Privacy & Information Security Law Blog

On October 30, 2023, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it is sending nearly $100 million in refunds to consumers who were harmed as a result of internet phone service provider Vonage’s alleged use of dark patterns and other obstacles that made it difficult for users to cancel their service.

On June 13, 2023, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed H.B. 18, or the Securing Children Online through Parental Empowerment (“SCOPE”) Act that would impose obligations on digital service providers to protect minors.

On June 13, 2023, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed H.B. 18, or the Securing Children Online through Parental Empowerment (“SCOPE”) Act that would require digital service providers to get parental consent to create an account with minors younger than 18 years of age.  

On November 30, 2022, the UK government confirmed that the Network and Information Systems (“NIS”) Regulations 2018 (“NIS Regulations”) will be strengthened to protect essential and digital services against cyber attacks. The changes bring providers of outsourced IT and managed service providers (“MSPs”) into scope of the NIS Regulations. The announcement comes in response to a public consultation held in January this year.

On November 3, 2022, the Federal Trade Commission announced a proposed order to settle an action against an internet phone service provider, Vonage, that would require Vonage to pay $100 million in refunds to customers harmed by its practices, which the FTC alleged included “dark patterns” that made it difficult for customers to cancel their service. The order also would require Vonage to not use dark patterns and provide a simple and transparent way for customers to cancel their service. 

On August 10, 2022, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) issued a new interpretive rule clarifying when digital marketing providers must comply with federal consumer financial protection law. Under the new rule, Big Tech companies that use behavioral advertising techniques to market financial products will be subject to the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (“CFPA”).

On May 25, 2021, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights handed down its judgement in the case of Big Brother Watch and Others v. the United Kingdom, determining that the former surveillance regime in the UK violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”), i.e., the right to respect for private and family life.

On May 20, 2021, the Belgian Data Protection Authority (“Belgian DPA”), as the lead authority (in collaboration with two co-reviewing authorities), announced that it had approved the EU Data Protection Code of Conduct for Cloud Service Providers (the “EU Cloud CoC”). The EU Cloud CoC is the first transnational EU code of conduct since the entry into force of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”).

On March 15, 2021, China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (“SAMR”) issued Measures for the Supervision and Administration of Online Transactions (the “Measures”) (in Chinese). The Measures implement rules for the E-commerce Law of China and provide specific rules for addressing registration of an online operation entity, supervision of new business models (such as social e-commerce and livestreaming), platform operators’ responsibilities, protection of consumers’ rights and protection of personal information.

On March 26, 2021, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) at Hunton Andrews Kurth submitted its comments on the Irish Data Protection Commissioner’s (“DPC”) draft guidance on safeguarding the personal data of children when providing online services, “Children Front and Centre—Fundamentals for a Child-Oriented Approach to Data Processing” (the “Draft Guidance”).

On March 12, 2021, France’s highest administrative court (the “Conseil d’État”) issued a summary judgment that rejected a request for the suspension of the partnership between the French Ministry of Health and Doctolib, a leading provider of online medical consultations in Europe, for the management of COVID-19 vaccination appointments.

On March 12, 2021, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) published its Guidelines 01/2021 on Virtual Voice Assistants for consultation (the “Guidelines”). Virtual voice assistants (“VVAs”) understand and execute voice commands or coordinate with other IT systems. These tools are available on most smartphones and other devices and collect significant amounts of personal data, such as through user commands. In addition, VVAs require a terminal device equipped with a microphone and transfer data to remote service. These activities raise compliance issues under both the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) and the e-Privacy Directive.

On February 16, 2021, the New York Department of Financial Services (“NYDFS”) issued a Cyber Fraud Alert (the “Alert”) to regulated entities in light of a growing campaign to steal Nonpublic Information (“NPI”), as defined under New York law, from public-facing websites that provide instant quotes for products like auto insurance (“Instant Quote Websites”).

On February 10, 2021, the European Data Protection Supervisor (“EDPS”) published two opinions on the European Commission’s proposals for a Digital Services Act (“DSA”) and a Digital Markets Act (“DMA”). The proposed DSA and DMA are part of a set of measures announced in the 2020 European Strategy for Data and have two main goals: (1) creating a safer digital space in which the fundamental rights of all users of digital services are protected, and (2) establishing a level playing field to foster innovation, growth and competitiveness in the European Single Market and globally.

On May 29, 2020, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, “BGH”), Germany’s highest court for civil and criminal matters, issued its ruling on case Planet49 (I ZR 7/16) regarding consent requirements for the use of cookies and telemarketing activities. In October 2017, the BGH suspended its proceedings and submitted questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) for a preliminary ruling regarding the effectiveness of obtaining consent for the use of cookies through a pre-ticked checkbox. As we have previously reported, the CJEU answered these questions in its judgement in Planet49 GmbH v. Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. (C-673/17), which was issued on October 1, 2019.

On February 21, 2020, the Presidency of the Council of the European Union (“EU Council Presidency”) published a revised part of the proposed Regulation concerning the Respect for Private Life and the Protection of Personal Data in Electronic Communications and Repealing Directive 2002/58/EC (Regulation on Privacy and Electronic Communications), better known as “the Draft ePrivacy Regulation.”

On February 1, 2020, the Italian Data Protection Authority (Garante per la protezione dei dati personali, the “Garante”) announced that it had levied a fine of €27,802,946 on TIM S.p.A. (“TIM”), a telecommunications company, for several unlawful marketing data processing practices. Between 2017 and 2019, the Garante received numerous complaints from individuals (including from individuals who were not existing customers of TIM) claiming that they had received unwanted marketing calls, without having provided their consent or despite having registered on an opt-out list. The Garante indicated that the violations impacted several million individuals.

On October 1, 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) issued its decision in an important case involving consent for the use of cookies by a German business called Planet49. Importantly, the Court held that (1) consent for cookies cannot be lawfully established through the use of pre-ticked boxes, and (2) any consent obtained regarding cookies cannot be sufficiently informed in compliance with applicable law if the user cannot reasonably comprehend how the cookies employed on a given website will function.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) published a white paper entitled “Promoting Public Safety, Privacy, and the Rule of Law Around the World: The Purpose and Impact of the CLOUD Act” (“White Paper”). The Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act (the “CLOUD Act”) was enacted in March 2018 by the U.S. government to aid foreign and U.S. investigators in obtaining access to electronic information related to serious crimes and held by service providers. The CLOUD Act authorizes the U.S. to enter into bilateral agreements with foreign countries that abide by a baseline standard for rule-of-law, privacy and civil liberties protections to streamline processes for obtaining electronic evidence. The CLOUD Act also codifies the principle that a company subject to U.S. jurisdiction “can be required to produce data the company controls, regardless of where it is stored at any point in time.”

Recently, Iowa and Nebraska enacted information security laws applicable to personal information. Iowa’s law applies to operators of online services directed at and used by students in kindergarten through grade 12, whereas Nebraska’s law applies to all commercial entities doing business in Nebraska who own or license Nebraska residents’ personal information.

On July 27, 2017, the French Data Protection Authority (“CNIL”) imposed a fine of €40,000 on a French affiliate of the rental car company, The Hertz Corporation, for failure to ensure the security of website users’ personal data.

Earlier this month, the New York State Department of Financial Services (“NYDFS”) recently published FAQs and key dates for its cybersecurity regulation (the “NYDFS Regulation”) for financial institutions that became effective on March 1, 2017.

On April 6, 2017, New Mexico became the 48th state to enact a data breach notification law, leaving Alabama and South Dakota as the two remaining states without such requirements. The Data Breach Notification Act (H.B. 15) goes into effect on June 16, 2017.

On March 9, 2017, AllClear ID hosted a webinar with Hunton & Williams partner and chair of the Global Privacy and Cybersecurity practice Lisa J. Sotto on the new cybersecurity regulations from the New York State Department of Financial Services (“NYDFS”). The NYDFS regulations impose significant cybersecurity requirements on impacted businesses that will dictate how they plan for, respond to and recover from data security events.

On March 3, 2017, the FTC announced the results of a study about online businesses’ use of proper email authentication technology to prevent phishing attacks. The study’s sample included 569 large online businesses with strong ties to the U.S. The FTC found that 86 percent of those businesses use Sender Policy Framework—an email authentication technology that enables Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) to determine whether an email is from a legitimate source (e.g., whether an email that claims to be from a business’s domain in fact came from the business).

On March 1, 2017, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”), under the new leadership of Chairman Ajit Pai, voted 2-1 to issue a temporary stay of the data security obligations of the FCC’s Broadband Consumer Privacy Rules (the “Rules”), which were to go into effect March 2, 2017. The temporary stay will remain in place until the FCC is able to act on pending petitions for reconsideration.

On February 4, 2017, the Cyberspace Administration of China published a draft of its proposed Measures for the Security Review of Network Products and Services (the “Draft”). Under the Cybersecurity Law of China, if an operator of key information infrastructure purchases network products and services that may affect national security, a security review is required. The Draft provides further hints of how these security reviews may actually be carried out, and is open for comment until March 4, 2017.

On February 6, 2017, the House of Representatives suspended its rules and passed by voice vote H.R 387, the Email Privacy Act. As we previously reported, the Email Privacy Act amends the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (“ECPA”) of 1986. In particular, the legislation would require government entities to obtain a warrant, based on probable cause, before accessing the content of any emails or electronic communications stored with third-party service providers, regardless of how long the communications have been held in electronic storage by such providers.

On January 19, 2017, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (“NERC”) released a draft Reliability Standard CIP-013-1 – Cyber Security – Supply Chain Risk Management (the “Proposed Standard”). The Proposed Standard addresses directives of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) in Order No. 829 to develop a new or modified reliability standard to address “supply chain risk management for industrial control system hardware, software, and computing and networking services associated with bulk electric system operations.” 

On January 9, 2017, Representatives Kevin Yoder (R-KS) and Jared Polis (D-CO) reintroduced the Email Privacy Act, which would amend the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (“ECPA”) of 1986. In particular, the legislation would require government entities to obtain a warrant, based on probable cause, before accessing the content of any emails or electronic communications stored with third-party service providers, regardless of how long the communications have been held in electronic storage by such providers. Although ECPA currently requires law enforcement agencies to obtain a warrant to search the contents of electronic communications held by service providers that are less than 180 days old, communications that are more than 180 days old can be obtained with a subpoena.

On December 28, 2016, the New York State Department of Financial Services (“DFS”) announced an updated version of its cybersecurity regulation for financial institutions (the “Updated Regulation”). The Updated Regulation will become effective on March 1, 2017.

Recently, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology of the People’s Republic of China published a draft of the new Notice on Regulating Business Behaviors in the Cloud Service Market (Draft for Public Comments) (the “Draft”) for public comment. The Draft is open for comment until December 24, 2016.

On December 21, 2016, a judgment by the Court of Justice for the European Union (the “CJEU”) that clarifies EU surveillance laws has called into question the legality of the UK’s Investigatory Powers Act 2016. The decision in Case C-698/15 could have significant implications on the UK’s chances of securing “adequacy” status for its data protection regime post-Brexit.

On December 12, 2016, Politico reported that the European Commission intends to replace the e-Privacy Directive with a Regulation. The planned shift from a Directive to a Regulation has important legal consequences under EU law, as it means that instead of creating a floor upon which EU Member States may base the creation of their own versions of the law, a Regulation will create a harmonized set of requirements at the EU level that are directly applicable in the Member States.

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. 

This post has been updated. 

On October 27, 2016, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) announced the adoption of rules that require broadband Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) to take steps to protect consumer privacy (the “Rules”). According to the FCC’s press release, the Rules are intended to “ensure broadband customers have meaningful choice, greater transparency and strong security protections for their personal information collected by ISPs.” 

Recently, the Cyberspace Administration of China published for public comment a draft of the Regulations on the Online Protection of Minors (“Draft Regulations”). The Draft Regulations are open for comment until October 31, 2016.

Earlier this month, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights issued guidance (the “Guidance”) for HIPAA-covered entities that use cloud computing services involving electronic protected health information (“ePHI”).

On October 27, 2016, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) will vote on whether to finalize proposed rules (the "Proposed Rules”) concerning new privacy restrictions for Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”). The Proposed Rules, which revise previous versions introduced earlier this year, would require customers’ explicit (or “opt-in”) consent before an ISP can use or share a customer’s personal data, including web browsing and app usage history, geolocation data, children’s information, health information, financial information, email and other message contents and Social Security numbers.

On September 27, 2016, Cloud Infrastructure Services Providers in Europe (“CISPE”) published its Data Protection Code of Conduct (the “Code”). CISPE, a relatively new coalition of more than 20 cloud infrastructure providers with operations in Europe, has focused the Code on transparency and compliance with EU data protection laws.

On August 30, 2016, the First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights) (the “Tribunal”) dismissed an appeal from UK telecoms company TalkTalk Telecom Group PLC (“TalkTalk”) regarding a monetary penalty notice issued to it on February 17, 2016, by the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”). The ICO had issued the monetary penalty notice to TalkTalk, for the amount of £1,000, for an alleged failure to report an October 2015 data breach to the ICO within the legally required time period.

On July 25, 2016, the Article 29 Working Party (the “Working Party”) and the European Data Protection Supervisor (“EDPS”) released their respective Opinions regarding the review of Directive 2002/58/EC on privacy and electronic communications (the “ePrivacy Directive"). Both the Working Party and the EDPS stressed that new rules should complement the protections available under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”).

On July 6, 2016, the European Parliament adopted the Directive on Security of Network and Information Systems (the “NIS Directive”), which will come into force in August 2016. EU Member States will have 21 months to transpose the NIS Directive into their national laws. The NIS Directive is part of the European Commission’s cybersecurity strategy for the European Union, and is designed to increase cooperation between EU Member States on cybersecurity issues.

On June 28, 2016, the State Internet Information Office of the People’s Republic of China published the Administrative Provisions on Information Services for Mobile Internet Applications (the “App Administrative Provisions”). This is the first regulation that expressly regulates mobile apps in the People’s Republic of China. Before the App Administrative Provisions were published, the P.R.C. Ministry of Industry and Information Technology had published a draft of the Interim Provisions on the Preinstallation and Management of the Distribution of Mobile Intelligent Terminal Applications (“Interim Provisions”). The comment period for the Interim Provisions draft expired six months ago and i’s still uncertain when it will become effective. According to unofficial statistics, domestic app stores have more than 4 million apps in inventory presently, and the number is growing. Those apps will now become highly regulated products under the App Administrative Provisions.

On June 25, 2016, the Cyberspace Administration of China published its new Administrative Provisions on Internet Information Search Services (the “Provisions”). The Provisions will come into effect on August 1, 2016.

On May 17, 2016, the European Council adopted its position at first reading of the Network and Information Security Directive (the “NIS Directive”). The NIS Directive was proposed by the European Commission on February 7, 2013, as part of its cybersecurity strategy for the European Union, and is designed to increase cooperation between EU Member States on cybersecurity issues.

The NIS Directive will impose security obligations on “operators of essential services” in critical sectors and “digital service providers.” These operators will be required to take measures to manage cyber risks and report major security incidents.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) recently announced resolution agreements with Raleigh Orthopaedic Clinic, P.A., (“Raleigh Orthopaedic”) and New York-Presbyterian Hospital (“NYP”) for HIPAA Privacy Rule violations.

In its third simulated test of the security of the power grid, the North American Reliability Corporation (“NERC”) reported general progress across the electric utility industry in defending against physical and cyber threats, while also identifying several areas for further improvement.

The NERC exercise, dubbed GridEx III, took place over two days in November 2015 and involved more than 4,400 individuals from 364 industry, law enforcement and government organizations across the United States, Canada and Mexico. The main objectives of the exercise were to test crisis response and recovery, improve communication, identify problem areas and engage senior-level leadership in the organizations involved.

On April 11, 2016, the European Commission launched a public consultation to evaluate and review Directive 2002/58/EC on the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector, also known as the e-Privacy Directive.

Technological advances and the advent of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) have prompted the European Commission to review the e-Privacy Directive, which was last updated in 2009.

On March 18, 2016, a report was released by a joint team from the North American Electric Reliability Corporation’s Electricity Information Sharing Analysis Center and SANS Industrial Control Systems. According to the report, the cyber attack against a Ukrainian electric utility in December 2015 that caused 225,000 customers to lose power for several hours was based on months of undetected reconnaissance that gave the attackers a sophisticated understanding of the utility’s supervisory control and data acquisition networks.

On March 22, 2016, the Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China published drafts of its proposed (1) Specifications for Business Services in Mobile E-commerce (“Mobile E-commerce Specifications”) and (2) Specifications for Business Services in Cross-border E-commerce (“Cross-border E-commerce Specifications”). A public comment period on these drafts is now open. Comments will be accepted until May 31, 2016.

On March 2, 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) reached a settlement with Dwolla, Inc. (“Dwolla”), an online payment system company, to resolve claims that the company made false representations regarding its data security practices in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act. Among other things, the consent order imposes a $100,000 fine on Dwolla. This marks the first data security-related fine imposed by the CFPB.

On December 27, 2015, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China published the P.R.C. Anti-Terrorism Law. The law was enacted in response to a perceived growing threat from extremists and terrorists, particularly in regions in Western China, and came into effect on January 1, 2016.

On December 30, 2015, the Department of Defense (“DoD”) issued a second interim rule (80 F. R. 81472) that extends the deadline by which federal contractors must implement the new cybersecurity requirements previously issued by the agency.  This extension pushes back the compliance deadline to December 31, 2017.

On December 15, 2015, the California Attorney General announced an approximately $25 million settlement with Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (“Comcast”) stemming from allegations that Comcast disposed of electronic equipment (1) without properly deleting customer information from the equipment and (2) in landfills that are not authorized to accept electronic equipment. The settlement must be approved by a California judge before it is finalized.

On November 5, 2015, the Enforcement Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) entered into a Consent Decree with cable operator Cox Communications to settle allegations that the company failed to properly protect customer information when the company’s electronic data systems were breached in August 2014 by a hacker. The FCC alleged that Cox failed to properly protect the confidentiality of its customers’ proprietary network information (“CPNI”) and personally identifiable information, and failed to promptly notify law enforcement authorities of security breaches involving CPNI in violation of the Communications Act of 1934 and FCC’s rules.

On November 13, 2015, the French Data Protection Authority (“CNIL”) announced its decision in a case against Optical Center, imposing a fine of €50,000 on the company for violations related to the security and confidentiality of its customers’ personal data.

On November 2, 2015, Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) Chairman, Tom Wheeler, indicated in an interview that the agency would take on the issue of broadband privacy within the next several months, most likely in the form of a notice of proposed rulemaking. Chairman Wheeler said that the FCC’s inquiry would look at the privacy practices of “those who provide the networks” (i.e., Internet service providers (“ISPs”)) and how such businesses are protecting their customers’ information.

On September 22, 2015, the Article 29 Working Party (the “Working Party”) adopted an Opinion on the Cloud Select Industry Group (“C-SIG”) Code of Conduct on data protection for Cloud Service Providers (the “Code”). In the Opinion, the Working Party analyzes the Code that was drafted by the Cloud Select Industry Group (the “C-SIG”).

On August 26, 2015, the U.S. Department of Defense (“DoD”) published an interim rule entitled Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Network Penetration Reporting and Contracting for Cloud Services (DFARS Case 2013–D018) (the “Interim Rule”), that streamlines the obligations for contractors to report network penetrations and establishes DoD requirements for contracting with cloud computing service providers. The Interim Rule amends the information security contracting framework set forth in the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (“DFARS”) to implement section 941 of the National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”) for Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2013 and section 1632 of the NDAA for FY 2015, both of which impose cyber incident reporting obligations on contractors.

On January 1, 2015, Finland’s Information Security Code (2014/ 917, the “Code”) became effective. The Code introduces substantial revisions to Finland’s existing electronic communications legislation and consolidates several earlier laws into a single, unified text. Although many of these earlier laws remain unchanged, the Code includes extensive amendments in a number of areas.

On December 10, 2014, the New York State Department of Financial Services (the “Department”) announced that it issued an industry guidance letter to all Department-regulated banking institutions that formally introduces the Department’s new cybersecurity preparedness assessment process. The letter announces the Department’s plans to expand its information technology examination procedures to increase focus on cybersecurity, which will become a regular, ongoing part of the Department’s bank examination process.

In October 2014, the People’s Republic of China Supreme People’s Court issued interpretations regarding the infringement of privacy and personal information on the Internet. The interpretations are entitled Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues concerning the Application of the Rules regarding Cases of the Infringement of Personal Rights over Information Networks (the “Provisions”) and became effective on October 10, 2014.

On September 30, 2014, California Governor Jerry Brown announced the recent signings of several bills that provide increased privacy protections to California residents. The newly-signed bills are aimed at protecting student privacy, increasing consumer protection in the wake of a data breach, and expanding the scope of California’s invasion of privacy and revenge porn laws. Unless otherwise noted, the laws will take effect on January 1, 2015.

On June 26, 2014, the European Commission issued guidelines on the standardization of service level agreements for cloud services providers (the “Guidelines”). In the context of the European Cloud Computing Strategy, launched by the European Commission in September 2012, the Guidelines focus on security and data protection in the cloud. They are based on the understanding that standardization will improve the clarity of service level agreements (“SLAs”) for cloud services in the European Union.

On May 19, 2014, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) published its Annual Activity Report for 2013 (the “Report”) highlighting its main accomplishments in 2013 and outlining some of its priorities for the upcoming year.

On May 12, 2014, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it has approved final consent orders with two companies that marketed genetically customized nutrition supplements. In addition to charges that the companies’ claims regarding the effectiveness of their products were not sufficiently substantiated, the settlements also allege that the companies misrepresented their privacy and security practices. The two companies, Gene Link, Inc. (“Gene Link”) and foru™ International Corp. (“foru” – a former subsidiary of Gene Link), represented in their privacy policy that they had “taken every precaution to create a process that allows individuals to maintain the highest level of privacy” and that the companies’ third party service providers are “contractually obligated to maintain the confidentiality and security of the Personal Customer Information and are restricted from using such information in any way not expressly authorized” by the companies.

On March 25, 2014, the Article 29 Working Party adopted Opinion 03/2014 (the “Opinion”) providing guidance on whether individuals should be notified in case of a data breach.

The Opinion goes beyond considering the notification obligations contained in the e-Privacy Directive 2002/58/EC, which requires telecommunications service providers to notify the competent national authority of all data breaches. The Directive also requires notification (without undue delay) to the affected individuals when the data breach is likely to adversely affect the personal data or privacy of individuals, unless the service provider has satisfactorily demonstrated that it has implemented appropriate technological safeguards that render the relevant data unintelligible to unauthorized parties and that these measures were applied to the data concerned by the security breach.

On December 12, 2013, Advocate-General Cruz Villalón of the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) issued his Opinion on the compatibility of the EU Data Retention Directive 2006/24/EC (the “Data Retention Directive”) with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the “EU Charter”).

On October 12, 2013, California Governor Jerry Brown vetoed an electronic communications privacy bill. The bill, SB 467, would have compelled law enforcement to obtain a search warrant before seeking to access any email or other electronic communication maintained by service providers. The bill went beyond the scope of the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which obligates law enforcement to obtain search warrants only for electronic communications that are unopened or stored by service providers for fewer than 180 days. The California bill was very similar to a bill signed into law in Texas earlier in 2013 that required law enforcement agencies to obtain warrants before accessing customer electronic data held by email service providers.

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 June 14, 2013, Texas Governor Rick Perry signed a bill requiring law enforcement agencies to obtain warrants before accessing customer electronic data held by email service providers. Introduced on March 4, 2013, the bill passed unanimously in both the Texas House and Senate on May 7 and May 22, respectively. The law takes effect immediately.

On June 3, 2013, the French Data Protection Authority (“CNIL”) published an article outlining the importance of binding corporate rules (“BCRs”) for data processors, and describing how to use them.

In April 2013, the People’s Republic of China’s General Office of the National People’s Congress published a draft amendment to the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests (the “ Proposed Amendment”) and solicited public comments on the Proposed Amendment until May 31, 2013. The Proposed Amendment includes provisions that affect the collection and use of consumer personal information.

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.

In April 2013, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology of the People’s Republic of China (the “MIIT”) issued a new rule entitled the “Notice on Strengthening the Administration of Networked Smart Mobile Devices” (the “Notice”). This Notice, which will become effective on November 1, 2013, was issued in draft form in June 2012 along with a request for public comment.

On March 14, 2013, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted a motion to prohibit the government from issuing National Security Letters (“NSLs”) to electronic communication service providers (“ECSPs”) requesting “subscriber information” and enforcing nondisclosure clauses contained in such letters. The nondisclosure clauses are intended to prevent ECSPs from disclosing that they received an NSL. The court also held that the sections of two federal statutes relating to the nondisclosure provisions of NSLs, 18 U.S.C. §2709(c) and 18 U.S.C. §3511(b), (collectively, the “NSL Nondisclosure Statutes”) were unconstitutional because they violated the First Amendment as well as separation of powers principles. In light of the significant constitutional and national security implications, the court stayed enforcement of its judgment pending appeal to the Ninth Circuit, or for 90 days if no appeal is filed.

On December 28, 2012, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (“NPC”) of the People’s Republic of China passed the Resolution of the Standing Committee of the NPC Relating to Strengthening the Protection of Information on the Internet (the “Regulations”). The Regulations contain significant and far-reaching requirements applicable to the collection and processing of electronic personal information via the Internet.

On November 20, 2012, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) published guidance on IT asset disposal for organizations (the “Guidance”) to explain “to data controllers what they need to consider when disposing of electronic equipment that may contain personal data.”

On September 27, 2012, the European Commission presented its new strategy on cloud computing, entitled “Unleashing the Potential of Cloud Computing in Europe.” The Commission’s strategy is outlined on a new webpage that includes a communication document and a more detailed staff working paper.

On September 27, 2012, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) published guidance on complying with the requirements of the UK Data Protection Act 1998 (“DPA”) in the context of cloud computing services (the “Guidance”). In its Guidance, the ICO reminds data controllers that transferring personal data to the cloud does not absolve them of their compliance obligations under the DPA.

On September 12, 2012, Congressman Edward Markey (D-MA) released a bill that would require companies to tell customers about monitoring software installed on their mobile devices and obtain customers’ express consent before engaging in monitoring. These requirements would apply to mobile phone makers, network providers and application developers.

On August 10, 2012, a federal district court in California denied Hulu’s motion to dismiss the remaining claim in a putative class action suit alleging that the online streaming video provider transmitted users’ personal information to third parties in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA”). The VPPA prohibits a “video tape service provider” from transmitting personally identifiable information of “consumers,” except in certain, limited circumstances. According to the complaint, Hulu allegedly allowed KISSmetrics, a data analytics company, to place tracking codes on the plaintiffs’ computers that re-spawned previously-deleted cookies, and shared Hulu users’ video viewing choices and “personally identifiable information” with third parties, including online ad networks, metrics companies and social media networks.

Earlier this year, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) published a Bulletin signaling its intent to regulate and exercise enforcement authority over service providers to financial institutions. Pursuant to Title X of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and its implementing regulation, Regulation P, the CFPB has authority over certain large banks, credit unions and other consumer financial services companies. The Bulletin notes that the CFPB’s goal is to ensure compliance with “[f]ederal consumer financial law,” which includes the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and its implementing regulations, the Privacy Rule and the Safeguards Rule.

• Best practices for privacy disclosures on mobile platforms and how they can be short, effective and accessible to consumers;
• how to put disclosures in proximity to offers on mobile platforms;
• social media disclosures; and
• the placement of material information on webpages.

On October 24, 2011, Israel’s Data Protection Authority, the Israeli Law, Information and Technology Authority in the Israeli Ministry of Justice (“ILITA”), announced significant developments in an information theft case affecting more than nine million Israeli citizens. In 2006, a contract worker hired by Israel’s Ministry of Welfare and Social Services downloaded a copy of Israel’s population registry to his home computer. The registry later fell into the hands of a software developer and a hacker before being disseminated on the Internet along with a program that allowed users to run searches and queries on the data. The stolen personal information included full names, identification numbers, addresses, dates of birth, dates of immigration to Israel, family status, names of siblings and other information.

On September 6, 2011, a bankruptcy court approved an agreement between bankrupt bookseller Borders Group, Inc. (“Borders”) and Next Jump, Inc., (“Next Jump”) regarding Next Jump’s alleged trademark infringement and unauthorized use of Borders’ customer information.  Next Jump stipulated that it will not communicate with persons on Borders’ customer list, and that it would remove the Borders name and marks from websites that Next Jump owns or operates.

The German Data Protection Authorities of Berlin and North Rhine-Westphalia have issued a paper containing Frequently Asked Questions about the German statutory data breach notification requirement that went into effect on September 1, 2009.  The paper provides detailed information on key questions concerning the procedure for notification as required by Section 42a of the German Federal Data Protection Act.

On September 28, 2010, the German Federal Office for Information Security, (the Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik or “BSI”) released a draft framework paper on information security issues related to cloud computing.  The draft paper defines minimum security requirements for cloud solution service providers, and provides a basis for discussions between service providers and users.  The paper addresses the following issues:

• The definition of cloud computing
• Service provider security management requirements
• ID and rights management
• Monitoring and security incident response
• Emergency management
• Security checks and verification
• Requirements for personnel
• Transparency
• Organizational requirements
• User control
• Portability of data and applications
• Interoperability
• Data protection and compliance
• Cloud certification
• Additional requirements for public cloud service providers that support cloud solutions for the Federal Administration

After several delays and revisions, the Massachusetts information security regulations, entitled “Standards for the Protection of Personal Information of Residents of the Commonwealth,” will take effect on March 1, 2010. The regulations apply to entities that own or license personal information about Massachusetts residents. “Personal information” is defined as a combination of a resident’s first and last name and Social Security number, driver’s license or state ID number, or financial account number or payment card number that permits access to the individual’s financial account.