FTC Chairman Joe Simons recently acknowledged the Commission’s plan to use its authority under Section 6(b) of the FTC Act to examine the data practices of large technology companies. In written responses to questions from members of the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee following in-person testimony in November 2018, Chairman Simons confirmed that plans were underway
In the Data Business? You May Be Obligated to Register in Vermont by Thursday
Data brokers have until this Thursday to register with the Vermont Secretary of State as part of a new data broker oversight law that became effective January 1st.
Approved unanimously by the Vermont Senate last May, the Vermont Data Broker Regulation, Act 171 of 2018, requires data brokers to register annually, pay an annual filing fee of $100, and maintain minimum data security standards, but the law does not prevent data brokers from collecting or selling consumer data.
What Qualifies as a “Data Broker”?
The law only applies to “data broker[s],” defined as a “business, or unit or units of a business, separately or together, that knowingly collects and sells or licenses to third parties the brokered personal information of a consumer with whom the business does not have a direct relationship.”…
As we noted previously, the California Attorney General is holding a series of public forums on the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) to provide the public with an initial opportunity to comment on CCPA requirements and the corresponding regulations that the Attorney General must adopt on or before July 1, 2020. On Friday, January 25, 2019, the Attorney General’s Office held its fourth of six hearings before a full auditorium in Los Angeles. This blog post summarizes the main themes discussed at the hearing.
Timing/Scope: For businesses hoping for CCPA clarity and guidance soon, that seems unlikely. California Deputy Attorney General Lisa Kim initiated the hearing, emphasizing that the Attorney General’s Office was in the beginning of its rulemaking process and noting that she anticipated the formal review process not to start until Fall 2019. For now, the Attorney General’s Office encouraged interested parties to submit comments by the end of February, focusing on subjects within the scope of the Attorney General’s rulemaking responsibilities, as set forth in the CCPA, including:
- Categories of Personal Information
- Definition of Unique Identifiers
- CCPA Exemptions
- Submitting and Complying with Consumer Requests
- Uniform Opt-Out Logo/Button
- Notices and Information to Consumers, including Financial Incentive Offerings
- Certification of Consumers’ Requests
During the hearing, the Attorney General’s Office displayed this PowerPoint deck, summarizing the CCPA regulatory process.
On Monday, France’s Data Protection Agency announced that it levied a €50 million ($56.8 million) fine against Google for violating the EU’s new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The precedent-setting fine by the Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés (“CNIL”) is the highest yet imposed since the new law took effect in May 2018.
How Does Google Violate GDPR, According to CNIL?
- Lack of Transparency: GDPR Articles 12-13 require a data controller to provide data subjects with transparent, intelligible, and easily accessible information relating to the scope and purpose of the personal data processing, and the lawful basis for such processing. CNIL asserts that Google fails to meet the required level of transparency based on the following:
- Information is not intelligible: Google’s description of its personal data processing and associated personal data categories is “too generic and vague.”
- Information is not easily accessible: Data subjects must access multiple Google documents or pages and take a number of distinct actions (“5 or 6”) to obtain complete information on the personal data that Google collects for personalization purposes and geo-tracking.
- Lawful basis for processing is unclear: Data subjects may mistakenly view the legal basis for processing by Google as legitimate interests (that does not require consent) rather than individual consent.
- Data retention period is not specified: Google fails to provide information on the period that it retains certain personal data.
- Invalid Consent: Per GDPR Articles 5-7, a data controller relying on consent as the lawful basis for processing of personal data must be able to demonstrate that consent by a data subject is informed, specified, and unambiguous. CNIL claims that Google fails to capture valid consent from data subjects as follows:
- Consent is not “informed”: Google’s data processing description for its advertising personalization services is diluted across several documents and does not clearly describe the scope of processing across multiple Google services, the amount of data processed, and the manner in which the data is combined.
- Consent is not unambiguous: Consent for advertising personalization appears as pre-checked boxes.
What Does This Mean for Other Companies?
While many today returned to work after the Holiday season, things remained quieter than usual here in the nation’s capital – with many federal workers furloughed until further notice as the federal government continues to be in a partial shutdown. President Trump is reportedly meeting with congressional leaders today ahead of Thursday’s start to a…
This November 6th, California voters will decide on the California Consumer Privacy Act (“Act”), a statewide ballot proposition intended to give California consumers more “rights” with respect to personal information (“PII”) collected from or about them. Much like CalOPPA, California’s Do-Not-Track and Shine the Light laws, the Act will have broader consequences for companies operating nationwide.
The Act provides certain consumer “rights” and requires companies to disclose the categories of PII collected, and identify with whom the PII is shared or sold. It also includes a right to prevent the sale of PII to third parties, and imposes requirements on businesses to safeguard PII. If passed, the Act would take effect on November 7, 2018, but would apply to PII collected or sold by a business on or after nine (9) months from the effective date – i.e., on August 7, 2019.
Who is Covered?
The Act is intended to cover businesses that earn $50 million a year in revenue, or businesses that “sell” PII either by (1) selling 100,000 consumer’s records each year, or (2) deriving 50% of their annual revenue by selling PII. These categories of businesses must comply if they collect or sell Californians’ PII, regardless of whether they are located in California, a different state, or even a different country.…
Florida attorney general Pam Bondi filed a complaint last week against Icebox Cafe, L.C. alleging that the restaurant violated Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act by making misleading claims that its food products were “locally-sourced” and “sustainable.” The defendant operates a self-proclaimed “farm-to-table” restaurant in Miami Beach, along with select locations at airports.
The FTC today filed a complaint against Lending Club alleging that it deceived consumers by advertising loans with “no hidden fees” and subsequently concealing substantial loan origination fees. The complaint points to consumer complaints and internal compliance documents as evidence that Lending Club knew that consumers were being misled and continued to misrepresent the loans…
Last Friday, the CPSC voted to sue Britax Child Safety, Inc. to force the company to recall various models of single and double B.O.B. jogging strollers. The one-count administrative complaint alleges that the strollers present a substantial product hazard under Section 15(a)(2) of the Consumer Product Safety Act because they contain a product defect that…