Data Privacy

Likely spurred by plaintiffs’ recent successes in cases under Illinois’s Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), a new wave of class actions is emerging under Illinois’s Genetic Information Privacy Act (“GIPA”). While BIPA regulates the collection, use, and disclosure of biometric data, GIPA regulates that of genetic testing information. Each has a private right of action and provides for significant statutory damages, even potentially where plaintiffs allege a violation of the rule without actual damages.[1] From its 1998 enactment until last year, there were few GIPA cases, and they were largely focused on claims related to genetic testing companies.[2] More recently, plaintiffs have brought dozens of cases against employers alleging GIPA violations based on allegations of employers requesting family medical history through pre-employment physical exams. This article explores GIPA’s background, the current landscape and key issues, and considerations for employers.Continue Reading Employers Beware: New Wave of Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act Litigation

In 2020, Illinois residents whose photos were included in the Diversity in Faces dataset brought a series of lawsuits against multiple technology companies, including IBM, Facefirst, Microsoft, Amazon, and Google alleging violations of Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act.[1] In the years since, the cases against IBM and FaceFirst were dismissed at the agreement of both parties, while the cases against Microsoft, Amazon, and most recently, Google were dismissed at summary judgment.Continue Reading What the Diversity in Faces Litigation Means for Biometric Technologies

In early March 2024, the EU lawmakers reached agreement on the European Health Data Space (EHDS).  For now, we only have a work-in-progress draft version of the text, but a number of interesting points can already be highlighted. This article focuses on the implications for “wellness applications” and medical devices; for an overview of the EHDS generally, see our first post in this series.

The final text of the EHDS was adopted by the European Parliament on 24 April 2024 and is expected to be formally adopted by the European Council in the coming months.Continue Reading EHDS Series – 4: The European Health Data Space’s Implications for “Wellness Applications” and Medical Devices

In recent months, the European Court of Justice (“CJEU”) issued five judgments providing some clarity on the scope of individuals’ rights to claim compensation for “material and non-material damage” under Article 82 of the GDPR. These rulings will inform companies’ exposure to compensation claims, particularly in the context of the EU’s Collective Redress Directive, but open questions remain about the quantum of compensation courts will offer in these cases and we expect both the CJEU and national courts to deliver additional case-law clarifying this topic in the coming year (for more information on recent CJEU cases related to compensation, see our previous blog posts here and here).

  • In VB v Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite (C-340/21), the CJEU concluded that individuals may have suffered “non-material damage”—and therefore be able to claim compensation—if they can demonstrate that they feared future misuse of personal data that was compromised in a personal data breach.  
  • In VX v Gemeinde Ummendorf (C-456/22), the CJEU found that there is no de minimis threshold for damage, below which individuals cannot claim for compensation.
  • In BL v MediaMarktSaturn (C-687-21), the CJEU restated its existing case-law, and expanded upon its analysis in VB by clarifying that alleged harms cannot be “purely hypothetical”.
  • In Kočner v Europol (C-755/21), the CJEU awarded non-material damages of €2000 for the publication in newspapers of transcripts of “intimate” text messages.
  • In GP v Juris GmbH (C-741/21), the CJEU found that where one processing activity infringes multiple provisions of the GDPR, this should not allow claimants to “double-count” the harm they suffered.

We provide further detail on each case below.Continue Reading Rounding up Five Recent CJEU Cases on GDPR Compensation

This quarterly update highlights key legislative, regulatory, and litigation developments in the first quarter of 2024 related to artificial intelligence (“AI”), connected and automated vehicles (“CAVs”), and data privacy and cybersecurity.  As noted below, some of these developments provide industry with the opportunity for participation and comment.Continue Reading U.S. Tech Legislative, Regulatory & Litigation Update – First Quarter 2024

After nearly six months since the initial draft was issued for public comments on September 28, 2023 (see here for our previous alert on that development), on March 22, 2024, the Cyberspace Administration of China (“CAC”) issued the final version of the Provisions on Promoting and Standardizing Cross-Border Data Flows (促进和规范数据跨境流动规定) ( “Provisions”) (Chinese version available here).  The Provisions take effect immediately.  

The newly finalized Provisions introduce significant changes to China’s existing cross-border data transfer regime.  These changes primarily involve exemptions from the previously mandated transfer mechanisms outlined in the Personal Information Protection Law (“PIPL”) and its implementing regulations.  Such mechanisms included undergoing a government-led security assessment, entering into a standardized contract, or obtaining personal information protection certification.  As a result, many companies that previously faced these requirements may now be exempt, easing their compliance burden for cross-border data transfers.  Importantly, the Provisions take precedence over any conflicting provisions within PIPL’s implementing regulations, including the Measures on the Standard Contract for Cross-Border Transfer of Personal Information and the Measures for Security Assessment of Cross-Border Data Transfer.Continue Reading China Eases Restrictions on Cross-Border Data Flows

On 6 March 2024, the ICO issued a call for views on so-called “Consent or pay” models, where a user of a service has the option to consent to processing of their data for one or more purposes (typically targeted advertising), or pay a (higher) fee to access the service without their data being processed for those purposes. This is sometimes referred to as “pay or okay”.

The ICO has provided an “initial view” of these models, stating that UK data protection law does not outright prohibit them. It also sets out factors to consider when implementing these models and welcomes the views of publishers, advertisers, intermediaries, civil society, academia and other interested stakeholders. The consultation is open until 17 April 2024.Continue Reading UK ICO Launches a Consultation on “Consent or Pay” Business Models

On March 7, 2024, the European Court of Justice (“CJEU”) rendered its judgment in an appeal against a decision of the EU General Court (C-479/22P).  In the original decision, the General Court decided that the information contained in a press release by OLAF (a European anti-fraud organization) regarding fraud committed by an unnamed scientist was not personal data as the scientist was not identifiable from the press release (for more on the General Court’s decision, see our blog post here). The scientist appealed the decision arguing that she could easily be identified from the information released by OLAF and thus that the data were personal data.  The EU law concerned in this case is Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, which applies to the processing of personal data within EU bodies, rather than the GDPR, though the definition of personal data is the same in both regulations.Continue Reading European Court Clarifies Concept of Personal Data

On 15 January 2024, the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) announced the launch of a consultation series (“Consultation”) on how elements of data protection law apply to the development and use of generative AI (“GenAI”). For the purposes of the Consultation, GenAI refers to “AI models that can create new content e.g., text, computer code, audio, music, images, and videos”.

As part of the Consultation, the ICO will publish a series of chapters over the coming months outlining their thinking on how the UK GDPR and Part 2 of the Data Protection Act 2018 apply to the development and use of GenAI. The first chapter, published in tandem with the Consultation’s announcement, covers the lawful basis, under UK data protection law, for web scraping of personal data to train GenAI models. Interested stakeholders are invited to provide feedback to the ICO by 1 March 2024.Continue Reading ICO Launches Consultation Series on Generative AI

In December 2023, the Dutch SA fined a credit card company €150,000 for failure to perform a proper data protection impact assessment (“DPIA”) in accordance with Art. 35 GDPR for its “identification and verification process”.Continue Reading Dutch SA Sanctions Credit Card Company for Failure to Perform Data Protection Impact Assessment