On August 5, 2020, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) announced that it has levied a fine of €250,000 on French online shoe retailer, Spartoo, for various infringements of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). This is the first penalty under the GDPR enforced by the CNIL as the lead supervisory authority (“Lead SA”) in cooperation with other EU supervisory authorities (“SAs”).
Background
Spartoo is a French-based company specializing in online shoe sales. As part of its activities, the company operates a website that is accessible in 13 EU countries. On May 31, 2018 (a few days after the application of the GDPR), the CNIL carried out an on-the-spot inspection of Spartoo to determine whether the company was complying with all the provisions of the GDPR. The CNIL’s investigation focused on the processing of personal data of Spartoo’s existing and prospective customers, and on the recording of telephone conversations between customers and Spartoo’s customer service. The investigation revealed several infringements of the GDPR, including (1) absence of a defined data retention period(s); (2) no regular erasure of existing and prospective customer personal data; and (3) improper acceptance of weak passwords for online customer accounts.
In accordance with Article 56 of the GDPR, the CNIL informed all other EU SAs that it was competent to act as Lead SA for the cross-border processing of existing and prospective customer personal data carried out by Spartoo. On February 16, 2020, the CNIL shared a draft of its sanction decision with the other SAs concerned. On March 13 and 17, 2020, the Italian and Portuguese SAs, as well as the German SA of Lower Saxony, expressed relevant and reasoned objections to the CNIL’s draft decision, and the CNIL revised its draft decision accordingly.
CNIL Decision
In its final decision, the CNIL held that Spartoo did not comply with the basic GDPR principles or requirements, in particular with the (1) data minimization principle; (2) storage limitation principle; (3) notice requirement; and (4) obligation to implement appropriate technical and organizational security measures.
Data Minimization: The CNIL found Spartoo’s full and permanent recording of telephone calls received by its customer service for employee training purposes to be excessive. The CNIL found that such recording was not justified, especially as the person in charge of employee training only listened to one call recording per week and per employee. The CNIL further found that, when orders were made by phone, the recording and storage of customers’ payment card details was not necessary for the purposes of the call recordings (i.e., employee training). Finally, the CNIL found that the collection of the customer’s health card in Italy to combat fraud was also excessive.
Storage Limitation: The CNIL’s investigation revealed that Spartoo kept a particularly large number of customer personal data, while some customers had not logged into their accounts for more than 10 years. The company also kept the personal data of more than 25 million prospective customers who did not have any activity for more than three years. During the investigation, Spartoo announced that they would now keep customer and prospect personal data for a period of five years after the date of last contact with the company (e.g., such as opening a newsletter). However, the CNIL found this retention period disproportionate in relation to prospect data, and reminded Spartoo that a prospect’s mere opening of a marketing email does not justify the retention of their data since the email could have been opened unintentionally. In addition, the CNIL found that the storage of customers’ email addresses and passwords after the five years retention period did not comply with the GDPR’s storage limitation principle.
Notice Requirement/Transparency: The CNIL found that the information included in the company’s customer privacy policy did not comply with the GDPR notice requirement. In particular, the privacy policy was not granular enough with respect to the legal basis for data processing. The policy referred to consent as the legal basis for all data processing activities, where in fact, some of these processing activities were based upon other legal bases. The CNIL further found that employees did not receive proper notice that their telephone conversations with customers were being recorded.
Data Security: The CNIL’s investigation revealed that Spartoo was allowing weak passwords for online customer accounts that were only six characters in length and contained one character type. The CNIL found that the company should have required users to use more robust passwords.
Given the number and seriousness of infringements, the CNIL decided to impose a fine of €250,000 on Spartoo and issued an injunction against the company to ensure its data processing activities came into compliance with the GDPR. The CNIL also ordered a periodic penalty payment of €250 for each day of delay in complying with the injunction, beginning three months following notification of the CNIL’s decision.
Search
Recent Posts
Categories
- Behavioral Advertising
- Centre for Information Policy Leadership
- Children’s Privacy
- Cyber Insurance
- Cybersecurity
- Enforcement
- European Union
- Events
- FCRA
- Financial Privacy
- General
- Health Privacy
- Identity Theft
- Information Security
- International
- Marketing
- Multimedia Resources
- Online Privacy
- Security Breach
- U.S. Federal Law
- U.S. State Law
- Workplace Privacy
Tags
- Aaron Simpson
- Accountability
- Adequacy
- Advertisement
- Advertising
- American Privacy Rights Act
- Anna Pateraki
- Anonymization
- Anti-terrorism
- APEC
- Apple Inc.
- Argentina
- Arkansas
- Article 29 Working Party
- Artificial Intelligence
- Australia
- Austria
- Automated Decisionmaking
- Baltimore
- Bankruptcy
- Belgium
- Biden Administration
- Big Data
- Binding Corporate Rules
- Biometric Data
- Blockchain
- Bojana Bellamy
- Brazil
- Brexit
- British Columbia
- Brittany Bacon
- Brussels
- Business Associate Agreement
- BYOD
- California
- CAN-SPAM
- Canada
- Cayman Islands
- CCPA
- CCTV
- Chile
- China
- Chinese Taipei
- Christopher Graham
- CIPA
- Class Action
- Clinical Trial
- Cloud
- Cloud Computing
- CNIL
- Colombia
- Colorado
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission
- Compliance
- Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
- Congress
- Connecticut
- Consent
- Consent Order
- Consumer Protection
- Cookies
- COPPA
- Coronavirus/COVID-19
- Council of Europe
- Council of the European Union
- Court of Justice of the European Union
- CPPA
- CPRA
- Credit Monitoring
- Credit Report
- Criminal Law
- Critical Infrastructure
- Croatia
- Cross-Border Data Flow
- Cyber Attack
- Cybersecurity
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
- Data Brokers
- Data Controller
- Data Localization
- Data Privacy Framework
- Data Processor
- Data Protection Act
- Data Protection Authority
- Data Protection Impact Assessment
- Data Transfer
- David Dumont
- David Vladeck
- Delaware
- Denmark
- Department of Commerce
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Department of Homeland Security
- Department of Justice
- Department of the Treasury
- Disclosure
- District of Columbia
- Do Not Call
- Do Not Track
- Dobbs
- Dodd-Frank Act
- DPIA
- E-Privacy
- E-Privacy Directive
- Ecuador
- Ed Tech
- Edith Ramirez
- Electronic Communications Privacy Act
- Electronic Privacy Information Center
- Elizabeth Denham
- Employee Monitoring
- Encryption
- ENISA
- EU Data Protection Directive
- EU Member States
- European Commission
- European Data Protection Board
- European Data Protection Supervisor
- European Parliament
- Facial Recognition
- Facial Recognition Technology
- FACTA
- Fair Information Practice Principles
- Federal Aviation Administration
- Federal Bureau of Investigation
- Federal Communications Commission
- Federal Data Protection Act
- Federal Trade Commission
- FERC
- FinTech
- Florida
- Food and Drug Administration
- Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
- France
- Franchise
- Fred Cate
- Freedom of Information Act
- Freedom of Speech
- Fundamental Rights
- GDPR
- Geofencing
- Geolocation
- Georgia
- Germany
- Global Privacy Assembly
- Global Privacy Enforcement Network
- Gramm Leach Bliley Act
- Hacker
- Hawaii
- Health Data
- Health Information
- HIPAA
- HIPPA
- HITECH Act
- Hong Kong
- House of Representatives
- Hungary
- Illinois
- India
- Indiana
- Indonesia
- Information Commissioners Office
- Information Sharing
- Insurance Provider
- Internal Revenue Service
- International Association of Privacy Professionals
- International Commissioners Office
- Internet
- Internet of Things
- IP Address
- Ireland
- Israel
- Italy
- Jacob Kohnstamm
- Japan
- Jason Beach
- Jay Rockefeller
- Jenna Rode
- Jennifer Stoddart
- Jersey
- Jessica Rich
- John Delionado
- John Edwards
- Kentucky
- Korea
- Latin America
- Laura Leonard
- Law Enforcement
- Lawrence Strickling
- Legislation
- Legislature
- Liability
- Lisa Sotto
- Litigation
- Location-Based Services
- London
- Madrid Resolution
- Maine
- Malaysia
- Markus Heyder
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Meta
- Mexico
- Microsoft
- Minnesota
- Mobile App
- Mobile Device
- Montana
- Morocco
- MySpace
- Natascha Gerlach
- National Institute of Standards and Technology
- National Labor Relations Board
- National Science and Technology Council
- National Security
- National Security Agency
- National Telecommunications and Information Administration
- Nebraska
- NEDPA
- Netherlands
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- New Zealand
- Nigeria
- Ninth Circuit
- North Carolina
- Norway
- Obama Administration
- OECD
- Office for Civil Rights
- Office of Foreign Assets Control
- Ohio
- Online Behavioral Advertising
- Opt-In Consent
- Oregon
- Outsourcing
- Pakistan
- Parental Consent
- Paul Tiao
- Payment Card
- PCI DSS
- Penalty
- Pennsylvania
- Personal Data
- Personal Health Information
- Personal Information
- Personally Identifiable Information
- Peru
- Philippines
- Phyllis Marcus
- Poland
- PRISM
- Privacy By Design
- Privacy Policy
- Privacy Rights
- Privacy Rule
- Privacy Shield
- Protected Health Information
- Ransomware
- Record Retention
- Red Flags Rule
- Rhode Island
- Richard Thomas
- Right to Be Forgotten
- Right to Privacy
- Risk-Based Approach
- Rosemary Jay
- Russia
- Safe Harbor
- Sanctions
- Schrems
- Scott Kimpel
- Securities and Exchange Commission
- Security Rule
- Senate
- Serbia
- Service Provider
- Singapore
- Smart Grid
- Smart Metering
- Social Media
- Social Security Number
- South Africa
- South Carolina
- South Korea
- Spain
- Spyware
- Standard Contractual Clauses
- State Attorneys General
- Steven Haas
- Stick With Security Series
- Stored Communications Act
- Student Data
- Supreme Court
- Surveillance
- Sweden
- Switzerland
- Taiwan
- Targeted Advertising
- Telecommunications
- Telemarketing
- Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- Tennessee
- Terry McAuliffe
- Texas
- Text Message
- Thailand
- Transparency
- Transportation Security Administration
- Trump Administration
- United Arab Emirates
- United Kingdom
- United States
- Unmanned Aircraft Systems
- Uruguay
- Utah
- Vermont
- Video Privacy Protection Act
- Video Surveillance
- Virginia
- Viviane Reding
- Washington
- WeProtect Global Alliance
- Whistleblowing
- Wireless Network
- Wiretap
- ZIP Code