Privacy & Information Security Law Blog

On November 14, 2022, Google LLC (“Google”) agreed to a $391.5 million settlement with the attorneys general of 40 U.S. states over the company’s location tracking controls available in its user account settings.   

The investigation by the state attorneys general found that, between 2014 and 2020, Google misled users by failing to disclose that toggling the “Location History” setting to off did not disable all tracking activities. The settlement noted that Google retained the ability to track users’ location via the “Web & App Activity” setting, and used the information for targeted advertising purposes.

On January 12, 2021, in Wengui v. Clark Hill, PLC, et al., the United States District Court for the District of Columbia rejected a law firm defendant’s assertions of the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine for forensic reporting and other related information associated with its outside counsel’s data breach investigation.

On March 26, 2020, Washington D.C. enacted bill number B23-0215, amending D.C.’s data breach notification law (the “Bill”). Among other requirements, the Bill requires the provision of identity theft prevention services in certain data breaches, establishes a new regulatory reporting requirement in the event of a cognizable data breach affecting 50 or more residents of D.C., and imposes certain data security requirements on covered businesses.

The District Court for the District of Columbia recently invalidated certain Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) rules regarding an individual’s access to their protected health information (“PHI”). The Court held that: (1) individuals can only direct their electronic PHI to third parties (and not hard copy PHI); and (2) the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) Omnibus Rule provisions regarding the caps on fees that HIPAA-covered entities may charge for such requests did not follow relevant administrative law procedures.

On November 9, 2015, U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon issued a preliminary injunction ordering the National Security Agency to stop its bulk telephony metadata program. The preliminary injunction was issued in favor of subscribers of Verizon Wireless Business Network and comes 20 days before the program was set to expire under the USA Freedom Act. The case is Klayman v. Obama et al. (1:13-cv-00851) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

On June 25, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Riley v. California, holding 9-0 that law enforcement personnel cannot search detained suspects’ cell phones without a warrant. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice John Roberts found that the practice of searching cell phones implicates “substantially greater” individual privacy interests than other physical objects that may be found on an arrestee and deserves heightened protections. Roberts stated:

On April 9, 2014, the Federal Trade Commission announced settlements with two data brokers, Instant Checkmate, Inc. (“Instant Checkmate”) and InfoTrack Information Services, Inc. (“InfoTrack”), which sell public record information about consumers. The settlements stem from allegations that Instant Checkmate and InfoTrack violated various provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). According to the press release, the FTC asserts that the companies violated the FCRA by “providing reports about consumers to users such as prospective employers and landlords without taking reasonable steps to make sure that they were accurate, or without making sure their users had a permissible reason to have them.”

On January 16, 2014, the Federal Trade Commission announced a settlement with TeleCheck Services, Inc., and its affiliated debt-collection entity, TRS Recovery Services, Inc. (collectively, “TeleCheck”). The settlement stems from allegations that TeleCheck violated various provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). According to the press release, the settlement is “part of a broader initiative to target the practices of data brokers, which often compile, maintain, and sell sensitive consumer information” and is similar to an FTC settlement with a different company in August 2013.

On December 16, 2013, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted a preliminary injunction barring the federal government from collecting and analyzing metadata related to two consumers’ mobile phone accounts. The court held that the two individual plaintiffs were entitled to a preliminary injunction because they had standing to challenge the government’s data collection practices and were substantially likely to succeed on the merits of their claim. The court has stayed issuance of the injunction pending appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court.

On August 15, 2013 the Federal Trade Commission announced a settlement with Certegy Check Services, Inc. (“Certegy”) stemming from allegations that Certegy violated various provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). The settlement agreement includes a $3.5 million civil penalty for “knowing violations ... that constituted a pattern or practice of violations.”

On November 8, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in United States v. Jones, a case examining the Fourth Amendment implications of warrantless GPS tracking of suspects’ vehicles. The Court directed the parties to brief and argue “whether the government violated respondent’s Fourth Amendment rights by installing the GPS tracking device on his vehicle without a valid warrant and without his consent.”

It is being reported that the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia agreed this morning with the American Bar Association's argument that the FTC's Identity Theft Red Flags Rule ("Red Flags Rule" or the "Rule") does not apply to lawyers.  The Rule implements Section 114 and 315 of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (the "FACT Act").  In relevant part, the Rule requires creditors and financial institutions that offer or maintain certain accounts to implement an identity theft prevention program.  The program must be designed to detect, prevent, and mitigate the risk of identity theft. The FTC has interpreted the definition of "creditor" broadly.  The Commission has taken the position in publications and numerous panels that lawyers and law firms meet the definition of creditor because they allow clients to pay for legal services after the services are rendered.  For law firms (as well as for other entities that the FTC deems subject to its enforcement jurisdiction), November 1, 2009 is the deadline for compliance with the provisions of the Rule that require implementation of an identity theft prevention program.

On May 12, 2009, the European Commission issued a long-awaited recommendation on the implementation of privacy and data protection principles in applications supported by radio-frequency identification (“RFID”).  The recommendation follows a process initiated in 2006 when the European Commission launched a public consultation on RFID technologies.  Following this public consultation and in order to protect consumers’ privacy and data protection, the European Commission decided to take further steps by preparing a recommendation to regulate the use of RFID.