Hunton Retail Law Resource

Our retail clients are increasingly deploying cloud services solutions to realize cost savings, gain efficiency and enable scalability across numerous functions. In the past year, we have helped our clients deploy dozens of cloud-based point solutions, Enterprise Resource Planning systems and multi-application platforms. And our clients are not alone. One study forecasts that, in 2020, the worldwide public cloud service revenue will be $411.48 billion. However, while the benefits and popularity of cloud services are clear, cloud solutions are not without risks and challenges.

In March 2017, Syed Ahmad, a partner with Hunton & Williams LLP’s insurance practice, and Eileen Garczynski, partner at insurance brokerage Ames & Gough, co-authored an article, Protecting Company Assets with Cyber Liability Insurance, in Mealey’s Data Privacy Law Report. The article describes why cyber liability insurance is necessary for companies and provides tips on how it can make a big difference. Ahmad and Garczynski discuss critical questions companies seeking to protect company assets through cyber insurance should be asking.

Read the full article.

As the retail industry continues to invest in and leverage new automation technologies to meet organizational efficiency and cost reduction goals, a growing number of retailers are looking to robots, or more specifically, service delivery automation or robotic process automation (“RPA”), as a solution. What is RPA? In the abstract, RPA is the substitution of human workers with automation. In the real world, according to the Institute for Robotic Process Automation, that translates to software robots that capture and interpret data from existing applications to process transactions, manipulate data, trigger responses and communicate with other digital systems. RPA doesn’t mean that robots will soon be sitting in a cubicle in accounting...at least not yet.

Consumer class actions are on the minds of virtually all consumer product manufacturers and service providers. Class actions based on privacy and consumer protection statutes are increasing at a remarkable rate, and can be a challenge to predict, budget and defend, given the difficulty in valuing consumer privacy rights. In an article, “Second Circuit Reminds Consumer Product Companies That Insurance Options Exist for Big Data Blunders and Privacy Faux Pas,” published in FC&S Legal’s Eye on the Experts column, Hunton lawyers Syed S. Ahmad, Neil K. Gilman and Paul T. Moura

On June 3, 2016, Hunton & Williams LLP published a video discussing a 2015 ruling by the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) as it relates to the real estate industry, which fundamentally alters the joint-employer standard. The ruling has already been making waves in the retail industry as the NLRB seeks to apply the new standards to hold certain franchisors liable for the employment violations of its franchisees. The decision comes in an era of increased reliance on third party contractors and staffing agencies to fulfill companies’ staffing requirements and, with recent NLRB action, is being expanded to hold franchisors liable as joint-employers. Under the new standards, an entity can be held liable, as a joint-employer, for the violations of another if the entity retains to itself the ability to effect the terms and conditions of the other’s employees.

As reported in the Hunton Employment and Labor Law Blog, on March 1, 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) settled administrative charges against a popular telecommunications equipment supplier, Qualcomm Incorporated, under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”). According to the SEC, in addition to unlawfully providing meals, gifts and entertainment to foreign officials in an effort to win new business, Qualcomm also offered full-time employment and paid internships to family members and friends of foreign government officials in an effort to curry favor. In some cases, it appears these friends and family members would not have otherwise qualified for employment at Qualcomm and special accommodations were made to hire them. To settle the case, Qualcomm agreed to cease and desist from future violations, paid a $7.5 million civil monetary penalty and agreed to other heightened compliance measures.

As reported on the Privacy & Information Security Law blog, 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.

As reported in the Privacy & Information Security Law blog, the Federal Communications Commission announced that Verizon has agreed to pay $7.4 million to settle an FCC Enforcement Bureau investigation into Verizon’s use of personal information for marketing. The investigation revealed that Verizon had used customers’ personal information for marketing purposes over a multiyear period before notifying the customers of their right to opt out of such marketing.

Read the full post.

As reported in the Privacy & Information Security Law blog, 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.

Read the full post.