As we have discussed before, the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) is forcing entities doing business in California to critically examine their information collection and sharing practices. Although California signed it into law last year, the CCPA does not go into effect until January 1, 2020. Last month, the California Legislature passed six amendments to the CCPA that will affect how businesses operate, while also affording California residents their newfound rights.

I. Limiting Personal information & Publicly Available Information (AB-874).
The CCPA, before this amendment, defined “personal information” as any information that “is capable of being associated with… a particular consumer or household.” This amendment changes that language to any information that “is reasonably capable of being associated with… a particular consumer or household.” This is an attempt to clarify and limit the scope of personal information and what information is “capable of being associated with” a consumer. Much like other areas of the law, we expect contentious debate over what is “reasonable” when anticipating association with a particular consumer or household. Additionally, the definition of “personal information” will now exclude de-identified or aggregated consumer information. This amendment also removes restricting language on what information is treated as “publicly available” and simply states that it is information made available by federal, state, or local governments.


Continue Reading

The Background of the Law

Of late, the U.S. private sector has been abuzz with the European Union’s new General Data Protection Regulations and the implementation of the same. However, savvy companies cannot forget that state legislatures have been for some time enacting statutes aimed at protecting its residents in how businesses use and disseminate their personal information. In 2008, Illinois became one of the first states to be mindful of the uniqueness of biometrics with the passage of the Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), 740 ILCS 14/5, et seq. BIPA provides standards of conduct for private entities in connection with the collection, use, retention, and destruction of “biometric identifiers” and “biometric information.” A “biometric identifier” is defined as a retina or iris scan, fingerprint, voiceprint, or scan of a person’s hand or face geometry while “biometric information” is defined as “any information … based on an individual’s biometric identifier used to identify an individual,” 740 ILCS 14/10. Under BIPA, a private entity in possession of such identifiers and information must establish written policies regarding their retention and destruction and cannot obtain such data unless it: (1) informs the subject of the collection; (2) informs the subject of the specific purpose for the collection and how long the data would be stored; and (3) receives written consent from the subject. 740 ILCS 10/15(b). Importantly, BIPA also provides a private cause of action for “[a]ny person aggrieved by a violation” of the statute and the greater of $1,000 in liquidated damages or actual damages for negligent violations and the greater of $5,000 in liquidated damages or actual damages for intentional or reckless violations. 740 ILCS 14/20(1) and (2). The statute also provides for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. 740 ILCS 14/20(3).

While initially dormant, BIPA became the focal point for a flurry of class action lawsuits starting in 2015 against social media websites that used facial recognition for photo tagging purposes. More recently, it has been used increasingly against employers who had timekeeping systems that required fingerprinting scans. At that time, many companies were unaware that BIPA even existed or that it could apply to the technology they were using.


Continue Reading

Rebekah Mackey, Taft summer associate, contributed to this article.

Just months after the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation, or “GDPR” changed the landscape of data privacy around the globe, California reaffirmed its position as the United States pioneer of consumer-friendly data privacy protections with the state legislature’s passage of Assembly Bill No. 375.

The California Consumer Privacy Act (“Act”) was originally a ballot initiative to be voted on by California residents in November, but the fate of the policy changed course rapidly when AB 375 passed within one week of being introduced in the state’s legislature. Here are some of the key provisions of which businesses and consumers should be aware when the law goes into effect Jan. 1, 2020.


Continue Reading

As we assist clients with preparing for GDPR compliance before and after this Friday’s effective date, I thought to share some quick thoughts on the law and what we are seeing here at Taft.

  1. “GDPR Compliant.” Be wary of companies making such claims and don’t make such claims, yourselves.  As with HIPAA, there is no such thing as a stamp of “compliance” approval.  And, like bragging about your information security, warranting that you are “compliant” is just asking for that


Continue Reading

U.S. privacy law is based on the principles of notice and consent – for instance, under FTC and state consumer protection laws, consumers given fair notice and the opportunity to consent generally cannot complain about the use of their data.

But as we have noted in prior posts, the E.U.’s General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), which will become effective May 25 of this year, is more comprehensive than any U.S. privacy law in most respects. It treats personal data (defined broadly) as belonging to the person identified by the data, or “data subject.” The company collecting the data has a limited license to use that data in legitimate ways – as described in one article, a company can only use the data in ways that “wouldn’t surprise them or make them uncomfortable.”

It is unsurprising, then, that under the GDPR, the specific concepts of fair notice and consent are also more robust than in the U.S. This post will give an overview of the notice requirements under the GDPR, and a future post will explore the consent requirements.


Continue Reading

Well, if Star Wars (May 4) and doughnuts (first Friday in June) can have their own day, you would hope a day might be dedicated to reminding us all about the importance of privacy and increasing awareness of ways we can empower ourselves and our clients to better use and protect personal information. Data Privacy Day began as Data Protection Day in Europe. The day commemorates the signing of Convention 108, the first legally binding international treaty dealing with privacy
Continue Reading

This is part one of a multi-part look into the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and why U.S. companies need to concern themselves with an EU law, the difference from U.S. regulations and the different mechanisms available to comply. We will conclude this series with a webinar in 2018 that will review the series and provide further insights and comments on any updates that may have occurred since the beginning of the series.

The GDPR is a new privacy
Continue Reading

In the unfortunate event that your privacy has been breached and personal images have been stolen, there are several steps that can be taken to have this content removed from the internet. It is important that the following processes are initiated quickly. Once content is on the internet, it can spread quickly and make this process much more difficult and time consuming.

Here is a brief example to show how quickly an image can spread, increasing the difficulty in removing
Continue Reading

In January, we wrote about the new training requirement for employees who handle personally identifiable information (“PII”) or who build systems containing PII. On the same day that rule went into effect, Jan. 19, 2017, three related Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) proposed rules were published in the Federal Register covering mandatory privacy training, information technology (“IT”) security awareness training, and the safeguarding of controlled unclassified information (“CUI”). Comments on all three proposed rules are due on Monday, March 20,
Continue Reading

After more than five years since the proposed rule in 2011, the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council gave federal contractors a surprise holiday gift this year—mandatory privacy training for all employees on contracts and subcontracts issued on or after January 19, 2017 who:

(1) Have access to a system of records;

(2) Create, collect, use, process, store, maintain, disseminate, disclose, dispose, or otherwise handle personally identifiable information on behalf of an agency; or

(3) Design, develop, maintain, or operate a system


Continue Reading