Data Privacy

On February 27, 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) issued a significant decision on the right of data subjects to request access to their personal data under Article 15 GDPR, specifically as it relates to automated decision-making and striking an appropriate balance between informing data subjects and protecting trade secrets (Case C‑203/22).Continue Reading CJEU Clarifies GDPR Rights on Automated Decision-Making and Trade Secrets

Website analytics and advertising tools, such as pixels, are regularly targeted in lawsuits brought under various wiretap laws, including the federal Wiretap Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”).  We cover significant developments and trends in website wiretapping lawsuits on Inside Class Actions.  Over the last several months, we have featured posts discussing an important decision from Massachusetts’ highest court about the availability of website wiretap suits under Massachusetts law, an opinion from a California court about a new “pen register” theory under CIPA, and more.  These posts, and other highlights, include the following:Continue Reading Website Wiretapping Litigation: Recent Decisions and Developments

Last month, a New Jersey federal judge applied Third Circuit precedent to hold that the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”) does not impose liability for commonplace use of website marketing/analytics pixels under the well-established party exception.  Cole v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc., 2025 WL 88703 (D.N.J. Jan. 14, 2025).Continue Reading New Jersey Court Applies CIPA’s Party Exception to Pixel Wiretap Complaint

The UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) recently announced a new online tracking strategy, which aims to ensure a “fair and transparent online world where people are given meaningful control over how they are tracked online.”

Online advertising is one of the ICO’s current areas of strategic focus (others areas of focus include AI and children’s privacy). The ICO has identified four key areas of concern—all of which the ICO states mean that individuals do not have sufficient control over their personal data:

  • “deceptive or absent choice” regarding non-essential cookies and tracking technologies;
  • “uninformed choice,” which refers to organizations not providing appropriate information to individuals;
  • “undermined choice,” where individuals’ choices are not respected and they are surprised about how their data is used; and
  •  “irrevocable choice,” meaning that individuals cannot effectively change their minds after they have made a choice over how their personal data is processed.

Having identified these areas of concern, the ICO states that it will take the following actions in 2025:Continue Reading ICO announces its online tracking strategy for 2025

On February 6, 2025, Advocate General Spielmann released his opinion in the EDPS vs. SRB case (Case C‑413/23 P).  In this case, the European Data Protection Supervisor appealed a decision from the General Court (see our blog post here).

In essence, the case turns on the question of whether…

Continue Reading CJEU Advocate General Supports Pragmatic Definition of Personal Data

On January 9, 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) issued a decision on the GDPR’s lawfulness and data minimization principles.

The case arose after a French association (“Mousse”) complained to the French Supervisory Authority (“CNIL”) about the fact that France’s main train company SNCF requires customers to indicate their title and gender identity by ticking either “Sir” or “Madam” when purchasing a train ticket online.  Mousse considered that such a mandatory requirement could not be justified under the “contractual performance” or “legitimate interests” legal bases set out in Article 6 GDPR, and infringed the GDPR’s principles of lawfulness, data minimization and transparency. 

The CNIL dismissed the complaint, and Mousse appealed the CNIL’s decision before the French Administrative Supreme Court (“Conseil d’Etat”), which stayed the proceedings to refer some questions to the CJEU.Continue Reading CJEU Finds Customers’ Title Is Not Necessary Data For The Purchase Of A Train Ticket

On November 6, 2024, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) released its AI Tools in recruitment audit outcomes report (“Report”). This Report documents the ICO’s findings from a series of consensual audit engagements conducted with AI tool developers and providers. The goal of this process was to assess compliance with data protection law, identify any risks or room for improvement, and provide recommendations for AI providers and recruiters. The audits ran across sourcing, screening, and selection processes in recruitment, but did not include AI tools used to process biometric data, or generative AI. This work follows the publication of the Responsible AI in Recruitment guide by the Department for Science, Innovation, and Technology (DSIT) in March 2024.Continue Reading ICO Audit on AI Recruitment Tools

On 2 December 2024, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) adopted its draft guidelines on Article 48 GDPR (the “Draft Guidelines”). The Draft Guidelines are intended to provide guidance on the GDPR requirements applicable to private companies in the EU that receive requests or binding demands for personal data from public authorities (e.g., law enforcement or national security agencies, as well as other regulators) located outside the EU.Continue Reading EDPB adopts draft guidelines on requirements when responding to requests from non-EU public authorities

In the past few weeks, there have been significant developments relating to the “legitimate interests” legal basis under Article 6(1)(f) of the GDPR:

  • On 4 October 2024, the Court of Justice of the EU (“CJEU”) handed down its judgment in a case relating to the Royal Dutch Lawn
… Continue Reading Five key takeaways from recent EU developments on the GDPR’s “legitimate interests” legal basis

This update focuses on how growing quantum sector investment in the UK and US is leading to the development and commercialization of quantum computing technologies with the potential to revolutionize and disrupt key sectors.  This is a fast-growing area that is seeing significant levels of public and private investment activity.  We take a look at how approaches differ in the UK and US, and discuss how a concerted, international effort is needed both to realize the full potential of quantum technologies and to mitigate new risks that may arise as the technology matures.

Quantum Computing

Quantum computing uses quantum mechanics principles to solve certain complex mathematical problems faster than classical computers.  Whilst classical computers use binary “bits” to perform calculations, quantum computers use quantum bits (“qubits”).  The value of a bit can only be zero or one, whereas a qubit can exist as zero, one, or a combination of both states (a phenomenon known as superposition) allowing quantum computers to solve certain problems exponentially faster than classical computers. 

The applications of quantum technologies are wide-ranging and quantum computing has the potential to revolutionize many sectors, including life-sciences, climate and weather modelling, financial portfolio management and artificial intelligence (“AI”).  However, advances in quantum computing may also lead to some risks, the most significant being to data protection.  Hackers could exploit the ability of quantum computing to solve complex mathematical problems at high speeds to break currently used cryptography methods and access personal and sensitive data. 

This is a rapidly developing area that governments are only just turning their attention to.  Governments are focusing not just on “quantum-readiness” and countering the emerging threats that quantum computing will present in the hands of bad actors (the US, for instance, is planning the migration of sensitive data to post-quantum encryption), but also on ramping up investment and growth in quantum technologies. Continue Reading Quantum Computing: Developments in the UK and US