Photo of Ariel Dukes

Ariel Dukes

Ariel Dukes is an associate in the firm’s Washington, DC office and a member of the Data Privacy and Cybersecurity Practice Group.

Ariel counsels clients on data privacy, cybersecurity, and artificial intelligence. Her practice includes partnering with clients on compliance with comprehensive privacy laws, FTC and consumer protection laws and guidance, and laws governing the handling of health-related data. Additionally, Ariel routinely counsels clients on drafting and negotiating privacy terms with vendors and third parties, developing privacy notices and consent forms, and responding to regulatory inquiries regarding privacy and cybersecurity topics. Ariel also advises clients on trends in artificial intelligence regulations and helps design governance programs for the development and deployment of artificial intelligence technologies across a number of industries.

On February 27, 2026, CalPrivacy and PlayOn settled a CCPA claim for $1.1 million. PlayOn is a digital ticketing platform used by schools and other organizations for ticketing, streaming, fundraising, concessions, merchandise sales, and website management. The settlement resolves allegations that PlayOn unlawfully “sold” and “shared” users’ personal information without providing sufficient opt-outs and notice, in violation of the CCPA. This marks the agency’s first enforcement action involving students’ data privacy.Continue Reading CalPrivacy Fines PlayOn Sports for Insufficient Opt-Out Process

On his last day in office, January 20, 2026, former New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed an amendment to the New Jersey Data Privacy Act, A5017. The bill amends the state’s comprehensive privacy law to add new data- and entity-level exemptions and to expand the definition of de-identified data. The amendment took effect immediately.Continue Reading New Jersey Enacts Amendment to its Comprehensive Privacy Law

On December 19, 2025, New York Governor Kathy Hochul vetoed the New York Health Information Privacy Act (“NYHIPA”).  While NYHIPA bore similarities to Washington’s My Health My Data Act (“MHMD”) and Nevada’s Health Privacy Law (“SB 370”), it had several provisions that would have raised novel compliance and legal questions.Continue Reading New York Governor Vetoes Restrictive Health Privacy Law

Recently, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law several privacy and related proposals, including new laws governing browser opt-out preference signals, social media account deletion, data brokers, reproductive and health services, age signals for app stores, social media “black box warning” labels for minors, and companion chatbots. This blog summarizes

Continue Reading California Enacts New Privacy Laws

In late September, plaintiffs announced details regarding Google LLC’s (“Google”) and women’s health app developer, Flo Health Inc.’s (“Flo”) proposed settlements to resolve a class action lawsuit stemming from the Flo app’s allegedly unlawful sharing of health data with Google and others through online tracking technologies.

As part of the proposed settlements, Google agreed to pay $48 million and Flo agreed to pay $8 million, for a combined $56 million to resolve plaintiffs’ claims against these two entities.Continue Reading Flo Health, Google Settle Class Action Privacy Lawsuit for $56 Million

On January 22, the New York state legislature passed the New York Health Information Privacy Act (S929 / A2141) (“NYHIP”). If signed into law, NYHIP would join Washington and Nevada in a growing trend of states regulating consumer health information. Though NYHIP contains many similarities with laws in Washington and Nevada, there are a few unique provisions, as discussed below. Among them, NYHIP applies to “Regulated Health Information” or “RHI” that is defined as “any information that is reasonably linkable to an individual, or a device, and is collected or processed in connection with the physical or mental health of an individual.” Unlike the health privacy laws in Washington and Nevada, NYHIP does not provide an inclusive list of health data.

NYHIP would require regulated entities to obtain a “valid authorization” prior to processing RHI unless such processing is “strictly necessary” for certain enumerated purposes, including providing a product or service requested by the individual or certain limited internal business operations. NYHIP does not clarify what it means for a processing activity to be considered “strictly necessary.”

Where such an authorization is required, a valid authorization must, among other requirements: 

  • Be made at least twenty-four (24) hours after an individual creates an account or first uses the requested product or service; and
  • If multiple categories of processing are involved, provide an ability to “provide/withhold” authorization for each category separately.

Continue Reading New York Legislature Passes Health Privacy Act

The FTC recently announced proposed consent orders with Outlogic (formerly X-Mode Social) and InMarket Media concerning their collection and monetization of precise geolocation data.  Both companies collect location data using software development kits (“SDKs”) installed in first and third party apps, among other data sources.  According to the FTC’s complaints, Outlogic sold this data to third parties (including in a manner that revealed consumer’s visits to sensitive locations) without obtaining adequate consent, and InMarket used this data to facilitate targeted advertising without notifying consumers that their location data will be used for targeted advertising.  In both cases, the FTC alleged that these acts and practices constituted unfair and/or deceptive acts or practices under Section 5 of the FTC Act. Continue Reading FTC Announces Proposed Consent Orders Related to Location Data

In a new post on the Covington Digital Health blog, our colleagues discuss recent amendments to California’s Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (“CMIA”) that (i) expand the scope of the law to cover reproductive or sexual reproductive or sexual health services that are delivered through digital health solutions and the

Continue Reading California Enacts Amendments to the CMIA

The Connecticut legislature passed Connecticut SB 3 on June 2, 2023.  If enacted by the governor, the bill would amend the Connecticut Data Privacy Act (“CTDPA”) to include a number of provisions related to health and minors’ data. Additional detail on the CTDPA can be found in our previous blog post here.

The health-related provisions would take effect on July 1, 2023.  Most provisions related to minors’ data would take effect on October 1, 2024.  However, requirements that social media platforms “unpublish” or delete certain minors’ accounts would come into effect on July 1, 2024.

As reflected in this bill, state legislatures appear increasingly focused on health privacy.  Connecticut’s bill comes on the heels of Nevada’s SB 370, which the Nevada legislature passed, and which, if enacted would impose requirements on consumer health data.  Both the Nevada and Connecticut bill resemble Washington’s My Health My Data Act, although they appear generally narrower in scope.  For additional detail on Washington’s My Health My Data Act, please review our blog post hereContinue Reading Connecticut Legislature Passes Amendments to the Connecticut Data Privacy Act

On May 18, 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced a notice of proposed rulemaking (the “proposed rule”) to “strengthen and modernize” the Health Breach Notification Rule (“HBNR”).  The proposed rule builds on the FTC’s September 2021 “Statement of the Commission on Breaches by Health Apps and Other Connected Devices” (“Policy Statement”), which took a broad approach to when health apps and connected devices are covered by the HBNR and when there is a “breach” for purposes of the HBNR.  The proposed rule primarily would (i) amend many definitions that are central to the scope of the HBNR (e.g., “breach of security,” “health care provider,” and “personal health record”), and (ii) authorize expanded means for providing notice to consumers of a breach and require additional notice content.  According to the FTC, these changes to the HBNR would ensure the HBNR “remains relevant in the face of changing business practices and technological developments.”  Below, we provide a brief summary of the history of the HBNR leading up to this proposed rule, a brief summary of the proposed rule, and a timeline for commenting.Continue Reading FTC Announces a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to Expand Scope of the Health Breach Notification Rule