enforcement

On June 8, 2020, the Belgian Supervisory Authority (“SA”) fined a (then ex-) politician €5,000 for sending political marketing materials without an appropriate legal basis.  Although the fine was not massive, the case is interesting for another reason: the complaint was brought not by the individuals who received the marketing materials, but by their employer.

According to the SA, the politician exploited the employee list of a local Commune to identify recipients to whom the marketing materials would be sent.  It is not clear how the politician obtained the list.  When the Commune discovered that the list had been leaked, it notified a security breach to the SA and, at the same time, lodged a complaint against the politician.Continue Reading Belgian SA Decision on Lodging GDPR Complaints

On December 17, 2019, the Belgian Supervisory Authority (“SA”) imposed a fine of € 15,000 on an SME operating a legal information website that welcomes approximately 35,000 unique visitors a month.  Interestingly, in the apparent absence of any actual complaints submitted to the SA, it carried out this enforcement action…
Continue Reading Belgian Supervisory Authority Imposes Cookie Fine

Update, September 19, 2019: Further to the reports on its scheme for calculating fines, which prompted requests on the supervisory to publish it, the Datenschutzkonferenz has clarified that fines in individual cases are calculated on the basis of Art. 83(2) GDPR, and that the model is only used on…
Continue Reading New Calculation Model for Data Protection Fines in Germany

On July 24, 2019, the European Commission (“the Commission”) published a report appraising Europe’s progress in implementing the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) as a central component of its revamped data protection framework.  In its report, the Commission highlights certain achievements resulting from implementation efforts, calls attention to issues that require further action, and describes several ongoing and planned initiatives.  The report is a follow-up to a prior report issued in January 2018, and was informed to a great extent by the ongoing work of the Multi-stakeholder Group, which is comprised of civil society and business representatives, academics and practitioners, to support the application of the GDPR.  The report will contribute to the Commission’s formal 2-year review of the GDPR to take place in May 2020.
Continue Reading European Commission Issues Report on the Implementation of the GDPR

Last week, the European Data Protection Supervisor (the “EDPS”), in collaboration with European consumer organisation BEUC, hosted a joint conference on Big Data: individual rights and smart enforcement in Brussels (for the conference agenda, see here).  The conference brought together leading regulators and experts in the areas of…
Continue Reading EDPS-BEUC Joint Conference on Big Data Promotes Closer Dialogue

The UK’s data protection regulator, the Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”), has imposed a fine of £350,000 on Prodial Ltd (“Prodial”) for making over 46 million unsolicited automated telephone calls to generate leads in relation to payment protection insurance refunds.  This is the highest fine issued by the ICO to date.
Continue Reading Company Receives Record Fine from UK Regulator For Cold Calling

Industry eagerly awaits further guidance from data protection authorities (“DPAs”) relating to the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield as well as on the validity (or otherwise) of other mechanisms for transfers to the U.S. such as standard contractual clauses (“SCCs”) and binding corporate rules (“BCRs”).  As we explained in recent posts (here and here), publication of an opinion by the Article 29 Working Party, representing, among other things, the EU’s data protection authorities, is a key next step that will shape enforcement and data transfer options for companies in the post-Schrems environment.  Until then, here is a summary of the approach that some of the national DPAs are taking:
Continue Reading EU DPA Enforcement Guidance Post-Schrems

By Megan Rodgers

The FTC announced that the identity theft protection firm LifeLock will pay $100 million to resolve allegations that the company made false statements about its services and failed to safeguard consumer data.  This settlement represents the largest of its kind in an FTC order enforcement action.

The…
Continue Reading FTC Obtains Record $100 Million Settlement with LifeLock

In May 2014, the Global Privacy Enforcement Network (“GPEN”) performed its second Global Privacy Sweep, in which 26 privacy enforcement authorities from 19 countries downloaded 1,211 mobile apps and assessed their privacy practices. On September 10, 2014, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (“OPC”) published the results of the Sweep (the “OPC Report”). The main findings can be summarized as follows:

  • While most apps provided some privacy information, only 15% clearly explained the app’s privacy practices.
  • 30% of the apps tested provided no privacy communications to users—such as a link to or information about the app’s privacy policy—other than communications requesting access to information (referred to as “permissions”).
  • Nearly 60% of the apps tested raised privacy concerns before the app was downloaded—meaning that there was not enough information available prior to download for potential users to adequately assess or review the app’s privacy policies.
  • 43% of the apps reviewed did not tailor privacy communications to small screens such as those present on smartphones and tablets.
  • 31% of the apps requested access to more information than necessary, based on GPEN’s understanding of the app’s functionality. Of the types of data requested, location was the most popular, followed by device IDs.

Continue Reading Global App Review Finds 85% of Apps Have Privacy Shortcomings