Privacy & Information Security Law Blog

On October 1, 2021, Connecticut’s two new data security laws become effective. As we previously reported, the new laws modify Connecticut’s existing breach notification requirements and establish a safe harbor from certain Connecticut Superior Court assessed damages for businesses that create and maintain a written cybersecurity program.

Connecticut recently passed two cybersecurity laws that will become effective on October 1, 2021. The newly passed laws modify Connecticut’s existing breach notification requirements and establish a safe harbor for businesses that create and maintain a written cybersecurity program that complies with applicable state or federal law or industry-recognized security frameworks.

The U.S. Department of Commerce has issued two new sets of FAQs in light of the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (“CJEU’s”) recent decision to invalidate the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield in Schrems II. We previously reported on the Schrems II ruling and its implication for businesses that transfer personal data to the U.S. The new FAQs from the Department of Commerce address the impact of the decision on the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework and the Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield framework.

On July 16, 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) issued its landmark judgment in the Schrems II case (case C-311/18). In its judgment, the CJEU concluded that the Standard Contractual Clauses (the “SCCs”) issued by the European Commission for the transfer of personal data to data processors established outside of the EU are valid. Unexpectedly, the Court invalidated the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework.

In one of the most important cases on global data transfers, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) will rule on the validity of the Standard Contractual Clauses (“SCCs”) in the Schrems II case (case C-311/18) on July 16, 2020. Invalidation of the SCCs would leave businesses scrambling to find an alternative data transfer mechanism. But there may be significant practical challenges for businesses even if the SCCs survive.

In a case that has garnered widespread interest, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) will deliver its judgment in the Schrems II case (case C-311/18) on July 16, 2020, determining the validity of the controller–to-processor Standard Contractual Clauses (“SCCs”) as a cross-border data transfer mechanism under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). If the SCCs are invalidated, the judgment would deliver a significant blow to the numerous businesses that rely on them, leaving many scrambling to find a suitable alternative transfer mechanism. Even if the SCCs survive, they may become more cumbersome to use.

On December 19, 2019, the Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) handed down his opinion in the so-called “Schrems II” case (case C-311/18). He recommended that the CJEU uphold the validity of the Standard Contractual Clauses (“SCCs”) as a mechanism for transferring personal data outside of the EU. Given that SCCs are the key data transfer mechanism used by many organizations to transfer personal data outside of the EU, the opinion has far-reaching repercussions and will be welcomed by businesses across the globe.

On July 9, 2019, the hearing in the so-called Schrems II case (case C-311/18) took place at the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) in Luxembourg. The main parties involved in the proceedings, the Irish Data Protection Commissioner (“Irish DPA”), Facebook Ireland Ltd. and the Austrian activist Max Schrems, presented their arguments to the court. In addition, a number of other stakeholders intervened during the hearing, including representatives of the European Parliament, the European Commission, the European Data Protection Board, several EU Member States (including Austria, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and the UK) and the U.S. government, as well as a number of industry lobby groups and the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

On May 6, 2019, the Federal Trade Commission announced that Meet24, FastMeet and Meet4U—three dating apps owned by Ukrainian-based company Wildec LLC—were removed from the Apple App Store and Google Play Store following an FTC letter alleging that the apps potentially violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA”) and the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”). According to the letter and contrary to what was claimed in their privacy policies, the apps, which collect dates of birth, email addresses, photographs and real-time location date, failed to block users who indicated they were under the age of 13.

On August 13, 2018, the Federal Trade Commission approved changes to the video game industry’s safe harbor guidelines under the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA”) Rule. COPPA’s “safe harbor” provision enables industry groups to propose self-regulatory guidelines regarding COPPA compliance for FTC approval. 

On October 3, 2017, the Irish High Court referred a legal challenge to the validity of the EU Standard Contractual Clauses (“SCCs”) to the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) for resolution. Max Schrems, who had previously successfully challenged the validity of the now defunct U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Program in the Schrems case, had brought a similar claim in relation to the SCCs, and had requested that the Irish Data Protection Commissioner (“DPC”) declare that the SCCs do not provide sufficient protection when personal data is transferred outside the EU to the US and thus are invalid. The Irish DPC declined to make such a ruling, but instead referred the case to the Irish High Court, and requested that the case be referred to the CJEU for a final decision on the validity of the SCCs.

On January 25, 2017, President Trump issued an Executive Order entitled “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States.” While the Order is primarily focused on the enforcement of immigration laws in the U.S., Section 14 declares that “Agencies shall, to the extent consistent with applicable law, ensure that their privacy policies exclude persons who are not United States citizens or lawful permanent residents from the protections of the Privacy Act regarding personally identifiable information.” This provision has sparked a firestorm of controversy in the international privacy community, raising questions regarding the Order’s impact on the Privacy Shield framework, which facilitates lawful transfers of personal data from the EU to the U.S. While political ramifications are certainly plausible from an EU-U.S. perspective, absent further action from the Trump Administration, Section 14 of the Order should not impact the legal viability of the Privacy Shield framework.

The Privacy team at Hunton & Williams has authored several chapters of the recently published 2017 guide to data protection and privacy for Getting the Deal Through. The publication covers data privacy and data protection laws in 26 jurisdictions across the globe. Wim Nauwelaerts, Privacy team partner in the firm’s Brussels office, served as the contributing editor of the guide and co-authored the Belgium chapter and the EU overview.

On December 6, 2016, Hunton & Williams announced the release of the second edition treatise Privacy and Cybersecurity Law Deskbook (Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory U.S.) by lead author Lisa J. Sotto, head of the firm’s Global Privacy and Cybersecurity practice. The Deskbook has become an essential tool for those involved in managing privacy and cybersecurity law issues. “The treatise provides a roadmap to comply with global data protection laws, navigate and comply with state breach notification requirements, and stay informed on emerging legal trends,” said Sotto. Members of the global practice group also contributed to the Deskbook. 

On November 16, 2016, the UK Investigatory Powers Bill (the “Bill”) was approved by the UK House of Lords. Following ratification of the Bill by Royal Assent, which is expected before the end of 2016, the Bill will officially become law in the UK. The draft of the Bill has sparked controversy, as it will hand significant and wide-ranging powers to state surveillance agencies, and has been strongly criticized by some privacy and human rights advocacy groups. 

A recent update on the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (the “CJEU’s”) website has revealed that Digital Rights Ireland, an Irish privacy advocacy group, has filed an action for annulment against the European Commission’s adequacy decision on the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield (the “Privacy Shield”).

Earlier this month, at a meeting of the Article 31 Committee, the European Commission (“Commission”) unveiled two draft Commission Implementing Decisions that propose amendments to the existing adequacy decisions and decisions on EU Model Clauses.

On July 20, 2016, the French Data Protection Authority (“CNIL”) announced that it issued a formal notice to Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) about Windows 10, ordering Microsoft to comply with the French Data Protection Act within three months.

Background

Following the launch of Microsoft’s new operation system, Windows 10, in July 2015, the CNIL was alerted by the media and political parties that Microsoft could collect excessive personal data via Windows 10. A group composed of several EU data protection authorities was created within the Article 29 Working Party to examine the issue and conduct investigations in their relevant EU Member States. The CNIL initiated its investigation and carried out seven online inspections in April and June 2016. The CNIL also questioned Microsoft on certain points of its privacy statement.

On July 12, 2016, after months of negotiations and criticism, the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield (“Privacy Shield”) was officially adopted by the European Commission and the Department of Commerce. Similar to the Safe Harbor, companies must certify their compliance with the seven principles comprising the Privacy Shield to use the Shield as a valid data transfer mechanism. Hunton & Williams partner Lisa J. Sotto and associate Chris D. Hydak recently published an article in Law360 entitled “The EU-U.S. Privacy Shield: A How-To Guide.” In the article, Lisa and Chris detail the ...

On July 12, 2016, the EU Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality, Věra Jourová, and U.S. Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker announced the formal adoption of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield (the “Privacy Shield”) framework, composed of an Adequacy Decision and accompanying Annexes.

On July 8, 2016, EU representatives on the Article 31 Committee approved the final version of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield (“Privacy Shield”) to permit transatlantic transfers of personal data from the EU to the U.S.

On June 29, 2016, Politico reported that it has obtained updated EU-U.S. Privacy Shield documents following the latest negotiations between U.S. and EU government authorities. Certain aspects of the prior Privacy Shield framework were criticized by the Article 29 Working Party, the European Parliament and the European Data Protection Supervisor.

According to Bloomberg BNA, the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework could be approved by the European Commission in early July. The Privacy Shield is a successor framework to the Safe Harbor, which was invalidated by the European Court of Justice in October 2015. Certain provisions of the Privacy Shield documents, previously released by the European Commission on February 29, 2016, have been subjected to criticism by the Article 29 Working Party, the European Parliament and the European Data Protection Supervisor. According to Bloomberg BNA, the previously released draft adequacy decision, one of the Privacy Shield documents released on February 29, 2016, is expected to be modified.

On May 30, 2016, the European Data Protection Supervisor (“EDPS”) released its Opinion (the “Opinion”) on the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield (the “Privacy Shield”) draft adequacy decision. The Privacy Shield was created to replace the previous Safe Harbor framework invalidated by the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) in the Schrems decision.

On May 26, 2016, the European Parliament approved a resolution calling for the European Commission to reopen negotiations with U.S. authorities on the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield (“Privacy Shield”), and to implement the recommendations of the Article 29 Working Party (“Working Party”) on the draft Privacy Shield adequacy decision.

The Working Party had previously published its recommendations in an Opinion regarding the draft decision issued by the European Commission on adequacy of the protection provided by the Privacy Shield. In the Opinion, the Working Party highlighted a number of key issues concerning access to European personal data by law enforcement and government agencies, and also recommended a number of changes to ensure that European citizens’ data are adequately protected.

On April 13, 2016, the Article 29 Working Party (the “Working Party”) published its Opinion on the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield (the “Privacy Shield”) draft adequacy decision. The Privacy Shield was created to replace the previous Safe Harbor framework invalidated by the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) in the Schrems decision. The Working Party also published a Working Document on the justification for interferences with the fundamental rights to privacy and data protection through surveillance measures when transferring personal data (European Essential Guarantees).

On March 17, 2016, Bojana Bellamy, President of the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”), participated on a panel of experts at a hearing in front of the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (“LIBE Committee”) about the new EU-U.S. Privacy Shield for commercial transfers of EU personal data to the U.S.

On February 29, 2016, the European Commission issued the legal texts that will implement the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield. These texts include a draft adequacy decision from the European Commission, Frequently Asked Questions and a Communication summarizing the steps that have been taken in the last few years to restore trust in transatlantic data flows.

The agreement in support of the new EU-U.S. transatlantic data transfer framework, known as the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield, was reached on February 2, 2016, between the U.S. Department of Commerce and the European Commission. Once adopted, the adequacy decision will establish that the safeguards provided when transferring personal data pursuant to the new EU-U.S. Privacy Shield are equivalent to the EU data protection standards. In addition, the European Commission has stated that the new framework reflects the requirements that were set forth by the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) in the recent Schrems decision.

On February 24, 2016, President Obama signed the Judicial Redress Act (the “Act”) into law. The Act grants non-U.S. citizens certain rights, including a private right of action for alleged privacy violations that occur in the U.S. The Act was signed after Congress approved an amendment that limits the right to sue to only those citizens of countries which (1) permit the “transfer of personal data for commercial purposes” to the U.S., and (2) do not impose personal data transfer policies that “materially impede” U.S. national security interests.

On February 11, 2016, the Article 29 Working Party (the “Working Party”) issued a statement on the 2016 action plan for the implementation of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (the “Regulation”). The action plan outlines the priorities for the Working Party in light of the transition to a new legal framework in Europe and the introduction of the European Data Protection Board (the “EDPB”). Accompanying the statement is a document, Work Program 2016-2018, detailing the tasks of the Working Party’s subgroups during the transitional period between the adoption of the Regulation and its implementation.

On February 10, 2016, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Judicial Redress Act, which had been approved by the Senate the night before and included a recent Senate amendment. The House of Representatives previously passed the original bill in October 2015, but the bill was sent back to the House due to the recent Senate amendment. The Judicial Redress Act grants non-U.S. citizens certain rights, including a private right of action for alleged privacy violations that occur in the U.S. The amendment limits the right to sue to only those citizens of countries that (1) permit the “transfer of personal data for commercial purposes” to the U.S., and (2) do not impose personal data transfer policies that “materially impede” U.S. national security interests. The bill now heads to President Obama to sign.

On February 3, 2016, the Article 29 Working Party (the “Working Party”) issued a statement on the consequences of the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) in the Schrems case invalidating the European Commission’s Safe Harbor Decision.

On February 2, 2016, a new EU-U.S. transatlantic data transfer agreement was reached. Věra Jourová, European Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality, presented the new agreement to the European Commission (the “Commission”) today. According to the Commission’s press release, the new agreement will be called the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield.

On February 1, 2016, Věra Jourová, European Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality, told the European Parliament that an agreement on a new U.S.-EU Safe Harbor agreement has not yet been reached. Jourová indicated that an agreement is close, but additional work is needed to finalize it.

On January 28, 2016, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) held a special roundtable at Hunton & Williams’ Brussels office to examine the “essential equivalence” requirement for protection of data transfers to non-EU countries set by the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (“CJEU's”) Schrems decision. The roundtable brought together leading lawyers, corporate privacy officers, legal experts, regulators and policymakers to discuss the critical issues and impact of the new “essential equivalence” requirement for global data transfers set by the CJEU, and its relevance to the current EU-U.S. negotiations of a new Safe Harbor agreement.

According to Bloomberg BNA, Paul F. Nemitz, Director for Fundamental Rights and Union Citizenship at the Directorate-General Justice of the European Commission, said at a privacy conference that he hoped a new U.S.-EU Safe Harbor agreement would be reached by the evening of Monday, February 1, 2016.

On January 28, 2016, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the Judicial Redress Act (the “Act”), which would give EU citizens the right to sue over certain data privacy issues in the U.S. The Act passed after an amendment was approved which would condition EU citizens’ right to sue on EU Member States (1) allowing companies to transfer personal data to the U.S. for commercial purposes and (2) having personal data transfer policies which do not materially impede the national security interests of the U.S. The vote was initially set to take place on January 21, 2016, but was delayed.

On January 21, 2016, the Israeli Law, Information and Technology Authority (“ILITA”) announced that it would postpone for the time being any review or enforcement actions on data transfers from Israel to the United States that are based on the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor framework.

On January 21, 2016, a Senate Judiciary Committee vote on the Judicial Redress Act, which would give EU citizens the right to sue over certain data privacy issues in the U.S., has reportedly been postponed. As reported by Forbes, the vote may have been delayed due to amendments to the fifth paragraph of the bill, which deals with litigation pursuant to the act. The vote was initially scheduled for today.

On January 7, 2016, the European Data Protection Supervisor (the “EDPS”) published his Priorities for 2016. The EDPS Priorities consists of a cover note listing the strategic priorities of the EDPS in 2016 and a color-coded table listing the European Commission’s proposals that require the EDPS’ attention, per level of priority.

In line with the EDPS Strategy 2015-2019 unveiled in March 2015, the EDPS will set his focus on the following areas of strategic importance:

On December 17, 2015, the German Federal Diet (Bundestag) adopted a draft law introducing class action-like claims that will enable consumer protection associations to sue companies for violations of German data protection law.

On November 19, 2015, the French Data Protection Authority (“CNIL”) published guidance, including a set of frequently asked questions, to assist companies that are transferring personal data to the U.S. pursuant to the Safe Harbor framework.

On November 6, 2015, the European Commission published a communication and a Q&A document addressed to the European Parliament and European Council on the transfer of personal data from the EU to the U.S. under EU Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC (the “Directive”), following the decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union invalidating the European Commission’s Safe Harbor Decision.

On Monday, November 2, 2015, Hunton & Williams LLP’s Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) Senior Policy Advisor, Fred H. Cate, moderated an academic panel on The Data Dilemma: A Transatlantic Discussion on Privacy, Security, Innovation, Trade, and the Protection of Personal Data in the 21st Century. The event was sponsored by Indiana University and took place at the CIEE Global Institute in Berlin, Germany.

On November 3, 2015, John Murphy, Senior Vice President for International Policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, testified about the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (“CJEU’s”) EU-U.S. Safe Harbor Decision at a joint hearing of the House Commerce and Communications and Technology Subcommittees.

On October 27, 2015, David Smith, the UK Deputy Commissioner of the Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”), published a blog post commenting on the ongoing Safe Harbor compliance debate in light of the Schrems v. Facebook decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union. His key message to organizations was, “Don’t panic.”

On Monday, October 26, 2015, EU Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality, Věra Jourová, gave a speech before the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (“LIBE Committee”) on the recent ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) that invalidated the European Commission’s Safe Harbor Decision. The EU Commissioner welcomed the Article 29 Working Party’s statement and, in particular, its support for a new Safe Harbor framework by January 31, 2016. However, the EU Commissioner called for more clarity in the meantime. Accordingly, she announced that the European Commission will soon issue an explanatory document on the consequences of the CJEU’s ruling to provide guidance for businesses on international data transfers.

On October 26, 2015, the German federal and state data protection authorities (the “German DPAs”) published a joint position paper on Safe Harbor and potential alternatives for transfers of data to the U.S. (the “Position Paper”).

On October 27, 2015, Hunton & Williams LLP’s Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) will conduct a joint workshop with Nymity on Bridging Disparate Privacy Regimes through Organizational Accountability. As a side event to the 37th International Privacy Conference in Amsterdam during the week of October 26, the workshop is specifically designed to support and further explore the theme of global “Privacy Bridges” that will be discussed at the International Privacy Conference. Organizational accountability is one of the proposed bridges in the Privacy Bridges Report which the international expert group released earlier this week.

On October 20, 2015, at a hearing in the Irish High Court, Irish Data Protection Commissioner Helen Dixon confirmed that she will investigate allegations made by privacy activist Max Schrems concerning Facebook’s transfer of personal data to the U.S. in reliance on Safe Harbor. Dixon welcomed the ruling of the High Court and noted that she would proceed to “investigate the substance of the complaint with all due diligence."

In an article published by E-Commerce Law Reports, Hunton & Williams partners Bridget Treacy and Lisa Sotto discuss the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (the “CJEU’s”) recent ruling invalidating the European Commission’s Safe Harbor Decision.

On October 16, 2015, the Article 29 Working Party (the “Working Party”) issued a statement on the consequences of the recent ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) invalidating the European Commission’s Safe Harbor Decision.

On October 14, 2015, the data protection authority (“DPA”) in the German state of Schleswig-Holstein (Unabhängiges Landeszentrum für Datenschutz) issued a position paper (the “Position Paper”) on the Safe Harbor Decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”).

On October 6, 2015, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) issued its judgment in the Schrems v. Facebook case, following the Opinion of the Advocate General published on September 23, 2015. In its judgment, the CJEU concluded that:

• The national data protection authorities (“DPAs”) have the power to investigate and suspend international data transfers even where the European Commission (the “Commission”) has adopted a decision finding that a third country affords an adequate level of data protection, such as Decision 2000/520 on the adequacy of the protection provided by the Safe Harbor Privacy Principles (the “Safe Harbor Decision”).
• The Safe Harbor Decision is invalid.

On September 29, 2015, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) announced that it will deliver its judgment in the Schrems vs. Facebook case on October 6, 2015. The CJEU’s judgment will be the final ruling in the case, and comes after the Advocate General’s Opinion regarding Safe Harbor earlier this week.

On September 8, 2015, representatives from the U.S. Government and the European Commission initialed a draft agreement known as the Protection of Personal Information Relating to the Prevention, Investigation, Detection and Prosecution of Criminal Offenses (the “Umbrella Agreement”). The European Commission’s stated aim for the Umbrella Agreement is to put in place “a comprehensive high-level data protection framework for EU-U.S. law enforcement cooperation.” The Umbrella Agreement has been agreed upon amid the ongoing uncertainty over the future of the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor, and was drafted shortly before the release of the September 23 Advocate General’s Opinion in the Schrems v. Facebook litigation. The content of the Umbrella Agreement is in its final form, but its implementation is dependent upon revisions to U.S. law that are currently before Congress.

On September 23, 2015, Advocate General of the European Court of Justice Yves Bot issued his Opinion in the case of Max Schrems, which is currently pending before the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”). In the opinion, the Advocate General provided his views concerning two key issues related to the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework: (1) the powers of national data protection authorities to investigate and suspend international data transfers made under the Safe Harbor Framework and (2) the ongoing validity of the European Commission’s Safe Harbor adequacy decision (Decision 2000/520).

On August 20, 2015, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership at Hunton & Williams (“CIPL”) filed comments to the Indonesian Draft Regulation proposed by the Minister of Communication and Information (RPM) of the Protection of Personal Data in Electronic Systems. The comments were limited to the issue of cross-border data transfers and were submitted in the form of a new CIPL white paper entitled Cross-Border Data Transfer Mechanisms.

On August 17, 2015, the Federal Trade Commission announced proposed settlements with 13 companies over allegations that they misled consumers by falsely claiming to be Safe Harbor certified when their certifications had lapsed or they had never been certified at all.

On June 9, 2015, Max Schrems tweeted that the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) will delay his opinion in Europe v. Facebook, a case challenging the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework. The opinion was previously scheduled to be issued on June 24. No new date has been set.

On April 13, 2015, the Senate of Washington State unanimously passed legislation strengthening the state’s data breach law. The bill (HB 1078) passed the Senate by a 47-0 vote, and as we previously reported, passed the House by a 97-0 vote.

On April 7, 2015, the FTC announced proposed settlements with TES Franchising, LLC, an organization specializing in business coaching, and American International Mailing, Inc., an alternative mail transporting company, related to charges that the companies falsely claimed they were compliant with the U.S.-EU and U.S.-Swiss Safe Harbor Frameworks.

On January 28, 2015, the German conference of data protection commissioners hosted a European Data Protection Day event called Europe: Safer Harbor for Data Protection? – The Future Use of the Different Level of Data Protection between the EU and the US.

On December 8, 2014, the Article 29 Working Party (the “ Working Party”) and the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) organized the European Data Governance Forum, an international conference centered around the theme of privacy, innovation and surveillance in Europe. The conference concluded with the presentation of a Joint Statement adopted by the Working Party during its plenary meeting on November 25, 2014.

On November 17, 2014, the Federal Trade Commission announced that data privacy certifier True Ultimate Standards Everywhere, Inc. (“TRUSTe”) has agreed to settle charges that the company deceived consumers about its recertification program and misrepresented that it was a non-profit entity in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act.

On August 14, 2014, the Center for Digital Democracy (“CDD”) filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission and requested that the Commission investigate 30 companies certified to the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework. In the complaint, CDD maintains that it analyzed 30 data marketing and profiling companies that currently are Safe Harbor-certified and identified the following five overarching themes that CDD claims “underscore the fundamental weakness of the Safe Harbor in its current incarnation,” including that the companies: 

On August 6, 2014, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it had approved a safe harbor program submitted by the Internet Keep Safe Coalition (“iKeepSafe”), stating the program provides the “same or greater protections” for children under the age of 13 as those contained in the new Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (the “COPPA Rule”). An updated version of the COPPA Rule came into effect July 1, 2013.

Hunton & Williams, in collaboration with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, recently issued Business Without Borders: The Importance of Cross-Border Data Transfers to Global Prosperity, a report which highlights the benefits of cross-border data transfers to businesses in the international marketplace. The report underscores the importance of developing data transfer mechanisms that protect privacy and facilitate the free-flow of data, and also explores opportunities for new data transfer regimes.

Hunton & Williams LLP, in coordination with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, recently issued a report entitled Business Without Borders: The Importance of Cross-Border Data Transfers to Global Prosperity, highlighting the benefits of cross-border data transfers to businesses in the international marketplace. The report underscores the importance of developing data transfer mechanisms that protect privacy and facilitate the free-flow of data, and also explores opportunities for new data transfer regimes.

On May 12, 2014, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce released a report highlighting the benefits of cross-border data transfers across all sectors of the economy. Hunton & Williams LLP’s Global Privacy and Cybersecurity team developed the report with the Chamber of Commerce. The report, Business Without Borders: The Importance of Cross-Border Data Transfers to Global Prosperity, presents pragmatic solutions for developing international mechanisms that both protect privacy and facilitate cross-border data flows.

On May 9, 2014, the Federal Trade Commission announced a settlement with clothing manufacturer American Apparel related to charges that the company falsely claimed to comply with the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework. According to the FTC’s complaint, the company violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by deceptively representing, through statements in its privacy policy, that it held a current Safe Harbor certification even though it had allowed the certification to expire.

On April 10, 2014, the Article 29 Working Party (the “Working Party”) issued a letter (the “Letter”) to Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the European Commission and Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship, expressing its views on the European Commission’s ongoing revision of the EU-U.S. Safe Harbor Framework.

On April 3, 2014, Markus Heyder published an opinion piece on global privacy interoperability in the International Association of Privacy Professionals’ Privacy Perspectives blog, entitled Getting Practical and Thinking Ahead: ‘Interoperability’ is Gaining Momentum. Heyder recently left the Federal Trade Commission to join the Centre for Information Policy Leadership at Hunton & Williams as Vice President and Senior Policy Counselor. During his tenure at the FTC, Heyder spent a significant amount of time working on EU-U.S. Safe Harbor and APEC Cross-Border Privacy Rules (“CBPRs”) issues.

On March 12, 2014, the European Parliament formally adopted the compromise text of the proposed EU General Data Protection Regulation (the “Regulation”). The text now adopted by the Parliament is unchanged and had already been approved by the Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs in October of last year. The Parliament voted with 621 votes in favor, 10 against and 22 abstentions for the Regulation.

On February 21, 2014, Peter Hustinx, the European Data Protection Supervisor (“EDPS”), highlighted the need to enforce existing EU data protection law and swiftly adopt EU data protection law reforms as an essential part of rebuilding trust in EU-U.S. data flows.

On February 11, 2014, the Federal Trade Commission announced a proposed settlement with Fantage.com stemming from allegations that the company made statements in its privacy policy that deceptively claimed that Fantage.com was complying with the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework.

On January 21, 2014, the Federal Trade Commission announced settlements with twelve companies that allegedly falsely claimed that they complied with the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework. The settlements stem from allegations that the companies violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by falsely representing that they held current Safe Harbor certifications despite having allowed their certifications to expire. The companies involved represent a variety of industries, ranging from technology and accounting to consumer products and National Football League teams.

On January 21, 2014, Hunton & Williams’ Global Privacy and Cybersecurity practice group hosted the latest webcast in its Hunton Global Privacy Update series. The program highlighted some of the key privacy developments that companies will encounter in 2014, including cybersecurity issues in the U.S., California’s Do Not Track legislation, Safe Harbor, the EU General Data Protection Regulation and the CNIL’s new cookie guidance.

The EU-U.S. Safe Harbor Framework is an important cross-border data transfer mechanism that enables certified organizations to move personal data from the European Union to the United States in compliance with European data protection laws. Recently, however, the Safe Harbor’s future has been thrown into doubt. In an article published on October 30, 2013 by Practical Law, Lisa J. Sotto, partner and head of the Global Privacy and Cybersecurity practice at Hunton & Williams LLP, partner Bridget Treacy and associate Naomi McBride, examine the Safe Harbor Framework and its future ...

On December 3, 2013, Lawrence Strickling, Department of Commerce Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, spoke at the American European Community Association Conference in Brussels on Data Protection: The Challenges and Opportunities for Individuals and Businesses. Strickling discussed the Obama Administration’s commitment to “preserving the dynamism and openness of the Internet, enhancing the free flow of information, and strengthening our Internet economy.” He addressed the issues surrounding U.S. surveillance operations and the European Commission’s recent report on Safe Harbor. Strickling also provided a progress report on improvements to consumer privacy protection since the White House released its Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights in February 2012, including an update on the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (“NTIA’s”) multistakeholder process to develop industry codes of conduct.

On November 27, 2013, the European Commission published an analysis of the EU-U.S. Safe Harbor Framework, as well as other EU-U.S. data transfer agreements. The analysis includes the following documents:

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”).

At its meeting on October 7, 2013, the Council of the European Union voiced support for the “one-stop-shop” mechanism in the draft General Data Protection Regulation (the “Regulation”). The “one-stop-shop” mechanism allocates responsibility for overseeing data processing activities in multiple EU Member States to the data protection authority of the EU Member State where the data controller or processor has its main establishment. At the Council meeting, a majority of the EU Member States indicated that the responsible data protection authority should have exclusive decision powers with regard to enforcement actions, but acknowledged that the “local” DPAs should be involved in the decisionmaking process as well. The Council emphasized the need for further exploration of the European Data Protection Board’s role in ensuring consistent application of EU data protection rules.

On September 30, 2013, Hunton & Williams LLP hosted representatives from the U.S. Department of Commerce for a timely discussion of the Safe Harbor Framework, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (“APEC”) Cross-Border Privacy Rules System (“CBPRs”), and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (“TTIP”) negotiations. The panel also addressed the development of privacy codes of conduct and privacy legislation being developed by the Department of Commerce.

On September 19, 2013, Hunton & Williams’ Global Privacy and Cybersecurity practice group hosted the first webcast in its new Hunton Global Privacy Update series. The program focused on the latest updates regarding the EU General Data Protection Regulation, recent Safe Harbor issues from both European and American perspectives, and cybersecurity developments on both sides of the Atlantic.

Listen to a recording of the September Hunton Global Privacy Update.

Hunton Global Privacy Update sessions are 30-minutes in length and are scheduled to take place every two months.

On September 9, 2013, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (“OECD”) published its revised guidelines governing the protection of privacy and transborder flows of personal data (the “Revised Guidelines”), updating the OECD’s original guidelines from 1980 that became the first set of accepted international privacy principles.

On September 5, 2013, the 16 German state data protection authorities and the Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information (the “DPAs”) passed a resolution concerning recent revelations about the PRISM, Tempora and XKeyscore surveillance programs.

As reported by Bloomberg BNA, the Irish Office of the Data Protection Commissioner (“ODPC”) has stated that it will not investigate complaints relating to the alleged involvement of Facebook Ireland Inc. (“Facebook”) and Apple Distribution International (“Apple”) in the PRISM surveillance program.

On July 24, 2013, the Conference of the German Data Protection Commissioners at both the Federal and State levels issued a press release stating that surveillance activities by foreign intelligence and security agencies threaten international data traffic between Germany and countries outside the EEA.

On July 18-19, 2013, the European Union Justice and Home Affairs Council held an informal meeting in Vilnius, Lithuania, where Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the European Commission and Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship, openly criticized the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework.

The U.S. Department of Commerce’s International Trade Administration (“ITA”) will host a data privacy seminar in Providence, Rhode Island, on Thursday, July 18 from 8:30 – 11:00 a.m. EDT. Seminar participants will hear from Commerce privacy experts who will discuss the Obama Administration’s privacy blueprint and provide updates on significant international developments, including the U.S.-EU and U.S.-Swiss Safe Harbor Frameworks and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (“APEC”) group’s work to implement the Cross-Border Privacy Rules System. These privacy developments could have a significant impact on how companies comply with laws and privacy regulations in the United States, Asia and Europe. A representative from the Safe Harbor-certified company Textron Inc. (“Textron”) also will discuss the company’s experience developing and implementing a privacy compliance program.

Today, July 1, 2013, the Federal Trade Commission’s changes to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (the “Rule”) officially come into effect. On December 19, 2012, the FTC announced that it had published the amended Rule following two years of public comments and multiple reviews of various proposed changes.

On April 12, 2013, the Department of Commerce’s International Trade Administration (“ITA”) issued a guidance document to clarify how the U.S.-European Union Safe Harbor Framework facilitates the transfer of personal data from the European Union to the United States in the cloud computing context. The document underscores that the U.S.- European Union Safe Harbor Framework is an officially recognized means of complying with the adequacy requirement of EU Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC. ITA has received a number of inquiries from Safe Harbor participants indicating that they (and their EU clients, customers and partners) have heard conflicting information and are unsure about how the Safe Harbor Framework may enable data transfers to cloud service providers in the United States.

The U.S. Department of Commerce’s International Trade Administration (“ITA”) will host a data privacy seminar in Waltham, Massachusetts, on Monday, March 25 from 8:30 – 11:30 a.m. EST. Seminar participants will hear from a number of Commerce privacy experts who will discuss the Obama Administration’s privacy blueprint and provide updates on significant international developments involving the U.S.-European Union and U.S.-Swiss Safe Harbor Frameworks and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation group’s work to implement the Cross-Border Privacy Rules System. These privacy developments could have a significant impact on your company and its compliance with laws and privacy regulations in the United States, Asia and Europe.

As reported in BNA’s Privacy & Security Law Report, on December 14, 2012, a federal district court in California ruled that a retail store’s policy of collecting personal information only after providing customers with receipts does not violate the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act (“Song-Beverly”). Under Section 1747.08(a)(2) of Song-Beverly, a retailer that accepts credit cards for the transaction of business may not “[r]equest, or require as a condition to accepting the credit card as payment … the cardholder to provide personal identification information,” which the entity accepting the credit card then “writes, causes to be written, or otherwise records upon the credit card transaction form or otherwise.”

Recently, the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (“LIBE”) released a study titled Fighting cyber crime and protecting privacy in the cloud (the “Study”). The Study originally was prepared in October 2012 at the request of the LIBE Committee by the European Parliament’s Policy Department of Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, with the help of the Centre for European Policy Studies and the Centre d’Etudes sur les Conflits.

On January 10, 2013, the rapporteur to the EU Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (“LIBE”), Jan Philipp Albrecht, presented his draft report (the “Report”) on the proposed amendments to the European Commission’s proposed General Data Protection Regulation (the “Proposed Regulation”) to the LIBE Committee.