AG urged the CJEU to rule that a dynamic IP address is personal data to the extent that an Internet access provider has additional data that in combination with the IP address would allow for the re-identification of the user.

On February 25, 2016, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) heard arguments on two questions referred by the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof). The first question was whether or not IP addresses constitute personal data and therefore cannot be stored beyond what is necessary to provide an Internet service.

On August 1, 2013, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota denied a criminal defendant’s motion to suppress, holding that the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in computer files he shared on a peer-to-peer network.

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 November 8, 2012, the 84th Conference of the German Data Protection Commissioners concluded in Frankfurt (Oder). This bi-annual conference provides a private forum for the 16 German state data protection authorities (“DPAs”) and the Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information Peter Schaar 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 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 March 23, 2012, the Article 29 Working Party (the “Working Party”) adopted an Opinion on the European Commission’s data protection law reform proposals, including the draft Regulation that is of particular importance for businesses. The Working Party’s Opinion serves as the national data protection authorities’ contribution to the legislative process before the European Parliament and the European Council.

On February 24, 2012, the German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) ruled that certain provisions in the Federal Telecommunications Act concerning the disclosure of telecom user data to law enforcement agencies violate the German constitution. The Court held that strict conditions apply when law enforcement authorities and intelligence agencies ask telecommunications service providers (which may include hospitals and hotels) to turn over certain user data, i.e. passwords and PIN codes.

On April 13, 2011, Representative Cliff Stearns (R-FL) introduced the Consumer Privacy Protection Act of 2011 (the “Act”), which seeks to “protect and enhance consumer privacy” both online and offline by imposing certain notice and choice requirements with respect to the collection and use of personal information.

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 ...

In a recently published decision rendered on June 16, 2010, the Frankfurt am Main Higher Regional Court ruled that an Internet access provider may store IP addresses for seven days, and therefore, customers have no right to demand immediate deletion of their IP addresses.  The Court’s ruling upheld a decision originally rendered by the regional court of Darmstadt.

The claimant had requested that Deutsche Telekom AG delete the dynamic IP address assigned and stored for each Internet session immediately upon disconnection by a user.  Up to that point, the Internet provider had been retaining IP addresses for 80 days after each billing cycle.  In June 2007, the lower court granted the claimant request, imposing a maximum retention period of seven days for IP addresses.  The Internet provider reduced its IP address retention period accordingly, based on an agreement with the German federal data protection authority.

Twitter has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it deceived consumers and put their privacy at risk by failing to safeguard their personal information.  The charges stem from alleged lapses in the company’s data security that permitted hackers to access tweets that users had designated as private and to issue phony tweets from the accounts of some users, including then-President-elect Barack Obama.  According to the FTC’s complaint (main document, exhibits), these attacks on Twitter’s system were possible due to a failure to implement reasonable ...

On April 8, 2010, the Digital Economy Act (the “Act”), containing provisions relating to online copyright infringement, network infrastructure and digital safety, became law in the UK.  The Act’s main provisions include:

• new duties for the Office of Communications (the UK’s communications regulator), to report every three years on issues such as the UK’s communications infrastructure and Internet domain name registration;
• additional obligations on Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) that seek to reduce online copyright infringement;
• increased penalties for online copyright infringement; and
• intervention powers with respect to Internet domain registries.

On March 2, 2010, the German Federal Constitutional Court ruled that the mass storage of telephone and Internet data for law enforcement purposes is unlawful in its current form.

Since 2008, the challenged law has required telecom companies to retain data from telephone, email and Internet traffic, as well as mobile phone location data, for six months.  This information may be retrieved for law enforcement and safety purposes.  Constitutional claims were brought before the Court by nearly 35,000 citizens, representing the largest mass claim proceeding in German history. 

In December 2009, the German data protection authorities (“DPAs”) for the private sector published a resolution on data protection compliance for website audience measurement.  The resolution was adopted at the Düsseldorfer Kreis meeting on November 26-27, 2009.

Many website operators analyze users’ surfing behavior for advertising and market research purposes, or to adapt their websites to suit consumer preferences. To create user profiles, website operators often use software or other services that are offered by third party service providers (sometimes free of charge).

In SACEM v. Cyrille Saminadin (Cour de Cassation, chambre criminelle, 13 janvier 2009), the SACEM (a representative body of authors, composers, and music editors) asked one of its agents to carry out an investigation and to collect evidence of copyright infringements on a peer-to-peer network. After selecting a peer-to-peer network, the agent manually typed in the title of a song belonging to one of the rights holders and searched for all available files corresponding to this title. The agent then randomly selected one of these files and saved all the information relating to it (IP address, country of origin, name of the internet service provider, etc.) onto a CD-ROM as evidence for use in filing a complaint. The question raised in this case was whether such activity constitutes data processing requiring the prior authorization of the French Data Protection Authority (CNIL).