If 2021 is any indication, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) shows no signs of slowing down in its pursuit of enforcement actions to address a wide variety of alleged privacy and cybersecurity issues. Under the leadership of new chair, Lina Khan, the past year has seen the FTC engage is a variety of new and expanding enforcement actions exhibiting an increasing interest in regulating data privacy and security, as well as other consumer protection areas.
While the FTC has become the de facto regulator for entities that are not subject to other sector-specific regulations, the Commission’s assertion of authority over privacy and cybersecurity matters is limited by its statutory powers under section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices” that injure consumers. The FTC’s expansion of that authority to cover privacy and cybersecurity matters has only grown more aggressive in recent years but has also become the subject of close judicial review. Notably, in 2018, the Eleventh Circuit ruled, in LabMD, Inc. v. FTC, that the FTC did not have unlimited authority to dictate the details of companies’ privacy and cybersecurity protections. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court, in AMG Capital Mgmt., LLC v. FTC, held that Section 13(b) of the FTC Act does not allow the FTC to obtain monetary relief in federal court. The FTC has asked Congress to use its authority to remedy this ability, and claims that this constitutes a loss of its “best and most efficient tool for returning money to consumers who suffered losses as a result of deceptive, unfair, or anticompetitive conduct.”
The FTC has pushed for a more expansive view of its authority for several years, and this has only intensified over the last year. Even before the AMG decision, the FTC had been advocating for Congress to address the gap in Section 13(b), which only explicitly provides for the FTC’s ability to order injunctive relief and is silent on monetary relief. While waiting on Congress to address the issue, we expect for the FTC to continue to bring enforcement actions and order restitution and disgorgement via their Section 19 authority, which provides for these types of relief, but only after a final cease-and-desist order, which can be challenged and is subject to review of appellate courts.Continue Reading FTC Signals Increased Focus on Privacy and Data Misuse
The Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday morning, March 30, regarding class certification related to Article III standing in TransUnion v. Ramirez, where only 25% of a certified class suffered injury. In its briefing and in yesterday’s arguments, TransUnion argued that class certification should only apply where every class member has standing and the lead plaintiff does not allege atypical injuries.
The California Attorney General’s office (OAG) recently released a third set of proposed modifications to the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) regulations. This comes on the heels of the second set of modifications the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) approved just two months ago (see article 
A federal judge in Oregon, Hon. Michael H. Simon, has recently upheld a $925 million statutory damages award against health supplement maker ViSalus for its violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”)—making this the largest TCPA damages award to date.
Latin American privacy laws may pose special challenges for businesses considering when and how to reopen their facilities during the coronavirus pandemic. As elsewhere, many companies operating in Latin America may decide to screen employees for their COVID-19 risk-levels before allowing them to enter a shared workspace. Already in place in many European and Asian countries, screening options primarily involve contact tracing or temperature checks. As they focus on health and safety, however, companies should also bear in mind a potentially competing interest: protecting employees’ privacy.