Privacy/Data Protection

On February 28, 2024, President Biden announced an Executive Order (“EO”) directing the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to promulgate regulations that restrict or prohibit transactions involving certain bulk sensitive personal data or United States Government-related data and countries of concern or covered persons. As directed by the EO, on February 28, the DOJ published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“ANPRM”) on topics related to the implementation of the EO. The Ropes & Gray team provided detailed analysis on both the EO and ANPRM here.Continue Reading Lawmakers Pass Milestone Privacy Bill Overshadowed by TikTok Fever

Following up on announcements of sweeps from late January, last week California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced a settlement with the popular food delivery service DoorDash related to allegations that DoorDash breached the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and the California Online Privacy Protection Act (CalOPPA). The announcement doubles down on the Attorney General’s reiteration that privacy will continue to be priority for his office, while the new California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) is getting up to speed.Continue Reading DoorDash and California Attorney General Reach Settlement Over Privacy Allegations

On February 9, 2024, a California state court of appeal unanimously vacated a lower court ruling, green-lighting the California Privacy Protection Agency’s authority to commence enforcement of the Agency’s first set of regulations. Until now, the Agency’s authority to enforce regulations it has promulgated under the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) has been delayed. The Agency had been poised to begin enforcing its latest batch of completed privacy regulations on July 1, 2023, but a trial court’s ruling put this work on hold until March 29, 2024. That hold has now evaporated, and so the Agency can commence enforcement activities with immediate effect. The decision also impacts future Agency rulemaking such as the Agency’s draft regulations on cybersecurity audits, privacy impact assessments, and automated decision-making, which will no longer be subject to the 12-month stay of enforcement.Continue Reading California Court of Appeal Restores CPPA Authority to Enforce Privacy Regulations

The FCC has issued a declaratory ruling, employing the protection of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) to outlaw robocalls that use AI-generated voices. The Commission’s unanimous decision was spurred by public fallout from the doctored audio message of a purported President Biden urging voters in New Hampshire not to vote in the state’s Democratic primary last month. The announcement makes clear that the potential for malicious actors to use AI to deceive voters and subvert democratic processes is on the government’s top-of-mind this election year. This is not the first time that the TCPA has been used to protect the public from election interference, but rather than go after individual actors for individual instances of election interference as it has in the past, this decision creates a much wider blanket ban on AI-generated voices in robocalls which will cover election-related AI-generated calls among others.Continue Reading 2024 Is Set To Be Democracy and Deepfakes’ Biggest Year. Is U.S. Legislation …Ready For It?

Merck’s settlement last week over its $1.4 billion claim tied to a 2017 Russian-linked “NotPetya” cyberattack leaves a major question in cybersecurity and international law anything but settled – can a “cyberattack” ever be considered an “attack” under the international laws of war? The insurance dispute is hardly the first time cybersecurity has been linked to nation-state security – as far back as 2014, China’s now President Xi Jinping declared that “without cybersecurity there is no national security” – but how did a major pharmaceutical chain’s insurance claim become a potential battleground for litigating the definition of war in the 21st century?Continue Reading Merck Insurance Settlement Leaves Debate over Cyberwar and Cyberinsurance Unsettled

In a Law360 article, IP transactions and technology partner Regina Sam Penti, IP transactions counsel Georgina Jones Suzuki and IP transactions associate Derek Mubiru analyzed the recent trend of artificial intelligence (AI) providers offering indemnity shields and urged businesses to exercise caution in relying on these indemnities.

In response to a number of

On December 20, 2023, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence (“NCCoE”) published its Cybersecurity of Genomic Data report (the “Report”).  The Report aims to assist organizations in protecting against misuse of genomic data and enabling secure collaborative innovations.  Note, however, that the Report is not authoritative with respect to its assessment of the treatment of genomic data under the current U.S. regulatory framework, including with respect to the identifiability of such information.Continue Reading NIST Cybersecurity Center of Excellence – Cybersecurity of Genomic Data Report 

While the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) is “of 2008,” only in the past few years has BIPA litigation exploded at a pace likely to continue.  BIPA generally requires companies that collect biometric information or identifiers in Illinois to adhere to certain practices, including providing a public privacy policy; obtaining written consent before collection; abstaining from the sale of, or other profiting from, biometric data; disclosing biometric data only with prior consent; and maintaining security measures to protect biometric data.  The growing wave of BIPA litigation has helped clarify certain aspects of the Act while bringing others into question, as amendments may further alter the legal landscape. Continue Reading Illinois’s Biometric Information Privacy Act: A Reflection on 2023