On August 14, 2020, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra released final implementing regulations for the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). The CCPA became enforceable on July 1, 2020, and Becerra’s office submitted a final proposed draft of the regulations to the California Office of Administrative Law (OAL) on June 1, 2020. The Proposed Regulations have
On April 20, 2020, the Supreme Court granted cert in Van Buren v. United States, to resolve an important circuit split over the meaning of “authorized access” under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). This is the Court’s first foray into analyzing the precise contours of CFAA liability. Van Buren may have far-reaching…
E-Discovery no longer dominantly involves emails and shared drive documents. With the increasing prevalence of mobile devices in the workplace and new apps being developed daily, mobile data and other non-email communications are moving to the forefront of discovery. Times have changed, and attorneys have professional and ethical obligations to keep up. To effectively and competently represent clients, attorneys must stay apprised of how to work with these ever-changing forms of data – or get help from someone knowledgeable. To do so, we have set out some suggestions below organized around common stages of the discovery lifecycle of digital evidence.
Identification. In conducting custodian interviews, ask questions to target the data types the custodian works with. Start broadly by determining if the company has a BYOD policy and asking if they allow the use of personal devices for work purposes. Confirm which messaging tools they use for business purposes, with the understanding that people tend to play down such use. For each messaging application, ask how they are used and with whom they communicate. Discuss these same topics with your client’s IT team to better understand the company’s policies and capabilities for controlling the use of personal devices, as well as employees’ actual practices.
Increasing mobile device usage for routine business – such as through text messages and mobile applications like WhatsApp – is contributing to a new developing trend in E-Discovery: broad discovery requests for businesses to collect and produce data from their employees’ mobile phones.
The proliferation of electronic communication not only makes it imperative for organizations to have mechanisms in place to capture and preserve mobile text messages, but also raises new challenges about how to protect employee privacy. As more and more employees use their personal devices for business purposes (and vice-versa – employees using company-provided devices also for personal purposes), there is an increasing desire among employees to ensure their personal data is protected, even as the company produces other data required in discovery.
Courts have recognized this is an issue, and the law is evolving to strike a balance between the discoverability of relevant information and privacy protections from overly intrusive requests for text messages.…
Continue Reading Court Rules Personal Privacy Interests May Impact Scope of Discovery for Text Messages
On January 13, 2020, U.S. District Court Judge Castel of the Southern District of New York in SEC v. Telegram Group Inc. et al., No. 19 Civ. 9439 (PKC) granted the motion of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) to compel Telegram Group Inc., a technology company best known for its secure messaging app, to produce overseas bank records (Dkt. 67). The SEC had sought these records “fully unredacted” on an expedited basis in support of its claim that Telegram engaged in an unregistered securities offering (Dkt. 52). Telegram objected to any production, asserting that the records were of questionable relevance, that they contained banking and personal information protected by a host of foreign laws, and that it would be unduly burdensome to “to cull through these records and redact the personal information of non-U.S. persons and entities subject to foreign data privacy law protections.” (Dkt. 55). In a short decision, the Court ordered Telegram to produce the records on a tight timeline, holding that “[o]nly redactions necessitated by foreign privacy laws shall be permitted, and a log stating the basis for any redaction shall be produced at the same time the redacted documents are produced.”
There are a few key takeaways from this decision. First, the Court recognized foreign data privacy laws as legitimate grounds for withholding otherwise discoverable information. Defendant was not given a blank check to redact; rather, the Court required Telegram to log the basis for any privacy assertions, and one can expect the SEC will closely question Telegram on the redactions. At the same time, the Court clearly did not agree with the SEC’s characterization of data privacy laws as “blocking statutes” to be ignored, and was not swayed by its complaints that Telegram had not shown that such laws require deference. This is consistent with an observed general heightened sensitivity to data privacy and data security interests in the U.S. and abroad.
Judge Castel’s approach represents a change from U.S. courts’ prior dismissive treatment of similar disclosure objections. Courts traditionally would apply a multi-factor comity analysis that generally prioritized U.S. discovery interests over those of conflicting foreign laws and ultimately required unredacted production. See, e.g., Laydon v. Mizuho Bank, Ltd., 183 F. Supp.3d 409 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (requiring unredacted production of data protected by the then EU privacy regulation, the 1995 EU Directive 95/46/EC, based on comity analysis set out in Société Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. U.S. Dist. Court for S. Dist. of Iowa, 482 U.S. 522, 544 n.29 (1987) (hereinafter “Aerospatiale”)). Certainly, the SEC pushed for the customary approach, but Judge Castel appears implicitly to have to have resolved in short form (or skipped over) the Aerospatiale comity analysis and accepted the legitimacy of foreign restrictions on disclosure in U.S. proceedings.
On January 1, 2020, California’s landmark privacy law, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), took effect. The CCPA imposes various obligations on covered businesses and provides extensive rights to consumers with respect to controlling the collection and use of their personal information. While some companies have largely completed their CCPA compliance efforts, many others are still digesting the CCPA and draft proposed regulations, and taking steps to meet the CCPA’s myriad compliance obligations.
Confusion persists about how businesses can comply with certain provisions of the CCPA. In October 2019, the California Attorney General issued proposed regulations that provide guidance on a number of key areas, but the regulations are not yet final. If adopted, violations of the proposed regulations will be treated the same as violations of the CCPA itself, with the same penalties. We have summarized the proposed regulations in previous alerts:
- Proposed CCPA Regulations from California Attorney General Just Issued: Part I – An Analysis of Required Consumer Notice
- Proposed CCPA Regulations from California Attorney General: Part II – An Analysis of Handling Consumer Requests under the CCPA
- Proposed CCPA Regulations from California Attorney General: Part III – An Analysis of the Requirement to Verify Consumer Requests and Parental Consents
- Proposed CCPA Regulations from California Attorney General: Part IV – Service Providers & Financial Incentives
Comments on the proposed regulations can be viewed here.
Consent is only one of the six legal grounds for processing personal data under the GDPR, but it is certainly the most well-known. While it might look safe and solid at first sight, it is becoming the weakest link of the GDPR compliance chain.
First, consent can be withdrawn at any time, and the process…
On October 1, 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued a final ruling in the Planet49 case (case C-673/17 – available here).
Following a request for preliminary ruling from the German Federal Court of Justice, the Bundesgerichtshof, the CJEU interpreted the consent requirement of Directive 2002/58/EC, as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC (hereafter the “e-Privacy Directive”) in light of former Directive 95/46/EU (hereafter the “Data Protection Directive”) as well as in light of its successor – the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
The Court made it clear that the placing and reading of tracking cookies on a user’s terminal equipment requires an active and unambiguous consent of the user. A pre-ticked checkbox does not meet these requirements and therefore does not constitute a valid consent. Also, the Court underlined that consent must be specific. In the case at hand, the act of selecting a button to participate in a promotional online lottery cannot be construed as consent of the user to the storage of cookies.
Moreover, the Court clarified that these requirements regarding the consent of the user for usage of cookies are applicable regardless of whether the information stored or consulted on the user’s device constitutes “personal data.”
Finally, the Court held that cookie consent must be “informed” as per the GDPR, which means that service providers must also provide information on the duration of the operation of cookies, as well as in relation to any third party access to those cookies.
On September 17, 2019, the Belgian Data Protection Authority (DPA) issued a fine of EUR 10,000 for a breach of the General Data Protection Regulation’s (GDPR). The case related to a merchant who required the use of an electronic identity card as the sole means for the issuance of loyalty cards.
The DPA found that this practice did not comply with GDPR’s standards on (a) data minimization, as the electronic identity card contains much more information about the holder than is necessary for the purposes of creating a loyalty card; and (b) consent, because customers were not offered a real choice on whether they should provide access to the data on their electronic identity card in exchange for a loyalty card. As a result, the customers’ consent was not considered as freely given and therefore invalid.
The DPA also found that the merchant had not done enough to inform customer about its data processing activities, and thereby violated its information duties under the GDPR.
On 29 July 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued a decision in the Fashion ID case, a case referred to it by a German court. In this blog post we will focus on what this case means with regard to joint controllership when you have social media plug-ins on your…