Happy 2018.  You may notice a new widget in the right sidebar of our home page.  Now you have a reminder as to just how close we are to the GDPR D-Day.    GDPR is real.   GDPR is here.

To brush up on your GDPR, or to help you get moving in the right direction, here is a link to all of the content from our 2017 GDPR webinar series.   Each edition includes a link to the recording and slides.   We will continue to produce targeted content throughout 2018, so stay tuned.

 

Biometric data is a hotbed of activity these days.  We’ve discussed the frenetic pace at which class actions are being filed in Illinois under the Biometric Information Privacy Act.   Today, Brian Lam wrote in our sister blog, Sports Law Matters, about the issues surrounding the increasing use of biometric data in sports to track just about everything.

Read the article here.

 

Athletes and their Biometric Data – Who Owns It and How It Can Be Used

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) has approved its draft of the Insurance Data Security Model Law (Model Law) via a meeting of its Executive and Plenary Committees.  This important development follows New York Department of Financial Services (“DFS”) Cybersecurity Requirements for Financial Services Companies regulation that took effect on March 1, 2017 (DFS Cybersecurity Regulation) that we have covered previously.

NAIC likely recognizes that the numerous data breaches that have occurred over the past year have created an opportunity to build upon the momentum created by the DFS Cybersecurity Regulation, and provide an environment of comprehensive compliance requirements to protect Licensees and Consumers.  Indeed, the Model Law even contains Drafting Note stating that:

The drafters of this Act intend that if a Licensee, as defined in Section 3, is in compliance with N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit.23, § 500, Cybersecurity Requirements for Financial Services Companies, effective March 1, 2017, such Licensee is also in compliance with this Act.

In many cases, model laws approved by NAIC, a U.S. standard-setting and regulatory support organization created and governed by the chief insurance regulators from the 50 states, the District of Columbia and five U.S. territories, are approved within these jurisdictions as binding law.  Below is a high level overview of particularly salient points of the Model Law. Continue Reading Insurance Commissions Approve Data Security Model Law

Since last September, the Mintz Levin Privacy Webinar Series has focused on the upcoming EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) to help businesses understand the reach and scope of the GDPR and prepare for the potentially game-changing privacy regulation. The GDPR will affect how US businesses handle and process personal data originating in the EU and may require changes to business process.

Getting Your Contracts Ready for GDPR (11/16/2017)

This webinar, the eighth in our EU General Data Protection Regulation Series, reviews the GDPR’s express contract requirements and discusses additional matters that you may want to address in your contracts.

Handling Human Resources Data Under Privacy Shield and the GDPR (10/5/2017)

This webinar, the seventh in our EU General Data Protection Regulation Series, reviews current options for transferring personal data, including under Privacy Shield, and previews the new landscape under GDPR.

Access, Correction and Erasure: How to Minimize the Burden (2/16/2017)

This webinar, the sixth in our EU General Data Protection Regulation Series, considers companies’ obligations to give individuals access to their data and to correct or erase it.  We explore the new data portability requirements. The webinar concludes with some suggestions on how to make these requirements less burdensome.

Transferring Data from the EU (1/12/2017)

This webinar, the fifth in our EU General Data Protection Regulation Series, explores the ways in which the Regulation creates new avenues for data transfers, and narrows others. In particular, we consider sector-specific Commission decisions, privacy seals/certifications, the exception for non-repetitive, limited transfers, and the outlook for BCRs and Model Clauses.

Data Protection Officers: Do You Need One? (12/15/2016)

This webinar, the fourth in our EU General Data Protection Regulation Series, examines the criteria that dictate whether or not your organization needs to appoint a Data Protection Officer. We discuss the role of the DPO, the significance of the “independence” requirement, and the qualifications required to hold the position.

Good-bye to the Cure-all: The New Rules on Consent (11/10/2016)

This webinar, the third in our EU General Data Protection Regulation Series, reviews the new restrictions on relying on user consent to data processing and data transfers. In addition to the general “imbalance of power” problem, we consider the implications of the Directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts and changes that may need to be made to terms of use and privacy policies when dealing with consumers.

Accountability, Data Security, Data Impact Assessments and Breach Notification Requirements (10/13/2016)

This webinar, the second in our EU General Data Protection Regulation Series, focuses on the data security and accountability requirements of the Regulation, including reviews and documentation of internal policies and procedures and data impact assessments. We also explore the breach notification requirements and actions that companies can take in advance to mitigate the need for breach notification.

One-Stop Shopping Mall? The New Regulatory Structure (9/14/2016)

This webinar, the first in our EU General Data Protection Regulation Series, explains the powers and role of the new European Data Protection Board, how a “lead supervisory authority” will be designated for each controller, and how the lead supervisory authority will interact with other interested supervisory authorities. We also look at the complaint process from the point of view of the individual who is claiming a violation, and explore the likely role that will be played by public interest organizations bringing group complaints.

 

Recently proposed legislation in Ohio could provide businesses with special protection from lawsuits in the event of a hack under certain circumstances. Senate Bill 220 would shelter businesses that have been proactive in instituting defenses to guard against data breaches. The idea is to encourage firms to voluntarily enact privacy protections by promising them the ability to later claim an affirmative defense in court should a hack still occur.

Other states already require businesses to meet specific standards with regard to providing cyber security protections and preventing data breaches. In New York, businesses licensed by the Department of Financial Services (DFS) must meet compliance standards in accordance with DFS cybersecurity regulations. These standards require licensees to have a written cybersecurity program in place, maintain a cybersecurity policy that covers 14 regulation-specific areas, designate a qualified employee as a Chief Information Security Officer, and implement an incident response plan, among additional imperatives. Similarly, states differ with regard to their requirements of businesses in providing data breach notices. For example, in Massachusetts, notices must be provided to the affected resident, the Attorney General’s office, and to the Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation (OCABR).

Ohio’s Senate Bill 220 is interesting in that it does not lay out a minimum set of standards that, if not met, could serve as grounds for litigation in the event of a breach. Businesses will be tasked with instituting their own cybersecurity programs using one of eight industry-specific frameworks developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The legislation provides for an evolving standard, which means lawmakers won’t have to continually revisit the issue to update a minimum set of standards. Whether or not a business qualifies for the safe harbor provision will be up to a judge to determine if such business has met its burden. Ultimately, the key takeaway is that this new legislation will provide for compliance as an affirmative defense for businesses facing a lawsuit as a result of a data breach.

The Mintz Levin team will continue to monitor this pending legislation and update our readers as it develops.

The clock is ticking down to May 25, 2018 , the date that the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) goes into effect.   The GDPR is likely to be a game-changer for US companies doing business with the European Union, and many are racing against the clock to figure out exactly what their compliance obligations are.

We are presenting an in-person seminar in three cities to help make sure your company is on the right course to GDPR compliance.

Join us in either Boston, New York or Washington, DC for a look at GDPR Essentials and GDPR Hot Topics.    Register here.

Mintz Levin is an approved CLE provider and this seminar is accredited in California and New York.   We are also approved by the International Association of Privacy Professionals for IAPP CPE credit.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) clarified in recent guidance how the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) applies to internet-connected device companies and other businesses that collect and use children’s voice recordings.

COPPA compliance is necessary for all commercial websites and online or mobile service operators that collect personal information of children under the age of 13. Previously, the FTC has released clarifying updates regarding requirements for companies obtaining verifiable parental consent and the applicability of the law to educational institutions and businesses that provide online services to educational institutions. More recently, it has become important for new business models, such as those involved with Internet of Things devices, to understand how they can remain in compliance with COPPA obligations. In light of COPPA enforcement actions in recent years, we have prepared a helpful guide to ensure businesses know how to avoid violations. Continue Reading FTC Provides Additional Guidance on COPPA Policy for Voice Recordings

Executive summary:  The EU’s standard contractual clauses may be on the fast track to invalidation, putting a vast number of personal data transfers from the EEA at risk.  A case brought by Maximilian Schrems (whose first complaint resulted in the invalidation of Safe Harbor) has been referred to the EU’s highest court, via a 153-page Irish High Court decision that provides ample ammunition to those who would like to see the standard contractual clauses struck down.  Although aimed at Facebook, the consequences of the decision are virtually certain to affect all US companies that rely on the standard contractual clauses.

Many companies around the world rely on the EU’s standard contractual clauses (also known as the model clauses, and referred to in this article as the “SCCs”) as the legal basis for transferring personal data from the European Economic Area (EEA) to countries whose privacy laws have not been found adequate by the EU Commission.  The SCCs are private contracts, and while some EEA countries require that parties that enter into SCCs deposit a copy, other countries do not, so no one knows for sure how many companies rely on the SCCs.  But the answer is probably “an awful lot of companies.”  Given the data flows between the EEA and US, and the fact that, as of today, only around 2,500 companies rely on Privacy Shield as the legal basis for the data transfers, it’s safe to assume that for US companies, the standard contractual clauses are the primary mechanism for transferring personal data to the US.

The SCCs have been subject to a legal challenge by Maximillian Schrems (often called the Schrems II case) that has just reached a critical inflection point: The Irish High Court has just issued a decision referring to the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) the question of whether the SCCs are invalid.  The main thrust of the invalidity argument is the assertion that US national security laws do not offer adequate levels of protection for the rights of EU residents.  In particular, the argument runs, EU residents lack a meaningful remedy before US courts for uses of their personal data by US national security agencies that are inconsistent with those persons’ rights under EU law. Continue Reading Will the EU box itself in?  Fate of Standard Contractual Clauses (aka the Model Clauses) for personal data transfers is now in the hands of the EU’s highest court

As data breaches dominate national headlines it remains important as ever for businesses to invest in security and to be ready to respond if a breach occurs.  Part of your preparedness program should be staying current on data breach legislation at the state level and we are here to help with a new installment of our “Mintz Matrix,” a detailed survey of U.S. state data breach notification laws.

There have been a few notable developments since we last published an update of the Mintz Matrix and below we have provided a snapshot of these changes.  Before reading on please download a copy of our September 2017 edition of the Mintz Matrix by clicking here. Continue Reading The Mintz Matrix – September 2017