Privacy & Information Security Law Blog

On March 29, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission announced its decision to deny, without prejudice, an application for approval of a “Privacy-Protective Facial Age Estimation” mechanism for obtaining parental consent under COPPA.

On March 7, 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) issued its judgment in the case of IAB Europe (Case C‑604/22). In this judgment, the CJEU assessed the role of the Interactive Advertising Bureau Europe (“IAB Europe”) in the processing operations associated with its Transparency and Consent Framework (“TCF”) and further developed CJEU case law on the concept of personal data under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”).

On December 7, 2023, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) ruled that credit scoring constitutes automated decision-making, which is prohibited under Article 22 of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) unless certain conditions are met. In a case stemming from consumer complaints against German credit bureau SCHUFA, the CJEU found that the company’s reliance on fully automated processes to calculate creditworthiness and extend credit constitutes automated decision-making which produces a legal or similarly significant effect within the meaning of Article 22 of the GDPR.

On November 22, 2023, the Artificial Intelligence (Regulation) Bill was introduced into the UK Parliament’s House of Lords. The purpose of the Bill is to make provision for the regulation of AI and for connected purposes. 

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 October 27, 2023, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) adopted an urgent binding decision instructing the Irish Data Protection Commissioner (the “Irish DPC”) to take final measures against Meta Ireland Limited (“Meta”) within two weeks and impose a ban on Meta’s processing of personal data for behavioral advertising based on the contractual necessity and legitimate interests legal bases. The ban would apply across the European Economic Area (“EEA”).

October 12, 2023, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) announced a €600,000 fine for mass media company Groupe Canal+ for failing to comply with its commercial prospecting obligations applicable under the French Post and Electronic Communications Code and several obligations of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”).

On July 5, 2023, Ohio Governor, Mike DeWine, signed into law House Bill 33, which includes the Social Media Parental Notification Act (“Act”).

On August 8, 2023, the Massachusetts Gaming Commission approved 205 CMR 257: Sports Wagering Data Privacy, a set of regulations designed to create new rights and obligations with respect to sports betting operators’ use of patrons’ Confidential Information or Personally Identifiable Information. The regulations took effect on September 1, 2023.

On September 21, 2023, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) published an opinion on the UK Government’s assessment of adequacy for the UK Extension to the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (the “UK Extension”). The ICO provides that, while it is reasonable for the Secretary of State to conclude that the UK Extension provides an adequate level of data protection and lay regulations to that effect, there are four specific areas that could pose risks to UK data subjects if the protections identified are not properly applied. These four risks are: 

On September 6, 2023, the European Commission designated six companies as gatekeepers under Article 3 of the Digital Markets Act (“DMA”). The new gatekeepers are Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, ByteDance, Meta and Microsoft. Jointly, these companies provide 22 core platform services, including social networks, internet browsers, operating systems and mobile app stores.

On August 9, 2023, India’s upper house (i.e., Rajya Sabha) passed the Digital Personal Data Protection Bill (“DPDPB”), two days after India’s lower house (i.e., Lok Sabha) passed the legislation. The DPDPB now heads to India President Droupadi Murmu for signature.

On February 16, 2023, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) at Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP held a virtual roundtable to discuss the role of age assurance and age verification tools as part of its Children’s Data Privacy Project. Representatives from CIPL member companies, data protection authorities, civil society and experts exchanged views on the effectiveness of different methodologies and emerging best practices to shield minors from harmful or inappropriate content.

On February 17, 2023, the Illinois Supreme Court issued an opinion in Cothron v. White Castle Systems, Inc., in response to a certified question from the Seventh Circuit, ruling that the plain language of Section 15(b) and 15(d) of the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act (“BIPA”) shows that a claim accrues under BIPA with every scan or transmission of biometric identifiers or biometric information without prior informed consent. 

On February 14, 2023, the Digital Advertising Alliance (“DAA”) announced the creation of the CMP Complement, billed as a uniform approach for brands and publishers to offer privacy controls on sites and apps through Consent Management Platforms (CMPs) and the AdChoices program. The CMP Complement integrates the AdChoices Icon into participating CMPs’ user flows and provides easier user access to both CMP-specific controls and other interest-based advertising choice tools offered through the DAA’s portals.

On January 18, 2023, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) published its Report on the work undertaken by the Cookie Banner Taskforce (the “Report”).

On January 11, 2023, the Belgian Data Protection Authority (“Belgian DPA”) announced that it has approved the Interactive Advertising Bureau Europe’s (“IAB Europe”) action plan with respect to its Transparency and Consent Framework (“TCF”).

On December 29, 2022, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) announced that it imposed an €8,000,000 fine on Apple for violations of the French rules on targeted advertising and the use of cookies and similar tracking technologies.

Kochhar & Co. reports that, on November 18, 2022, the Government of India (“Government”) released the long-awaited fourth draft of India’s proposed privacy law, now renamed the Digital Personal Data Protection Bill.

Terms and Application

The draft law uses terminology similar to past versions: the data controller is called the “data fiduciary,” the data subject is called the “data principal,” and personal information is referred to as “personal data.” There is no separate category of sensitive personal data.   

On September 23, 2022, New York State Senator Andrew Gounardes introduced S9563, also known as the “New York Child Data Privacy and Protection Act.” The bill, which resembles the recently passed California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act, bans certain data collection and targeted advertising and requires data controllers to, among other obligations, assess the impact of their products on children.

On October 20, 2022, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton brought suit against Google alleging various violations of Texas’s biometric privacy law, including that the company unlawfully collected and used the biometric data of millions of Texans without obtaining proper consent. The lawsuit alleges that, since 2015, Google has collected millions of biometric identifiers of Texas consumers, such as voiceprints and records of face geometry, through Google’s various products, including Google Photos, Google Assistant and Nest Hub Max, in violation of Texas’s biometric privacy law. Texas’s biometric privacy law prohibits the collection of biometric identifiers for a commercial purpose unless the individual whose biometric identifiers are collected is informed of the collection and provides consent. The law also requires companies to destroy biometric identifiers within a reasonable time, but not later than the first anniversary of the date the purpose for collecting the biometric identifier expires (except in limited circumstances).

On September 21, 2022, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) announced a proposed combined fine of $3.4 million against Sinclair Broadcast Group, Nexstar Media Group and 19 other broadcast television licensees for violations of rules limiting commercial matter in children's television programming.

On June 21, 2022, the Colorado Attorney General’s Office announced it is seeking informal input from the public on its rulemaking related to the Colorado Privacy Act (“CPA”). Before starting its formal rulemaking process, the Office has indicated it wants to better “understand the community’s thoughts and concerns about data privacy.”

On April 12, 2022, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser made remarks at the International Association of Privacy Professionals Global Privacy Summit in Washington, D.C., where he invited stakeholders to provide informal public comments on the Colorado Privacy Act (“CPA”) rulemaking.

On February 2, 2022, the Litigation Chamber of the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “Belgian DPA”) imposed a €250,000 fine against the Interactive Advertising Bureau Europe (“IAB Europe”) for several alleged infringements of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”), following an investigation into IAB Europe Transparency and Consent Framework (“TCF”).

Stephen Mathias from Kochhar & Co. reports that on December 16, 2021, the Indian Joint Parliamentary Committee (the “JPC”) submitted its report on India’s draft Data Protection Bill (the “Bill”). The Bill is now likely to be passed by Parliament in its next session, beginning in February 2022, and likely will enter into force in the first half of 2022. In its report, the JPC recommended a phased approach to implementing the law, beginning with the appointment of various government officers, such as the Data Protection Authority (“DPA”), with full implementation of the law to be completed within 24 months. The JPC’s report also contained a revised draft of the Bill. Certain key aspects of the revised Bill are summarized below.

On October 28, 2021, the Federal Trade Commission announced the issuance of a new enforcement policy statement warning companies against using dark patterns that trick consumers into subscription services. The policy statement comes in response to rising complaints about deceptive sign-up tactics like unauthorized charges or impossible-to-cancel billing.

On September 1, 2021, the South Korean Personal Information Protection Commission (“PIPC”) issued fines against Netflix and Facebook for violations of the Korean Personal Information Protection Act (“PIPA”).

On August 20, 2021, China’s 13^th Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress passed the Personal Information Protection Law (the “PIPL”). As we previously reported, the PIPL is China’s first comprehensive data protection law. It is modeled, in part, on other jurisdictions’ omnibus data protection regimes, including the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). The PIPL will become effective on November 1, 2021. Below are some of the key provisions under the PIPL.

On June 3, 2021, Google informed app developers that beginning in late 2021, when Android 12 OS users opt out of personalized ads, the advertising ID provided by Google Play services (the Google Ad ID, or “GAID”) will not be made available to app developers for any purpose.

On April 29, 2021, the New York City Council passed the Tenant Data Privacy Act (“TDPA”), which would regulate the collection, use, safeguarding and retention of tenant data by owners of “smart access” buildings. The TDPA has been sent to the New York City Mayor’s desk for signature.

On May 11, 2021, Senators Edward Markey (D-MA) and Bill Cassidy (R-LA) introduced the Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act (the “Bill”). The Bill, which would amend the existing Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA”), would prohibit companies from collecting personal information from children ages 13 to 15 without their consent.

On May 2, 2021, the Norwegian data protection authority, Datatilsynet, notified Disqus Inc. (“Disqus”), a U.S. company owned by Zeta Global, of its intention to issue a fine of 25 million Norwegian Krone (approximately 2.5 million Euros). The preliminary fine was issued for failure to comply with the General Data Protection Regulation’s (“GDPR”) accountability, lawfulness and transparency requirements, primarily due to Disqus’ tracking of website visitors.

On April 29, 2021, China issued a second version of the draft Personal Information Protection Law (“Draft PIPL”). The Draft PIPL will be open for public comments until May 28, 2021.

While the framework of this version of the Draft PIPL is the same as the prior version issued on October 21, 2020, below we summarize the material changes in the second version of the Draft PIPL.

On April 23, 2021, the National Information Security Standardization Technical Committee of China published a draft standard (in Chinese) on Security Requirements of Facial Recognition Data (the “Standard”). The Standard, which is non-mandatory, details requirements for collecting, processing, sharing and transferring data used for facial recognition.

On April 20, 2021, Apple announced that its AppTracking Transparency Framework (“ATT Framework”) will go into effect starting April 26, 2021, along with the upcoming public release of iOS 14.5, iPadOS 14.5 and tvOS 14.5.

On April 1, 2021, California’s Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the state’s prohibition on recording calls without consent applies to parties on the call and not just third-party eavesdroppers. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye wrote that California’s penal code “prohibits parties as well as nonparties from intentionally recording a communication transmitted between a cellular or cordless phone and another device without the consent of all parties to the communication.”

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 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 February 4, 2021, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) announced (in French) that it sent letters and emails to approximately 300 organizations, both private and public, to remind them of the new cookie law rules and the need to audit sites and apps to comply with those rules by March 31, 2021.

On December 16, 2020, the Committee of Experts within India’s Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) (the “Committee”) issued a revised report on the Non-Personal Data Governance Framework (the “NPDF”) for India (the “Revised Committee Report”).

On January 13, 2021, Advocate General (“AG”) Michal Bobek of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) issued his Opinion in the Case C-645/19 of Facebook Ireland Limited, Facebook Inc., Facebook Belgium BVBA v. the Belgian Data Protection Authority (“Belgian DPA”).

On January 11, 2021, the FTC announced that Everalbum, Inc. (“Everalbum”), developer of the “Ever” photo storage app, agreed to a settlement over allegations that the company deceived consumers about its use of facial recognition technology and its retention of the uploaded photos and videos of users who deactivated their accounts.

On November 27, 2020, New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in the lawsuit it brought against Google on February 20, 2020, regarding alleged violations of the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA”) in connection with G-Suite for Education (“GSFE”). As we previously reported, the U.S. District Court of New Mexico had granted Google’s motion to dismiss, in which it asserted that its terms governed the collection of data through GSFE and that it had complied with COPPA by using schools both as “intermediaries” and as the parent’s agent for parental notice and consent, in line with Federal Trade Commission Guidance.

On October 21, 2020, China issued a draft of Personal Information Protection Law (“Draft PIPL”) for public comments. The Draft PIPL marks the introduction of a comprehensive system for the protection of personal information in China.

On October 1, 2020, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) published a revised version of its guidelines on cookies and similar technologies (the “Guidelines”), its final recommendations on the practical modalities for obtaining users’ consent to store or read non-essential cookies and similar technologies on their devices (the “Recommendations”) and a set of questions and answers on the Recommendations (“FAQs”).

Apple’s iOS 14, which was announced by Apple in June 2020 and is scheduled for official release later this year, will require that all apps receive affirmative (i.e., opt-in) user consent to (1) access an iPhone’s unique advertising identifier (Identifier for Advertisers, or “IDFA”) or (2) to "track" users.

On July 13, 2020, a Committee of Experts within India’s Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (“the Committee”) published the first draft of a Non-Personal Data Governance Framework for India for public consultation.

On August 4, 2020, Senators Jeff Merkley (OR) and Bernie Sanders (VT) introduced the National Biometric Information Privacy Act of 2020 (the “bill”). The bill would require companies to obtain individuals’ consent before collecting biometric data. Specifically, the bill would prohibit private companies from collecting biometric data—including eye scans, voiceprints, faceprints and fingerprints—without individuals’ written consent, and from profiting off of biometric data. The bill provides individuals and state attorneys general the ability to institute legal proceedings against entities for alleged violations of the act.

On June 24, 2020, the Washington State Attorney General (“Washington AG”) announced that it had settled an enforcement action against the owners of the “We Heart It” social media platform for alleged violations of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA”) and the Washington State Consumer Protection Act. Under the consent decree, the defendants must pay $100,000, with an additional $400,000 suspended contingent upon compliance with the consent decree.

On June 23, 2020, the German Federal Court of Justice (the Bundesgerichtshof, or “BGH”) issued a decision confirming the enforceability, in preliminary proceedings, of the order of the German Federal Cartel Office (the “Bundeskartellamt”) against Facebook’s data practices.

On June 19, 2020, France’s Highest Administrative Court (the “Conseil d’Etat”) issued a decision partially annulling the guidelines of the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) on cookies and similar technologies (the “Guidelines”). The Conseil d’Etat annulled the provision of the Guidelines imposing a general and absolute ban on ‘cookie walls’ that prevent users who do not consent to the use of cookies from accessing a site or mobile app. However, the Conseil d’Etat upheld the main part of the Guidelines. On the day of the Conseil d’Etat’s decision, the CNIL published a statement (the “Statement”) announcing that they took note of the decision and will strictly comply with it.

On June 19, 2020, France’s Highest Administrative Court (“Conseil d’Etat”) upheld the decision of the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) to impose a €50 million fine on Google LLC (“Google”) under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”) for its alleged failure to (1) provide notice in an easily accessible form, using clear and plain language, when users configure their Android mobile devices and create Google accounts, and (2) obtain users’ valid consent to process their personal data for ad personalization purposes. Google had appealed this decision before the Conseil d’Etat. Because the Conseil d’Etat hears cases on appeal from the CNIL in both the first and last instances, the CNIL’s fine is now final. This fine against Google was the first fine imposed by the CNIL under the GDPR and is the highest fine imposed by an EU supervisory authority under the GDPR to date.

On June 9, 2020, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) announced a proposed $225 million fine, the largest in the history of the FCC, against several individuals for telemarketing violations.

On June 9, 2020, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) published its Annual Activity Report for 2019 (the “Report”).

On June 5, 2020, the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “Belgian DPA”) published guidance on its website (the “Guidance”) regarding temperature checks during the COVID-19 crisis. The Guidance aims to provide advice to organizations looking to control access to their premises by restricting individuals with fevers in order to prevent further spread of the virus.

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced its latest Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA”) settlement with California-based app developer HyperBeard and its individual principals. According to the FTC, since at least 2016, HyperBeard has offered a number of child-directed mobile apps, with names like BunnyBuns, KleptoCats and NomNoms that featured brightly colored, animated characters, such as cats, dogs, bunnies, chicks, monkeys and other cartoon characters, and that are described in child-friendly terms like “super cute” and “silly.” These apps are free to download and play, but they generate revenue through in-app advertising and purchases. The FTC alleges that the defendants were aware that children were using their apps, and that they promoted them to child audiences on a kids’ entertainment website, through children’s books and through the merchandizing of officially licensed plush stuffed animals and toys. Defendants allowed third-party ad networks to collect persistent identifiers from children in order to serve them with interest-based ads without parental notice or consent, in violation of COPPA.

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 May 19, 2020, the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “Belgian DPA”) announced that the Litigation Chamber had imposed a €50,000 fine on a social media provider for unlawful processing of personal data in connection with the “invite-a-friend” function offered on its platform.

Pakistan’s Ministry of Information Technology and Telecommunication recently introduced a new draft of Pakistan’s Personal Data Protection Bill, 2020 (the “Bill”) and launched a public consultation regarding the same. The public consultation period will end on May 15, 2020. The Bill, which applies to “any person who processes” or “has control over or authorizes the processing of” any personal data, if the data subject, the controller or processor are located in Pakistan, would establish certain requirements and restrictions related to the processing of personal data, as well as penalties for violating the law. In addition, under the Bill, the federal government would, within six months of coming into force, establish a Personal Data Protection Authority of Pakistan with rulemaking authority to enforce the act.

On May 6, 2020, the European Data Protection Board (the “EDPB”) published its Guidelines 05/2020 (the “EDPB Guidelines”) on consent under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (the “GDPR”). The EDPB Guidelines are a slightly updated version of the Article 29 Working Party’s Guidelines on consent under the GDPR (the WP29 Guidelines), which were adopted in April 2018 and endorsed by the EDPB in its first Plenary meeting.

On April 9, 2020, the Belgian Data Protection Authority (the “Belgian DPA”) released guidance and a set of frequently asked questions (“FAQs”) regarding the use of cookies and other tracking technologies.

On April 6, 2020, the Irish Data Protection Commission (the “DPC”) published a report summarizing the DPC’s findings following a cookie sweep of select websites across a range of sectors, as well as a new guidance note on the use of cookies and other tracking technologies.

The Conference of German Data Protection Authorities (“DSK”), the body of the federal and state Data Protection Authorities (“DPAs”) in Germany, recently issued joint recommendations regarding employers’ processing of employee personal data in the context of the coronavirus (“COVID-19”) pandemic. The DSK makes it clear that data protection does not hinder measures to fight COVID-19. According to DSK, employers can collect personal data of employees in order to prevent the spreading of the virus at the workforce. Employers also may process personal data of workplace visitors for COVID-19 related purposes. However, all measures must be proportionate.

The Spanish Data Protection Authority (the “AEPD”) recently published a report on data processing activities carried out by data controllers in the private and public sectors as a result of the spread of the COVID-19 virus (the “Report”).

On March 12, 2020, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) released its annual inspection strategy for 2020. The CNIL carries out approximately 300 inspections every year. These inspections are initiated (1) following complaints lodged with the CNIL; (2) in light of current topics in the news; (3) after the CNIL has adopted corrective measures (e.g., formal notices, sanctions) in order to verify whether the organization in question adopted the measures or remedied the situation; and (4) as part of the CNIL’s annual inspection strategy.

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 January 14, 2020, the French Data Protection Authority (the “CNIL”) published its draft recommendations on the practical modalities for obtaining users’ consent to store or read non-essential cookies and similar technologies on their devices (the “Recommendations”). The CNIL also published a set of questions and answers on the Recommendations (“FAQs”).

On December 11, 2019, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) published its draft guidelines 5/2019 (the “Guidelines”) on the criteria of the right to be forgotten in search engine cases under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). The Guidelines aim to provide guidance on: (1) the grounds on which individuals can rely for submitting a request for the right to be forgotten in relation to links to web pages containing their personal data; and (2) the exceptions to the right to be forgotten that search engine operators could use to reject such a request. The Guidelines will be supplemented by an appendix on the assessment of criteria for the handling of individuals’ complaints by EU data protection authorities following the refusal by search engine operators to grant the individuals’ request.

On December 10, 2019, the Dutch Data Protection Authority (Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens, the “Dutch DPA”) published a statement regarding compliance with the rules on cookie consent (the “Statement”).

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.

On June 13, 2019, the Cyberspace Administration of China (the “CAC”) released Draft Measures on Security Assessment of Cross-Border Transfer of Personal Information (“Draft Measures”) for public comment, the window for which ends July 13, 2019.

On May 31, 2019, the Cyberspace Administration of China (the “CAC”) published Draft Regulations on Network Protection of Minor’s Personal Information (the “Draft Regulations”), timing the release to coincide with International Children’s Day. The Draft Regulations, based on the existing Cybersecurity Law of China (the “Cybersecurity Law”), is more protective of minors’ information than the Information Security Technology — Personal Information Security Specification (GB/T 35273 – 2017) (the “Specification”) and its draft amendment, which also address some limited provisions on network operators’ use and treatment of minors’ information.

On May 28, 2019, the Cyberspace Administration of China (“CAC”) released draft Data Security Administrative Measures (the “Measures”) for public comment. The Measures, which, when finalized, will be legally binding, supplement the Cybersecurity Law of China (the “Cybersecurity Law”) that took force on June 1, 2017, with detailed and practical requirements for network operators who collect, store, transmit, process and use data within Chinese territory. The Measures likely will significantly impact network operators’ compliance programs in China.

On May 30, 2019, the Maine House and Senate passed a bill (L.D. 946) that will place restrictions on broadband Internet service providers from selling customer data without the customer’s affirmative consent. The bill will apply to providers operating within Maine in connection with the broadband Internet access services they provide to customers who are physically located and billed for service received in Maine.

On May 31, 2019, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) at Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP issued a white paper on GDPR One Year In: Practitioners Take Stock of the Benefits and Challenges (the “White Paper”). In addition, CIPL submitted the White Paper along with a separate response to the European Commission’s questionnaire to prepare for the June 2019 stocktaking exercise on the application of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”).

As reported by Bloomberg Law, on May 24, 2019, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (the “OPC”) suspended its public consultation on transborder data flows (the “Consultation”). The suspension follows the announcement of the Digital Charter by the Canadian government, which puts forward principles for digital reform, including improvements to Canadian privacy law.

On January 25, 2019, Nigeria’s National Information Technology Development Agency (“NITDA”) issued the Nigeria Data Protection Regulation 2019 (the “Regulation”). Many concepts of the Regulation mirror the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”).

The UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) has issued a Monetary Penalty Notice to pensions release provider Grove Pensions Solutions Ltd (“Grove”), fining it £40,000 after the company used contact details collected by a third party for its direct marketing campaign. Grove used a specialist third-party marketing agency to send emails on its behalf to mailing lists, negligently failing to obtain valid consent from individuals who received the marketing emails. Despite seeking external advice (including legal advice), the ICO decided that Grove should have known of the risk that its conduct would breach rules on direct marketing, particularly given recent widespread publicity of this issue in the UK. The fine was imposed under the Data Protection Act 1998.

The UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) has fined Vote Leave Limited (the UK’s official Brexit campaign) £40,000 for sending almost 200,000 unsolicited texts promoting the aims of the campaign. In an unrelated action, the ICO has carried out searches of a business believed to have been responsible for initiating nuisance telephone calls. The ICO has highlighted nuisance calls, spam texts and unsolicited direct marketing as areas of “significant public concern,” and is increasingly imposing sanctions on businesses that infringe the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003 (“PEC Regulations”), which prohibit these practices. In its view, the monetary penalty imposed on Vote Leave should act as a “deterrent against non-compliance, on the part of all persons running businesses currently engaging in these practices.”

On November 19, 2018, The Register reported that the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) issued a warning to the U.S.-based The Washington Post over its approach to obtaining consent for cookies to access the service.

On August 30, 2018, Apple Inc. announced a June update to its App Store Review Guidelines that will require each developer to provide its privacy policy as part of the app review process, and to include in such policy specific content requirements. Effective October 3, 2018, all new apps and app updates must include a link to the developer’s privacy policy before they can be submitted for distribution to users through the App Store or through TestFlight external testing.

On August 3, 2018, California-based Unixiz Inc. (“Unixiz”) agreed to shut down its “i-Dressup” website pursuant to a consent order with the New Jersey Attorney General, which the company entered into to settle charges that it violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA”) and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. The consent order also requires Unixiz to pay a civil penalty of $98,618.

On July 19, 2018, the French Data Protection Authority (“CNIL”) announced that it served a formal notice to two advertising startups headquartered in France, FIDZUP and TEEMO. Both companies collect personal data from mobile phones via software development kit (“SDK”) tools integrated into the code of their partners’ mobile apps—even when the apps are not in use—and process the data to conduct marketing campaigns on mobile phones.

This post has been updated. 

As reported by Mundie e Advogados, on July 10, 2018, Brazil’s Federal Senate approved a Data Protection Bill of Law (the “Bill”). The Bill, which is inspired by the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), is expected to be sent to the Brazilian President in the coming days.

As reported by Mattos Filho, Veiga Filho, Marrey Jr e Quiroga Advogados, the Bill establishes a comprehensive data protection regime in Brazil and imposes detailed rules for the collection, use, processing and storage of personal data, both electronic and physical.

On June 28, 2018, the Governor of California signed AB 375, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (the “Act”). The Act introduces key privacy requirements for businesses, and was passed quickly by California lawmakers in an effort to remove a ballot initiative of the same name from the November 6, 2018, statewide ballot. We previously reported on the relevant ballot initiative. The Act will take effect January 1, 2020.

On June 21, 2018, California lawmakers introduced AB 375, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (the “Bill”). If enacted and signed by the Governor by June 28, 2018, the Bill would introduce key privacy requirements for businesses, but would also result in the removal of a ballot initiative of the same name from the November 6, 2018, statewide ballot. We previously reported on the relevant ballot initiative.

Recently, the Personal Data Collection and Protection Ordinance (“the Ordinance”) was introduced to the Chicago City Council. The Ordinance would require businesses to (1) obtain prior opt-in consent from Chicago residents to use, disclose or sell their personal information; (2) notify affected Chicago residents and the City of Chicago in the event of a data breach; (3) register with the City of Chicago if they qualify as “data brokers”; (4) provide specific notification to mobile device users for location services; and (5) obtain prior express consent to use geolocation data from mobile applications.

On May 14, 2018, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) at Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP published a study on how the ePrivacy Regulation will affect the design and user experiences of digital services (the “Study”). The Study was prepared by Normally, a data product and service design studio, whom CIPL had asked for an independent expert opinion on user experience design.

On May 1, 2018, the Information Security Technology – Personal Information Security Specification (the “Specification”) went into effect in China. The Specification is not binding and cannot be used as a direct basis for enforcement. However, enforcement agencies in China can still use the Specification as a reference or guideline in their administration and enforcement activities. For this reason, the Specification should be taken seriously as a best practice in personal data protection in China, and should be complied with where feasible.

On May 4, 2018, St. Kitts and Nevis’ legislators passed the Data Protection Bill 2018 (the “Bill”). The Bill was passed to promote the protection of personal data processed by public and private bodies.

On March 26, 2018, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership at Hunton & Williams LLP and AvePoint released its second Global GDPR Readiness Report (the “Report”), detailing the results of a joint global survey launched in July 2017 concerning organizational preparedness for implementing the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). The Report tracks the GDPR implementation efforts of over 235 multinational organizations, and builds on the findings of the first Global GDPR Readiness Report by providing insights on key changes in readiness levels from 2016 to 2017.

On March 6, 2018, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) at Hunton & Williams LLP issued a white paper on GDPR Implementation in Respect of Children’s Data and Consent (the “White Paper”). The White Paper sets forth guidance and recommendations concerning the application of GDPR requirements to the processing of children’s personal data. The White Paper also highlights and addresses several issues raised by the Article 29 Working Party (the “Working Party”) with regard to children in its guidelines on consent and issues raised by the UK Information Commissioner’s Office in its Consultation on Children and the GDPR.

On February 5, 2018, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced its most recent Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA”) case against Explore Talent, an online service marketed to aspiring actors and models. According to the FTC’s complaint, Explore Talent provided a free platform for consumers to find information about upcoming auditions, casting calls and other opportunities. The company also offered a monthly fee-based “pro” service that promised to provide consumers with access to specific opportunities. Users who registered online were asked to input a host of personal information including full name, email, telephone number, mailing address and photo; they also were asked to provide their eye color, hair color, body type, measurements, gender, ethnicity, age range and birth date.

On February 1, 2018, the Singapore Personal Data Protection Commission (the “PDPC”) published its response to feedback collected during a public consultation process conducted during the late summer and fall of 2017 (the “Response”). During that public consultation, the PDPC circulated a proposal relating to two general topics: (1) the relevance of two new alternative bases for collecting, using and disclosing personal data (“Notification of Purpose” and “Legal or Business Purpose”), and (2) a mandatory data breach notification requirement. The PDPC invited feedback from the public on these topics.

On January 29, 2018, the Centre for Information Policy Leadership (“CIPL”) at Hunton & Williams LLP submitted formal comments to the Article 29 Working Party (the “Working Party”) on its Guidelines on Consent (the “Guidelines”). The Guidelines were adopted by the Working Party on November 28, 2017, for public consultation.