On April 9, 2019, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (the “ICO”) levied one of its most significant fines under the Data Protection Act 1998 (the “DPA”) against pregnancy and parenting club Bounty (UK) Limited (“Bounty”), fining the company GBP 400,000. Bounty, which provides new and expectant mothers with information and offers for products and services, collects personal data online, via an app, and offline through hard copy cards. The company also offered a data broking service. Bounty came to the attention of the ICO as a “significant supplier” of personal data in the context of the ICO’s wider and ongoing investigation into the data broking industry.
The ICO revealed that Bounty shared personal data relating to more than 14 million individuals, the majority of them expectant or new mothers and their children, with third parties for the purposes of electronic marketing. Because some records were shared up to 17 times in the course of a year, more than 35 million personal data records in total were disclosed. The ICO considered this an “extraordinarily high” number, and commented that this represented “an unprecedented number of affected data subjects in the history of the Commissioner’s investigations into data broking organizations.”
In all, 39 companies received personal data from Bounty. Four companies formed the main focus of the ICO’s investigation: marketing agency Indicia, marketing and profiling company Acxiom, credit reference agency Equifax, and telecommunications company Sky.
Following its investigation, the ICO concluded that Bounty breached the first data protection principle (now Article 5(1) of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”)), requiring that personal data is processed fairly and lawfully. Specifically, the ICO determined:
- The data sharing was unfair because Bounty failed to disclose to data subjects the organizations with which data would be shared. Bounty’s Privacy Policy merely stated that personal data may be shared with “selected third parties” which were not specifically named.
- Sharing personal data with credit reference, marketing and profiling organizations also failed to meet the requirement of fairness because it was not within the reasonable expectation of data subjects, exposing them to potential distress without reasonable justification. In this respect, the ICO considered Bounty to have been motivated by financial gain.
- Bounty also failed to establish an appropriate legal basis for the data sharing. Bounty attempted to rely on consent, but the ICO determined that any consent could not be considered specific or informed as the organizations with which data would be shared were not named in the Privacy Policy. The ICO also found that the legitimate interests condition was not met.
In determining whether a monetary penalty should be imposed, the ICO took into account a range of factors. Key considerations included: (1) the “extraordinarily high” number of affected data subjects; (2) the fact that individuals’ data were shared on multiple occasions with multiple organizations; (3) the sustained and prolonged duration of the conduct; (4) the potential vulnerability of the data subjects; (5) the fact that the disclosure was contrary to the terms of the privacy notices and likely was outside the realm of individuals’ reasonable expectations; (6) the nature of the data; and (7) the fact that individuals were subject to a significant loss of control over the data.
The ICO specifically considered whether the contravention was of a kind likely to cause substantial damage or distress. Factors that led the ICO to conclude that the threshold for substantial distress had been crossed included: (1) the fact that the privacy notice failed to mention the four companies with which the data was most frequently shared, so that individuals might reasonably have felt misled; (2) Bounty’s failure to be transparent may have led to distress (when individuals were unsure about how organizations had obtained their personal data and were able to target them); (3) likely distress caused by a perceived loss of control over data that was shared without individuals’ knowledge; (4) the fact that data was shared numerous times with multiple organizations; and (8) the number of affected data subjects.
The ICO formed the view that Bounty’s actions in sharing the data were deliberate. It should have known that there was a risk the contravention would occur and that it was of a kind likely to cause substantial damage or distress, yet it failed to take steps to prevent a contravention.
Bounty defended itself on the grounds that there had been few complaints, and that very few data subjects had read their Privacy Policy, demonstrating a lack of interest in Bounty’s data sharing practices. Bounty also argued that there was no evidence that distress had been suffered. The ICO countered that this was largely due to data subjects not being aware of how their data was being used.
In imposing the monetary penalty, the ICO took into account Bounty’s financial position, the fact that the company had ceased its activities voluntarily and that it had since made significant changes to its data practices to comply with the GDPR and the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations.
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
- Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States
- 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 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
- 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 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
- 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
- Oklahoma
- Opt-In Consent
- Oregon
- Outsourcing
- Pakistan
- Parental Consent
- 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
- Regulation
- 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 Dakota
- 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
- Whistleblowing
- Wireless Network
- Wiretap
- ZIP Code