Privacy & Information Security Law Blog

The UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) recently published a questionnaire to gather feedback on how privacy seals might be used to improve data protection compliance and customer privacy awareness. The questionnaire is available online until November 30, 2012.

On October 31, 2012, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) published a consultation on changes to the notification process in the UK (the “Consultation”), which will be open for comment until November 30, 2012. The purpose of the Consultation is to provide the ICO with feedback on its proposed changes regarding: (1) whether an online and telephone payment service would be beneficial to data controllers, (2) whether the inclusion of contact details for information requests is useful and (3) whether the format of the public register should become narrative-based. The ICO is also seeking input regarding whether these changes would make the public register more meaningful and notification simpler for data controllers.

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

In June, China’s National Internet Information Office and its Ministry of Industry and Information Technology jointly published draft amendments to the Regulation on Internet Information Services (the “Regulation”). The amendments update the Regulation to cover new issues related to the rapid development of Internet services in China since the Regulation first took effect on September 25, 2000. Although the Regulation originally contained no specific provisions directly pertaining to the protection of personal information, the draft amendments do address personal information protection issues.

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

On May 31, 2012, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) published a draft anonymization code of practice (the “Code”) which will be open to public consultation until August 23, 2012. The purpose of the Code is to provide organizations with guidance on how personal data can be anonymized successfully, and how to assess the risk of individuals being identified using data that has been anonymized. The ICO also has launched a £15,000 invitation to tender to establish a network of experts to share best practices regarding anonymization.

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

In recent months, two high-profile cases involving Hulu and Netflix have raised questions regarding the scope and application of the Video Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA”), a federal privacy law that has been the focus of increasing attention over the past few years. In the Hulu case, Hulu users claimed that the subscription-based video streaming service disclosed their viewing history to third parties. 

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

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

On May 8, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission announced a settlement agreement with the social networking service Myspace LLC (“Myspace”). The FTC alleged that Myspace’s practice of sharing users’ personal information with unaffiliated third-party advertisers conflicted with representations the company made in its privacy policy, and could allow those advertisers to obtain users’ names, publicly available information and information about their online browsing habits.

The Ministry of Industry and Information Technology of the People’s Republic of China (the “MIIT”) recently issued a regulation entitled “Several Provisions on Regulating Market Orders of Internet Information Services” (the “New Regulations”). The New Regulations, which will take effect on March 15, 2012, include significant new data protection requirements applicable to Internet information service providers (“IISPs”). Consistent with data protection regimes currently in place elsewhere in the world, IISPs will be required to provide much stronger protection for the personal data they collect from users in China, and will be subject to notice and consent requirements, collection limitations and use limitations.

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

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

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

On December 1, 2011, a consolidated litigation against Netflix was ordered to private mediation pursuant to an agreement between the parties. As we previously reported, the plaintiffs allege that Netflix’s practice of maintaining customer movie rental history and recommendations after their subscriptions are cancelled violates the federal Video Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA”). In August 2011, several similar cases against Netflix were consolidated by a federal court in California.

News of the mediation order comes as a significant amendment to the VPPA awaits Senate ...

On July 25, 2011, Netflix stated that it will hold off on the launch of its Facebook integration in the U.S. due to legal issues related to the Video Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA”).  The new Facebook feature would allow Netflix subscribers to share their movie viewing information with friends online.  Netflix indicated in its second quarter shareholder letter that it supports House Bill 2471 (“H.B. 2471”), a proposed bipartisan amendment to the VPPA intended to clarify the consent requirement for sharing consumer video viewing information.  The letter states that “[u]nder the VPPA, it is ambiguous when and how a user can give permission for his or her video viewing data to be shared” and that the VPPA “discourages us from launching our Facebook integration domestically.”  As a result, the company plans to limit the campaign to Canada and Latin America until questions concerning the VPPA are resolved.

On June 7, 2011, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) introduced the “Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2011” (the “Act”), co-sponsored by Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Ben Cardin (D-MD).  This marks the fourth time Senator Leahy has introduced ambitious privacy legislation; in 2005, 2007 and 2009, similar bills failed to advance in the Senate.  In his press release, Senator Leahy stated that “many recent and troubling data breaches in the private sector and in our government are clear evidence that developing a comprehensive national strategy to protect data privacy and security is one of the most challenging and important issues facing our country.”

As we reported last week, on May 12, 2011, the Obama administration announced a comprehensive cybersecurity legislative proposal in a letter to Congress.  The proposal, which is the culmination of two years of work by an interagency team made up of representatives from multiple departments and agencies, aims to improve the nation’s cybersecurity and protect critical infrastructure.  If enacted, this legislation will affect many government and private-sector owners and operators of cyber systems, including all critical infrastructure, such as energy, financial systems, manufacturing, communications and transportation.  In addition, the proposal includes a wide-reaching data breach notification law that is intended generally to preempt the existing state breach laws in 46 states plus Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

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.

On April 12, 2011, U.S. Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and John McCain (R-AZ) introduced the Commercial Privacy Bill of Rights Act of 2011 (the “Act”) to “establish a regulatory framework for the comprehensive protection of personal data for individuals under the aegis of the Federal Trade Commission.”  The bill applies broadly to entities that collect, use, transfer or store the “covered information” of more than 5,000 individuals over a consecutive 12-month period.  Certain provisions of the bill would direct the FTC to initiate rulemaking proceedings within specified timeframes, but the bill also imposes requirements directly on covered entities.

On March 11, 2011, Virginia resident Peter Comstock filed a class action complaint against Netflix, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.  According to the complaint, Netflix “tracks its users’ viewing habits with respect to both videos watched over the Internet...and physical movies ordered through the Internet and watched at home,” while encouraging “subscribers to rank the videos they watch.”  The complaint alleges that Netflix’s practice of maintaining customer movie rental history and recommendations, “long after subscribers cancel their Netflix subscription,” violates the federal Video Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA”), and California’s Customer Records Act and Unfair Competition Law.  In addition, the complaint alleges that Netflix’s failure to properly store user information and its sale of customer data to third parties led to its unjust enrichment and a breach of its fiduciary duty.  Comstock and the putative class are seeking both an injunction to stop Netflix’s current practices and monetary damages.

On December 10, 2010, Senior Advisor to U.S. Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), Daniel Sepulveda, briefed the Centre for Information Policy Leadership at Hunton & Williams LLP (the “Centre”) members on Senator Kerry’s forthcoming privacy legislation.  The bill, which will be introduced next Congress, aims to establish a regulatory framework for the comprehensive protection of individuals’ personal data that authorizes rulemakings by the Federal Trade Commission.

On December 1, 2010, the Federal Trade Commission released its long-awaited report on online privacy entitled “Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change: A Proposed Framework for Businesses and Policymakers.”  Observers expected the report to address the concept of privacy by design, the burdens placed on consumers to read and understand privacy notices and make privacy choices, the provision of individual access to personal data and the rights of consumers with respect to Internet tracking.  The FTC report introduces a privacy framework to “establish certain common assumptions and bedrock protections on which both consumers and businesses can rely as they engage in commerce.”  It includes the following elements:

David Vladeck, the head of the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the Federal Trade Commission, shared his vision for consumer privacy protection with an audience at the IAPP’s Privacy Academy on September 30, 2010.  Mr. Vladeck began by reminding the audience that the FTC is aggressively enforcing on privacy and data security matters, having brought 29 cases to date.  Where possible, the FTC joins forces with other federal regulators, such as the Department of Health and Human Services, to seek broad relief that the FTC could not otherwise get on its own.  Mr. Vladeck indicated that the FTC also works closely with the states, citing a recent case in which the FTC filed concurrent settlements with 36 state attorneys general.  Mr. Vladeck stated that the FTC plans to continue to bring cases to ensure that companies “reasonably” safeguard information.

Mr. Vladeck noted three key areas for future enforcement.  The FTC will (1) bring more cases involving “pure” privacy, i.e., cases involving practices that attempt to circumvent consumers’ understanding of a company’s information practices and consumer choices; (2) focus enforcement efforts on new technologies (Mr. Vladeck noted that, to assist staff attorneys in bringing these sorts of cases, the FTC has hired technologists to assist and also have created mobile labs to respond to the proliferation of smart phones and mobile apps); and (3) increase international cooperation on privacy issues (Mr. Vladeck cited the FTC’s recently-announced participation in the Global Privacy Enforcement Network).

On August 18, 2010, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that Specific Media, Inc. violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, as well as state privacy and computer security laws, by failing to provide adequate notice regarding its online tracking practices.  The suit, brought by six web users, seeks class action status and over $5 million in damages, and cites Specific Media’s use of Flash cookies to re-create deleted browser cookies as one of the offending practices.

In a closely-watched case, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington recently held that Internet Protocol (“IP”) addresses do not constitute personally identifiable information (“PII”). The plaintiffs in Johnson v. Microsoft Corp. brought a class action suit against Microsoft claiming that the collection of consumer IP addresses during the Windows XP installation process violated the XP End User License Agreement. The Agreement stated that Microsoft would not collect PII without the user’s consent. The plaintiffs referenced Microsoft’s own online glossary to support their claim that IP addresses should be considered PII. The glossary defined “personally identifiable information” as “[a]ny information relating to an identified or identifiable individual. Such information may include…IP address.” In granting summary judgment in favor of Microsoft, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Jones found that “[i]n order for ‘personally identifiable information’ to be personally identifiable, it must identify a person. But an IP address identifies a computer.”

As part of its ongoing efforts to examine evolving internet marketing practices, earlier today the Federal Trade Commission released a report on self-regulation of online behavioral advertising.  This report analyzes the comments received from interested parties in response to proposed self-regulatory principles issued by the Commission in December 2007.  It covers a wide range of issues including the increasingly blurred line between personally identifiable information and non-personally identifiable information and the applicability of regulations to "first party" ...

A California state Court of Appeal has ruled that a California law barring merchants from collecting “personal identification information” in connection with certain credit card transactions does not prohibit the collection of a five-digit ZIP Code alone. Party City Corp. v. Superior Court of San Diego County, No. D053530, 2008 WL 5264023 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2008).