Photo of Kevin Angle

In the new year, comprehensive privacy laws go into operation in five states:  California (January 1), Virginia (January 1), Colorado (July 1), Connecticut (July 1), and Utah (December 31).  Subsequent blog posts will cover each of these laws in detail.  In this post, we begin a series analyzing the impact of the California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”) in greater depth. 

The CPRA will go into operation on January 1, 2023 and will be enforceable by the newly created California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA”) beginning on July 1, 2023. Passed by ballot initiative in November 2020, the CPRA amends and expands the California Consumer Privacy Act (together with the CPRA, the “CCPA/CPRA”), already the most far-reaching privacy legislation currently in operation in the United States.  As amended, the CCPA/CPRA expands consumer privacy rights and data processing obligations, creating new rights to limit the use of sensitive personal information and to correct personal information stored by a business.  It implements certain “principles of processing” like the purpose limitation, requiring businesses to evaluate their uses of personal information to ensure they are proportionate to the requirements of disclosed business and commercial purposes.  It also enhances opt-out rights in the context of cross-context behavioral advertising and requires that businesses enter into new contractual terms with service providers to which they disclose the personal information of California residents.

Continue Reading Companies Wrestle with Compliance in the Lead Up to Effectiveness of the CPRA and Other State Privacy Laws

Data, privacy & cybersecurity partner Ed McNicholas and counsel Kevin Angle authored the USA chapter in Cybersecurity Laws and Regulations 2023. The chapter provides an overview of common issues in cybersecurity laws and regulations, including cybercrime, applicable statutes, prevention of cyber-attacks, sector-specific guidance, corporate governance, litigation, insurance, and investigatory and police powers.

Click here to

The FTC’s recent publication, FTC Safeguards Rule: What Your Business Needs to Know (the “Guide”), provides a helpful overview of the FTC’s recent Safeguards Rule amendments. The FTC’s Safeguards Rule is applicable to “financial institutions,” such as private funds, subject to the FTC’s jurisdiction but not the jurisdiction of another regulator under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA). Ropes & Gray has previous reviewed the Safeguards Rule amendments here and here. The Guide does not break any substantial new ground but does provide a useful summary of the Safeguards Rule’s security requirements along with additional details regarding the controls the FTC considers part of a reasonable information security program.

The Guide identifies nine elements of an information security program required under the Safeguards Rule. Companies that maintain personal information regarding fewer than 5,000 consumers are not subject to all of these requirements, as summarized further here. Additionally, companies are not required to have in place all of the controls described until December of this year, but should work toward implementation now, as many will require time intensive processes.

Continue Reading FTC Publishes Guide to Safeguards Rule Compliance Applicable to Private Funds

On April 18, a Ninth Circuit panel reaffirmed its holding that LinkedIn cannot stop hiQ Labs (“hiQ”) from scraping publicly accessible data from its website at this stage of the litigation. In its latest opinion in HiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corporation, the Ninth Circuit ruled that hiQ raised serious questions about whether their scraping of public LinkedIn profile information should be permissible under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”). While the court’s opinion was limited to hiQ’s motion for a preliminary injunction prohibiting LinkedIn from preventing hiQ’s scraping, the reasoning and discussion in the court’s opinion suggests that the panel’s position is that scraping publicly accessible data likely does not violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”).

The CFAA is the most prominent federal anti-hacking statute, and it prohibits, among other things, obtaining information through access to a protected computer system “without authorization” or in a way that “exceeds authorized access.” The bounds of what constitutes a violation of authorization under the CFAA has been a topic of debate in recent cases. Last year, in Van Buren v. United States (previously discussed here and here), the Supreme Court ruled that using information from a computer system for unpermitted purposes would not “exceed authorized access” under the CFAA if the user was otherwise authorized to access that information using the computer.

Less than two weeks after issuing its decision in Van Buren, the Court issued a summary disposition in LinkedIn v. hiQ Labs, LinkedIn’s petition to the Supreme Court to allow it to prevent hiQ from continuing its scraping practices. The Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s earlier opinion affirming the trial court’s decision to allow the scraping to continue and remanded the case to the Night Circuit for further consideration in light of the Van Buren decision. In the opinion issued on April 18, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Van Buren supported the conclusion that the CFAA does not prohibit access to publicly accessible data.

Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Affirms Preliminary Injunction in HiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corporation, Reasoning that CFAA Is Unlikely to Bar Access to Public LinkedIn Data

Data, privacy & cybersecurity partners Ed McNicholas and Fran Faircloth and counsel Kevin Angle authored a chapter in Chambers Global Practice Guide Cybersecurity 2022 on “USA Law & Practice and Trends & Developments.” The chapter provides an overview of cybersecurity regulation in the United States and provides insights on the multitude of cybersecurity

On March 15, 2022, President Biden signed into law significant new federal data breach reporting legislation that could vastly expand data breach notice requirements far beyond regulated entities or entities processing personal data. Unceremoniously tucked as Division Y into the H.R. 2471 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, the Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act of

On March 9, 2022, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) proposed updates to its disclosure rules intended to “enhance and standardize” public company disclosure regarding cybersecurity risk management, strategy, governance, and incident reporting (the “Proposed Rules”). The Proposed Rules may require issuers to update their disclosure controls and procedures, in particular with respect

On March 1, 2022, the Senate passed a data breach and cybersecurity bill that could vastly expand data breach notice requirements. The Strengthening American Cybersecurity Act (the “Senate Bill”), which now shifts to the House of Representatives, would require organizations in certain critical infrastructure sectors to report substantial cybersecurity incidents to the Department of Homeland Security within 72 hours after the organization reasonably believes the cyberincident has occurred, among other measures intended to enhance the nation’s cybersecurity posture. Covered organizations would also be required to report ransom payments within 24 hours of making a payment in response to a ransomware attack. These provisions are not limited to data breaches affecting personal data and would significantly expand the breadth of data breach reporting requirements to many commercial enterprises that have not focused on consumer privacy issues.

While the bill was criticized by FBI Director Christopher Wray and Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco for shifting cyber-focus from the DOJ/FBI to DHS/CISA, it remains likely to pass the House, where similar legislation was supported last year as part of the annual defense authorization package. In addition to its breach reporting provisions, the Senate Bill would also require or encourage new cybersecurity measures for federal agencies, clarify the roles of certain cybersecurity officials and authorize the federal contractor cybersecurity FedRAMP program for five years.

Continue Reading Senate Approves Breach Reporting Legislation; Likely to Pass House

In a unanimous decision issued on February 3, 2022, the Illinois Supreme Court held in McDonald v. Symphony Bronzeville Park that the Illinois State Workers’ Compensation Act (“WCA”) did not bar claims under the Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”). In doing so, the court eliminated one significant defense commonly raised in such cases, since many BIPA class actions are brought in the context of employment (many of which were stayed pending the decision in McDonald). Critically, though, the decision does not preclude other potential defenses including claims of federal preemption.

BIPA is one of the most actively litigated privacy statutes in the United States. Among other things, it requires that businesses obtain consent prior to collecting biometric information (fingerprints, facial geometry information, iris scans and the like), issue a publicly available data retention policy, and refrain from certain data sales and disclosures. Because BIPA provides for a private right of action along with statutory damages of $1,000 to $5,000 per violation, it has proved fertile ground for the plaintiff’s bar.

Continue Reading Illinois Supreme Court Finds Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act Not Preempted By State Workers’ Compensation Law

Private funds that are excluded from the definition of “investment company” under sections 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“ICA”) will face significantly stricter cybersecurity requirements under the FTC’s revised Safeguards Rule, which comes into full effect as of December 9, 2022. The FTC’s updated Safeguards Rule breaks new ground for