Data

Last week, the Ninth Circuit ruled in Lemmon v. Snap, Inc., No. 20-55295 (May 4 2021), that 47 U.S.C. § 230 (“Section 230”) did not bar a claim of negligent product design against Snap, Inc., reversing and remanding a lower court ruling.
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Denies Section 230 Defense in Products Liability Case

Florida may be next state to join the growing number of states with a consumer privacy law, as both chambers of Florida’s legislature are currently considering comprehensive state privacy legislation.  Both HB 969 and SB 1734 resemble the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”), though they contain some notable differences.  Florida Governor Ron DeSantis expressed support of these measures, stating that these proposals “finally check these companies’ unfettered ability to profit off our data and ensure the protection of Floridians’ personal and private information.”
Continue Reading Florida Legislature Considering Comprehensive Privacy Law

Two recent actions by lawmakers are intended to address certain uses of technology in health. First, two Senators have introduced a bipartisan bill related to the collection and use of identifiable health data from wearable health trackers.  Second, following an appeal from Democratic lawmakers, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (“AHRQ”) plans to review the use of race-based algorithms in medical care.
Continue Reading SMARTWATCH Act and AHRQ’s Inquiry

On the ninth episode of our Inside Privacy Audiocast, we peer through the looking glass at China’s approach to data protection and the latest developments in its emerging data protection and cybersecurity regime. Dan Cooper, Yan Luo and Zhijing Yu discuss the variety of legal instruments in China’s quickly-evolving…
Continue Reading Inside Privacy Audiocast: Episode 9 – China’s Approach to Data Protection

Last year, Californians passed proposition 24, also known as the California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”). That law makes several changes to the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”), including some that relate to an organization’s cybersecurity practices.
Continue Reading Four Key Cyber Takeaways from The CPRA

Yesterday, the California Attorney General (“AG”) proposed a fourth set of modifications to the California Consumer Privacy Act regulations. These modifications build on the third set of proposed regulations released by the AG in October, which we discussed here. Interested parties have until December 28 to submit comments in response.
Continue Reading California Attorney General Releases Fourth Set of Proposed Modifications to California Consumer Privacy Act Regulations

On 25 November 2020, the European Commission published a proposal for a Regulation on European Data Governance (“Data Governance Act”).  The proposed Act aims to facilitate data sharing across the EU and between sectors, and is one of the deliverables included in the European Strategy for Data, adopted in February 2020.  (See our previous blog here for a summary of the Commission’s European Strategy for Data.)  The press release accompanying the proposed Act states that more specific proposals on European data spaces are expected to follow in 2021, and will be complemented by a Data Act to foster business-to-business and business-to-government data sharing.

The proposed Data Governance Act sets out rules relating to the following:

  • Conditions for reuse of public sector data that is subject to existing protections, such as commercial confidentiality, intellectual property, or data protection;
  • Obligations on “providers of data sharing services,” defined as entities that provide various types of data intermediary services;
  • Introduction of the concept of “data altruism” and the possibility for organisations to register as a “Data Altruism Organisation recognised in the Union”; and
  • Establishment of a “European Data Innovation Board,” a new formal expert group chaired by the Commission.

Continue Reading The European Commission publishes a proposal for a Regulation on European Data Governance (the Data Governance Act)

On 11 November 2020, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) issued two draft recommendations relating to the rules on how organizations may lawfully transfer personal data from the EU to countries outside the EU (“third countries”).  These draft recommendations, which are non-final and open for public consultation until 30 November 2020, follow the EU Court of Justice (“CJEU”) decision in Case C-311/18 (“Schrems II”).  (For a more in-depth summary of the CJEU decision, please see our blog post here and our audiocast here. The EDPB also published on 24 July 2020 FAQs on the Schrems II decision here).

The two recommendations adopted by the EDPB are:

Continue Reading EDPB adopts recommendations on international data transfers following Schrems II decision

Consistent with the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s ongoing focus on cyber-enabled financial crime, on October 1, 2020, two components of the Treasury Department’s Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence issued guidance on ransomware-related payments.  One, an advisory issued by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), describes the significant U.S. sanctions risks of facilitating ransomware payments, and expresses a strong policy preference against doing so.  The second, an advisory issued by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”), alerts financial institutions to trends and indicators of ransomware-related money laundering.  Both underscore the difficult decisions faced by ransomware victims and third parties who assist them as they seek to navigate the loss of access to key data on the one hand, and increasingly significant regulatory risks that making a ransomware payment could entail on the other.
Continue Reading Coordinated OFAC and FinCEN Guidance on Ransomware Attacks Underscores the Regulatory Risk and Complexity of Paying a Ransom

On July 17, 2020, the High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence set up by the European Commission (“AI HLEG”) published The Assessment List for Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (“Assessment List”). The purpose of the Assessment List is to help companies identify the risks of AI systems they develop, deploy or procure, and implement appropriate measures to mitigate those risks.

The Assessment List is not mandatory, and there isn’t yet a self-certification scheme or other formal framework built around it that would enable companies to signal their adherence to it.  The AI HLEG notes that the Assessment List should be used flexibly; organizations can add or ignore elements as they see fit, taking into consideration the sector in which they operate. As we’ve discussed in our previous blog post here, the European Commission is currently developing policies and legislative proposals relating to trustworthy AI, and it is possible that the Assessment List may influence the Commission’s thinking on how organizations should operationalize requirements relating to this topic.
Continue Reading AI Update: EU High-Level Working Group Publishes Self Assessment for Trustworthy AI