Privacy & Information Security Law Blog

On October 31, 2022, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) announced that it will re-open the public comment period on their October 2021 Orders for six large technology companies operating payments platforms to provide information about their business practices. The October 2021 Orders requested that Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, PayPal and Square provide information about their data collection and use, their policies for removing individuals and businesses from their platforms, and their policies and practices for providing consumer protections such as addressing disputes and errors.

Beginning in 2022, Apple and Google will impose new privacy requirements on mobile apps available for download in the Apple App Store and Google Play Store, respectively. As described further below, Apple’s new account deletion requirement will apply to all mobile app submissions to the Apple App Store beginning January 31, 2022. Similarly, Google’s new Data Safety section will launch in February 2022, and app developers will be required to submit to the Google Play Store Data Safety forms and Privacy Policies by April 2022.

On April 20, 2021, Apple announced that its AppTracking Transparency Framework (“ATT Framework”) will go into effect starting April 26, 2021, along with the upcoming public release of iOS 14.5, iPadOS 14.5 and tvOS 14.5.

On November 12, 2020, Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois rejected Apple Inc.’s (“Apple’s”) motion to dismiss a class action alleging its facial recognition software violates Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”). Judge Rosenstengel agreed with Apple, however, that the federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over portions of the complaint.

Apple’s iOS 14, which was announced by Apple in June 2020 and is scheduled for official release later this year, will require that all apps receive affirmative (i.e., opt-in) user consent to (1) access an iPhone’s unique advertising identifier (Identifier for Advertisers, or “IDFA”) or (2) to "track" users.

On May 9, 2016, the Federal Trade Commission announced it had issued Orders to File a Special Report (“Orders”) to eight mobile device manufacturers requiring them to, for purposes of the FTC’s ongoing study of the mobile ecosystem, provide the FTC with “information about how [the companies] issue security updates to address vulnerabilities in smartphones, tablets, and other mobile devices.” The FTC’s authority to issue such Orders comes from Section 6(b) of the FTC Act.

In a recent article published by SC Magazine, Lisa Sotto, head of Hunton & Williams LLP’s Global Privacy and Cybersecurity practice, provides commentary on the recent case, Apple v. FBI. The article analyzes privacy versus security, and Sotto tells SC Magazine, “[the case] should never have escalated to this, privacy should have been addressed” at the onset of the investigation. Sotto says the government should have “worked with tech companies to craft policies and processes” before an issue of this magnitude arose. The article provides details on the case and discusses ...

On August 1, 2014, the Federal Trade Commission released a new staff report examining the consumer protection implications of popular mobile device applications that provide shopping and in-store purchase services. The report, What’s the Deal? An FTC Study on Mobile Shopping Apps, details the findings from a recent FTC staff survey that studied consumer rights and data protection issues associated with some of the most popular mobile shopping apps on the market.

Hunton & Williams Insurance Litigation & Counseling partner Lon Berk reports:

The recently publicized Secure Sockets Layer (“SSL”) bug affecting Apple Inc. products raises a question regarding insurance coverage that is likely to become increasingly relevant as “The Internet of Things” expands. Specifically, on certain devices, the code used to set SSL connections contains an extra line that causes the program to skip a critical verification step. Consequently, unless a security patch is downloaded, when these devices are used on shared wireless networks they are subject to so-called “man-in-the-middle” security attacks and other serious security risks. Assuming that sellers of such devices may be held liable for damages, there may be questions about insurance to cover the risks.

On January 24, 2014, the Chamber Court of Berlin rejected Facebook’s appeal of an earlier judgment by the Regional Court of Berlin in cases brought by a German consumer rights organization. In particular, the court: 

On January 15, 2014, the Federal Trade Commission announced a proposed settlement with Apple Inc. stemming from allegations that the company billed consumers for mobile app charges incurred by children without their parents’ consent. Specifically, the FTC’s complaint alleges that Apple violated the FTC Act by not informing account holders that, for a 15-minute window after entering their password to approve a single in-app purchase, their children could make unlimited purchases without further action by the parent.

On January 16, 2014 the High Court in London rejected submissions made on behalf of Google Inc. (“Google”) that the case brought against it by three UK-based users of Apple’s Safari browser should be heard in the U.S., rather than before an English court. The decision means that the case could be heard before a court in England, although media reports suggest Google will appeal the decision.

The Luxembourg data protection authority (Commission nationale pour la protection des donées, “CNPD”) has stated that it will not investigate complaints relating to the alleged involvement of Microsoft Luxembourg (“Microsoft”) and Skype Software S.a.r.l. and Skype Communications S.a.r.l. (collectively, “Skype”) in the PRISM surveillance program. The PRISM surveillance program involves the transfer of EU citizens’ data to the U.S. National Security Agency (the “NSA”).

On April 30, 2013, the regional court of Berlin enjoined Apple Sales International, which is based in Ireland, (“Apple”) from relying on eight of its existing standard data protection clauses in contracts with customers based in Germany. The court also prohibited Apple’s future use of such clauses.

On February 4, 2013, the Supreme Court of California examined whether Section 1747.08 of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act (“Song-Beverly”) prohibits an online retailer from requesting or requiring personal identification information from a customer as a condition to accepting a credit card as payment for an electronically downloadable product. In a split decision, the majority of the court ruled that Song-Beverly does not apply to online purchases in which the product is downloaded electronically.

On November 16, 2011, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) published its Annual Activity Report for 2010 (the “Report”) highlighting its main 2010 accomplishments and outlining some of its priorities for the upcoming year. This year’s Report covers events that occurred since last year’s publication of the Annual Activity Report for 2009.

On August 15, 2011, the Federal Trade Commission announced a settlement with W3 Innovations, LLC, doing business as Broken Thumbs Apps (“W3”) for violations of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA”) and the FTC’s COPPA Rule.  This marks the FTC’s first privacy settlement involving mobile applications.

On June 15, 2011, Senator Al Franken (D-MN) and Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) introduced the Location Privacy Protection Act of 2011 (the “Act”).  As we reported previously, Senator Franken is chairman of the newly-created Senate subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law.   In his press release, Senator Franken explained that the Act is designed to “close current loopholes in federal law” while giving customers the ability to learn about and prevent the collection of their location information.  The Act would apply only to non-government entities and would not impact law-enforcement activities.  At a May 10, 2011 hearing, both Google and Apple were questioned about their privacy practices, and Franken subsequently challenged them to require their application developers to adopt clear and understandable privacy policies.

In late December 2010, consumers filed two class action lawsuits against Apple Inc., claiming that several applications they downloaded from Apple’s App Store sent their personal information to third parties without their consent.  Specifically, the consumers claim that Apple allowed third party advertising networks to follow user activity through the Unique Device Identifiers that Apple assigns each device that downloads applications.  The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, also named several application developers such as Pandora and The Weather Channel as co-defendants.

A computer user’s failure to secure his wireless network contributed to the defeat of his claim that a neighbor’s unwelcome access to his files violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA").  The ECPA places restrictions on unauthorized interception of, and access to, electronic communications.