Privacy/Data Protection

Since the joint announcement by US President Joe Biden and European Commission President Ursula von de Leyen, on 25 March 2022, of an agreement in principle on the long-awaited replacement to the EU-US Privacy Shield, transatlantic data flows have again become the focus of GDPR discussions. The lack of details provided to date has, however, resulted in many organisations (and legal commentators alike) wondering where this leaves them.

Should US organisations prepare for certification to yet another incarnation of the Safe Harbor (which will almost certainly be subject to prompt legal challenge in the form of Schrems III)? Should organisations subject to the GDPR continue with their transfer impact assessments and the uncertainty of the standard contractual clauses (“SCCs”) when transferring personal data to the US? Will the new safeguards have any impact on the SCCs at all? And how will this affect transfers to the US from the UK or other non-EU jurisdictions?

Representatives of the US Government and the European Commission recently provided some much-needed context, including further details around the timing of the replacement framework and of the potential shape of the new redress mechanism. Their comments offer some hints about the UK’s approach to transatlantic and other international data flows.

Continue Reading Transatlantic Data Flows – Where Are We Now?

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

As 2021 comes to a close, it is a great time to take stock of the present state of affairs with respect to U.S. privacy laws. With the relatively recent passage of comprehensive privacy laws in California, and additional countries adopting laws that closely follow the principles of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), along with increasing public concerns regarding how companies manage customers’ personal data, legal practitioners entered 2021 with high hopes that comprehensive federal privacy legislation may finally be on the horizon. Nevertheless, in a trend that is likely to continue in the year ahead, it was the states rather than federal legislatures that successfully added to the ranks of privacy laws with which businesses will soon need to comply.

Continue Reading Momentum Builds for State Privacy Laws but the Possibility of a Federal Law Remains Remote

2021 was a busy year for data protection law in China. On June 10, 2021, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China adopted the Data Security Law (DSL), which went into effect on September 1, 2021. On August 20, 2021, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress enacted the Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL), which went into effect just last month, in November 2021. The DSL applies broadly to processing of all data, not just personal information or electronic data and expands on the provisions from China’s Cybersecurity Law, which was enacted in 2016. In contrast, the PIPL applies only to the processing of personal information and has been compared to Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), although that comparison may obscure the contours of China’s law more than it enlightens.

Consistent with the course of Chinese administrative law, the laws’ key terms, analyses, and processes will continue to be fleshed out and perhaps materially enhanced or diminished in a series of regulations, measures, standards, and guidance documents. The latest draft measures on cross-border transfers, which are being closely watched by organizations contemplating cross border data transfers, were published at the end of October, and comments were accepted through November. We expect China to continue finalizing the laws’ terms and measures in 2022.

Continue Reading What China’s New Data Laws Could Mean for 2022

In the wake of major cybersecurity incidents, it is becoming increasingly common for shareholders to bring derivative lawsuits alleging that the officers or board members failed to exercise proper governance over cybersecurity. Some companies have paid settlements to resolve such matters, but few derivative actions have ended in judgment on the merits in favor of plaintiffs, largely because plaintiffs are rarely able to show that directors failed to execute their oversight responsibilities. A recent ruling by the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissing a derivative lawsuit against Marriott International, Firemen’s Ret. Sys. of St. Louis v. Sorenson, No. 2019-0965-LWW (Del. Ch. Oct. 5, 2021), reiterates that directors who monitor cybersecurity governance, work to mitigate cyber risks, and seek outside advice on data protection issues will usually not face liability.

Continue Reading Marriott Data Breach Ruling Puts Corporate Boardrooms on Notice

It’s the most data-filled time of the year!

Join us on RopesDataPhiles.com for the Twelve Days of Data.

Over the next twelve business days, we will close out 2021 by recapping twelve of the hottest topics in data privacy and cybersecurity and looking forward to what’s to come in 2022. Topics covered will include privacy

The Future of US Federal and State Regulation of Data Privacy

During the November 3rd session of Ropes & Gray’s conference, “The Future of Global Data Protection: Conflict or Coherence?” Ropes & Gray partner Chong Park moderated a discussion with Ropes & Gray’s data protection partner Fran Faircloth and Minh Ta, Vice President of Global Governmental Affairs at the Carlyle Group regarding the future of federal and state regulation of data privacy in the United States.

The group all agreed that there should be a comprehensive, US federal data privacy law, but expressed opposing views on the likelihood of such a federal law being implemented in the near future. Minh analogized it to the infrastructure bill debate in the United States, noting that there is bipartisan consensus to address the issue on some level, but the problem lies in the details—i.e., what specifically should be regulated is where people disagree. Fran, on the other hand, expressed a bit more optimism that a federal law on privacy would be passed in the future, but agreed the likelihood of imminent passage is unlikely. She noted that as more states pass their own versions of privacy laws, that eventually as a result a federal law would be passed.

Continue Reading The Future of US Federal and State Regulation of Data Privacy

Preeminent privacy scholar and George Washington University Law School professor, Daniel Solove joined Ropes & Gray’s virtual conference on “The Future of Global Data Protection,” for a wide-ranging discussion with Edward McNicholas, co-leader of the Ropes & Gray data, privacy & cybersecurity practice, in which the pair explored:

  • The state of complexity and inconsistency in the international privacy law landscape
  • The inherent flaws in the models on which privacy laws are currently based
  • The risks of moving toward a regulatory model
  • Theories of harm in data breach cases
  • The role of the courts in adjudicating privacy laws

Please see below for an overview of some of these topics, or to access a recording of the session please visit our blog: RopesDataPhiles.

Continue Reading How Data Breaches Are Shaping the Global Data Protection Debate

Law360 (October 4, 2021, 5:30 PM EDT) —
On June 29, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed into law H.B. 833, known as the Protecting DNA Privacy Act.

The act took effect on Oct. 1, and applies to the collection, use, retention, maintenance and disclosure of a DNA sample collected from an individual in Florida as well as the results of any subsequent DNA analysis. The act is self-executing and took effect without the need for creation of implementing regulations.

The act clarifies the extent to which individuals own their genetic information, and it creates new crimes for the unlawful collection, retention, analysis, disclosure or sale of an individual’s DNA sample and the results of a DNA analysis, subject to certain limited exemptions, such as use for specified clinical or research purposes.

The act also has important implications for secondary uses of data by health care providers and others that perform genetic testing and analyze genetic information.

Continue Reading What Florida’s DNA Privacy Law Means For Health Care Providers

On August 20, 2021, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress promulgated the Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL), which will become effective on November 1, 2021. The PIPL is the first comprehensive national level personal information protection law in China, which systematically regulates the processing of personal information by entities and individuals. The PIPL, together with the Cybersecurity Law, which was promulgated in 2017, and the Data Security Law, which was promulgated earlier this year, form the three pillars of China’s comprehensive data protection legal regime.

This Alert provides a summary of the highlights of the PIPL, discusses the implications on domestic and foreign businesses operating in China, and compares the PIPL with the European Union (EU) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which has greatly influenced many of the concepts included in the PIPL.
Continue Reading China Passes Personal Information Protection Law