Privacy & Information Security Law Blog

The Maryland legislature recently passed the Maryland Online Data Privacy Act of 2024 (“MODPA”), which was delivered to Governor Wes Moore for signature and, if enacted, will impose robust requirements with respect to data minimization, the protection of sensitive data, and the processing and sale of minors’ data.

On April 7, 2024, U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and U.S. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) released a discussion draft of the latest federal privacy proposal, known as American Privacy Rights Act (“APRA” or the “Act”). The APRA builds upon the American Data Privacy and Protection Act (“ADPPA”), which was introduced as H.R. 8152 in the 117th Congress and advanced out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee but did not become law. As the latest iteration of a federal privacy proposal, the APRA signals that some members of Congress continue to seek to create a federal standard in the wake of—and in spite of—the ever-growing patchwork of state privacy laws.

On September 14, 2023, the California legislature passed S.B. 362 (“Act”), a bill that would impose new requirements on data brokers and grant residents new rights designed to facilitate control over their personal data. S.B. 362 is now awaiting signature by California Governor Gavin Newsom. The Act aims to close a loophole in the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) that allows consumers to request that data brokers delete personal information obtained directly from the consumer, but does not require data brokers to delete personal information obtained from other sources. 

On June 30, 2023, the Delaware House of Representatives passed the Delaware Personal Data Privacy Act (H.B. 154) (the “DPDPA”), a day after the Delaware Senate passed the legislation. The DPDPA heads to Governor John Carney for a final signature. This could make Delaware the 13th U.S. state to enact comprehensive privacy legislation.

On June 22, 2023, the Oregon House of Representatives passed the Oregon Consumer Privacy Act (S.B. 619) (the “OCPA”), which was previously passed by the Oregon Senate on June 20, 2023. The OCPA has been sent to the Oregon governor’s desk for signature. If signed, the OCPA would make Oregon the 12th state to have enacted comprehensive privacy legislation.

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 April 13, 2023, the Indiana Senate concurred to the Indiana House’s amendments of Senate Bill 5 (“SB 5”) a day after the House returned the bill to the Senate with amendments, and a couple days after the Indiana House unanimously voted to approve SB 5. SB 5 now will head to Governor Eric Holcomb for a final signature, where he will have seven days upon transmission to sign SB 5 into law or veto it. This could make Indiana the seventh U.S. state to enact comprehensive privacy legislation.

On March 15, 2023, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) proposed three rules related to cybersecurity and the protection of consumer information.

On March 6 and 15, 2023, both chambers of the Iowa Legislature unanimously voted to approve Senate File 262, which could make Iowa the sixth U.S. state to enact comprehensive privacy legislation. The bill is most similar to Utah’s comprehensive privacy law.

On February 24, 2023, Representative Patrick T. McHenry of North Carolina introduced a bill proposing the creation of the Data Privacy Act of 2023. The bill proposes to amend the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (“GLBA”) by making the following changes:

On January 25, 2023, Hunton Andrews Kurth’s retail industry team released its annual Retail Industry in Review publication, which provides an overview of key issues and trends that impacted the retail sector in the past year, as well as a preview of relevant legal issues retailers can expect to arise in 2023. This year’s publication highlights key topics including cyber insurance, cybersecurity and privacy accountability, M&A activity, regulation and litigation related to PFAS, labor organizing, developments in ESG disclosure and more.

On November 15, 2022, the Federal Trade Commission announced a six-month extension for companies to comply with certain updated requirements of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act’s Safeguards Rule, a set of data security provisions covered  financial institutions must implement to protect their customers’ personal information. The new deadline is June 9, 2023.

On May 27, 2022, Vermont Governor Phil Scott signed H.515, making Vermont the twenty-first state to enact legislation based on the National Association of Insurance Commissioners Insurance Data Security Model Law (“MDL-668”). The Vermont Insurance Data Security Law applies to “licensees”—those licensed, authorized to operate or registered, and those required to be licensed, authorized or registered, under Vermont insurance law, with few exceptions. The new law generally follows MDL-668’s provisions, adopting the model law’s broad definition of nonpublic information and requiring licensees to, in part, maintain a written information security program (“WISP”) and investigate cybersecurity incidents. Unlike other state laws based on MDL-668, however, the Vermont Insurance Data Security Law declines to establish separate cybersecurity event notification requirements for licensees.

On May 10, 2022, Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont signed An Act Concerning Personal Data Privacy and Online Monitoring, after the law was previously passed by the Connecticut General Assembly in April. Connecticut is now the fifth state to enact a consumer privacy law.

On March 24, 2022, Utah became the fourth state in the U.S., following California, Virginia and Colorado, to enact a consumer data privacy law, the Utah Consumer Privacy Act (the “UCPA”). The UCPA resembles Virginia’s Consumer Data Protection Act (“VCDPA”) and Colorado’s Consumer Privacy Act (“CPA”), and, to a lesser extent, the California Consumer Privacy Act (as amended by the California Privacy Rights Act) (“CCPA/CPRA”). The UCPA will take effect on December 31, 2023.

On January 4, 2022,  the Federal Trade Commission published a blog post reminding companies that “the duty to take reasonable steps to mitigate known software vulnerabilities implicates laws including, among others, the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Gramm Leach Bliley Act,” in response to Log4Shell’s public disclosure of the Log4j vulnerability. The blog post also calls for companies to take immediate steps to reduce the likelihood of harm to consumers that could result from the exposure of consumer data as a result of Log4j or similar known vulnerabilities.

On October 27, 2021, the Federal Trade Commission announced significant amendments to the agency’s Safeguards Rule (the “Final Rule”). Promulgated in 2002 pursuant to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the Safeguards Rule obligates covered financial institutions to develop, implement and maintain a comprehensive information security program that complies with the Rule’s requirements.

On October 1, 2021, Connecticut’s two new data security laws become effective. As we previously reported, the new laws modify Connecticut’s existing breach notification requirements and establish a safe harbor from certain Connecticut Superior Court assessed damages for businesses that create and maintain a written cybersecurity program.

Connecticut recently passed two cybersecurity laws that will become effective on October 1, 2021. The newly passed laws modify Connecticut’s existing breach notification requirements and establish a safe harbor for businesses that create and maintain a written cybersecurity program that complies with applicable state or federal law or industry-recognized security frameworks.

On June 2, 2021, Nevada’s governor approved SB 260 (the “Amendment Bill”), which expands on the previously amended Nevada Privacy of Information Collected on the Internet from Consumers Act (the “Act”). Specifically, the Amendment Bill broadens the definition of key terms along with providing several new exemptions.

On December 15, 2020, the Federal Trade Commission announced a proposed settlement with Ascension Data & Analytics, LLC, a Texas-based mortgage industry data analytics company (“Ascension”), to resolve allegations that the company failed to ensure one of its vendors was adequately securing personal information of mortgage holders.

On December 18, 2020, federal financial regulatory agencies, including the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (collectively, the “Agencies”) announced a proposed rule (the “Proposed Rule”) that would require “banking organizations” to notify their primary federal regulator within 36 hours following any “computer-security incident” that rises to the level of a “notification incident.” The Proposed Rule also would require service providers to notify at least two individuals at the banking organizations they service immediately after experiencing a computer-security incident that materially disrupts, degrades or impairs the services they provide.

On October 22, 2020, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (the “Proposed Rule”) to implement Section 1033 of the Dodd-Frank Act (the “Act”) regarding consumers’ access to their financial information.

As part of its regulatory review of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (“GLB”) Safeguards Rule, the Federal Trade Commission will hold a workshop, Information Security and Financial Institutions: An FTC Workshop to Examine the Safeguards Rule. The workshop, originally scheduled for May, has been postponed until July 13, 2020.

On March 26, 2020, Washington D.C. enacted bill number B23-0215, amending D.C.’s data breach notification law (the “Bill”). Among other requirements, the Bill requires the provision of identity theft prevention services in certain data breaches, establishes a new regulatory reporting requirement in the event of a cognizable data breach affecting 50 or more residents of D.C., and imposes certain data security requirements on covered businesses.

On March 21, 2020, the data security provisions of New York’s Stop Hacks and Improve Electronic Data Security Act (“SHIELD Act”) went into effect. The SHIELD Act requires any person or business owning or licensing computerized data that includes the private information of a resident of New York (“covered business”) to implement and maintain reasonable safeguards to protect the security, confidentiality and integrity of the private information.

As reported on our Hunton Retail Law Resource blog, on January 7, 2020, the Federal Trade Commission announced a settlement with Mortgage Solutions FCS, Inc., d/b/a Mount Diablo Lending, and its sole principal, Ramon Walker, to resolve allegations that the lender violated the FTC Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley (“GLB”) Act, by improperly disseminating consumers’ personal information on Yelp in response to consumers’ negative reviews posted to that site.

On July 25, 2019, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law Senate Bill S5575B (the “Bill”), an amendment to New York’s breach notification law (the “Act”). The Bill expands the Act’s definition of “breach of the security of the system” and the types of information (i.e., “private information”) covered by the Act, and makes certain changes to the Act’s requirements for breach notification.

On May 24, 2019, Oregon Governor Kate Brown signed Senate Bill 684 (the “Bill”) into law. The Bill, which takes effect January 1, 2020, amends the Oregon Consumer Identity Theft Protection Act (“OCITPA”) by enhancing the breach notification requirements applicable to third-party vendors.

On May 29, 2019, Nevada’s governor approved SB 220 (the “Amendment Bill”), which provides amendments to an existing law that requires operators of websites and online services (“Operators”) to post a notice on their website regarding their privacy practices. The Amendment Bill will require Operators to establish a designated request address through which a consumer may submit a verified request directing the Operator not to make any “sale” of covered information collected about the consumer. Pursuant to the Amendment Bill, Operators must respond to a verified opt-out request within 60 days of receipt.

On March 5, 2019, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it is seeking comment on proposed changes to the FTC’s Safeguards Rule and Privacy Rule under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (“GLB”).

The proposed amendments to the Safeguards Rule, which went into effect in 2003 and imposes data security obligations on financial institutions over which the Commission has jurisdiction, are based primarily on the cybersecurity regulations issued by the New York Department of Financial Services and the insurance data security model law issued by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. The proposed changes would add more detailed requirements on how financial institutions must protect customer information.

On August 31, 2018, the California State Legislature passed SB-1121, a bill that delays enforcement of the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”) and makes other modest amendments to the law. The bill now goes to the Governor for signing. The provisions of the CCPA will become operative on January 1, 2020. As we have previously reported, the CCPA introduces key privacy requirements for businesses. The Act 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. The CCPA’s hasty passage resulted in a number of drafting errors and inconsistencies in the law, which SB-1121 seeks to remedy. The amendments to the CCPA are primarily technical, with few substantive changes.

On May 24, 2018, the Federal Trade Commission granted final approval to a settlement (the “Final Settlement”) with PayPal, Inc., to resolve charges that PayPal’s peer-to-peer payment service, Venmo, misled consumers regarding certain restrictions on the use of its service, as well as the privacy of transactions. The proposed settlement was announced on February 27, 2018. In its complaint, the FTC alleged that Venmo misrepresented its information security practices by stating that it “uses bank-grade security systems and data encryption to protect your financial information.” Instead, the FTC alleged that Venmo violated the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act’s (“GLBA’s”) Safeguards Rule by failing to (1) have a written information security program; (2) assess the risks to the security, confidentiality and integrity of customer information; and (3) implement basic safeguards such as providing security notifications to users that their passwords were changed. The complaint also alleged that Venmo (1) misled consumers about their ability to transfer funds to external bank accounts, and (2) misrepresented the extent to which consumers could control the privacy of their transactions, in violation of the GLBA Privacy Rule.

On February 27, 2018, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced an agreement with PayPal, Inc., to settle charges that its Venmo peer-to-peer payment service misled consumers regarding privacy and the extent to which consumers’ financial accounts were secured. This is the second significant FTC settlement in the past three months that addressed these issues, following the FTC’s action against TaxSlayer, Inc. and signals a renewed focus by the FTC on violations of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act’s (“GLBA’s”) Privacy and Safeguards Rules.

On November 8, 2017, the FTC announced a settlement with Georgia-based online tax preparation service, TaxSlayer, LLC (“TaxSlayer”), regarding allegations that the company violated federal rules on financial privacy and data security. According to the FTC’s complaint, malicious hackers were able to gain full access to nearly 9,000 TaxSlayer user accounts between October 2015 and December 2015. The hackers allegedly used the personal information contained in the users’ accounts, including contact information, Social Security numbers and financial information, to engage in tax identify theft and obtain tax refunds through filing fraudulent tax returns. The FTC charged TaxSlayer with violating the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act’s Safeguards Rule and Privacy Rule. 

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 October 25, 2016, the Federal Trade Commission released a guide for businesses on how to handle and respond to data breaches (the “Guide”). The 16-page Guide details steps businesses should take once they become aware of a potential breach. The Guide also underscores the need for cyber-specific insurance to help offset potentially significant response costs.

On September 15, 2016, the New Jersey Senate unanimously approved a bill that seeks to limit retailers’ ability to collect and use personal data contained on consumers’ driver and non-driver identification cards. The bill, known as the Personal Information and Privacy Protection Act, must now be approved by the New Jersey Assembly.

On August 29, 2016, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it is seeking public comment on the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (“GLB”) Safeguards Rule. The GLB Safeguards Rule, which became effective in 2003, requires financial institutions to develop, implement and maintain a comprehensive information security program to safeguard customer information.

Lisa J. Sotto, partner and head of Hunton & Williams LLP’s Global Privacy and Cybersecurity practice group, recently spoke at Bloomberg Law’s Second Annual Big Law Business Summit. In Part 1 of the panel discussion, Lisa describes the dramatic changes in the legal landscape of privacy over the last 10 to 15 years, discussing the emergence of privacy laws such as “the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act for the financial sector, HIPAA for the health care sector and…of course, the local implementation of the European Data Protection Directive.” She then continues to note an ...

Personal information about consumers is the lifeblood of many organizations. Because of the potential value of the information, companies are increasingly focused on privacy and data security issues that arise in the context of mergers, acquisitions, divestitures and related transactions. In many corporate transactions, data is a critical asset that should be addressed as a key deal point. Unfortunately, too often personal data is transferred without consideration of the issues that otherwise might change the pricing of a deal – or kill it altogether. In a recent article ...

On December 9, 2015, the Federal Trade Commission announced that Wyndham Worldwide Corporation (“Wyndham”) settled charges brought by the FTC stemming from allegations that the company unfairly failed to maintain reasonable data security practices. The case is FTC v. Wyndham Worldwide Corporation, et al. (2:13-CV-01887-ES-JAD) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

On December 4, 2015, President Obama signed the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (the ‘‘FAST Act’’) into law. The FAST Act, which is aimed at improving the country’s surface transportation infrastructure, contains a provision that modifies the annual privacy notice requirement under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (“GLBA”).

On September 22, 2015, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) announced a settlement order (the “Order”) with an investment adviser for failing to establish cybersecurity policies and procedures, and published an investor alert (the “Alert”) entitled Identity Theft, Data Breaches, and Your Investment Accounts.

On August 24, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued its opinion in Federal Trade Commission v. Wyndham Worldwide Corporation (“Wyndham”), affirming a district court holding that the Federal Trade Commission has the authority to regulate companies’ data security practices.

On April 8, 2015, a New York Assemblyman introduced the Data Security Act in the New York State Assembly that would require New York businesses to implement and maintain information security safeguards. The requirements would apply to “private information,” which is defined as either:

• personal information consisting of any information in combination with one or more of the following data elements, when either the personal information or the data element is not encrypted: Social Security number; driver’s license number or non-driver identification card number; financial account or credit or debit card number in combination with any required security code or password; or biometric information;
• a user name or email address in combination with a password or security question and answer that would permit access to an online account; or
• unsecured protected health information (as that term is defined in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) Privacy Rule).

On March 3, 2015, the Third Circuit heard oral arguments in FTC v. Wyndham Worldwide Corp. (“Wyndham”) on whether the FTC has the authority to regulate private companies’ data security under Section 5 of the FTC Act.

On February 27, 2015, the White House released a highly-anticipated draft of the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights Act of 2015 (the “Act”) that seeks to establish baseline protections for individual privacy in the commercial context and to facilitate the implementation of these protections through enforceable codes of conduct. The Federal Trade Commission is tasked with the primary responsibility for promulgating regulations and enforcing the rights and obligations set forth in the Act.

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller has prepared a new bill that, although styled a “security breach” bill, would impose substantial new privacy obligations on companies holding the personal data of Indiana residents. Introduced by Indiana Senator James Merritt (R-Indianapolis) on January 12, 2015, SB413 would make a number of changes to existing Indiana law. For example, it would amend the existing Indiana breach notification law to apply to all data users, rather than owners of data bases. The bill also would expand Indiana’s breach notification law to eliminate the requirement that the breached data be computerized for notices to be required.

On October 20, 2014, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) announced a finalized rule that enables certain financial institutions to comply with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (“GLB”) by publishing their financial privacy notices online instead of mailing them to their customers. The GLB Privacy Rule requires financial institutions to provide privacy notices to their customers on an annual basis. The new disclosure method only applies to financial institutions regulated by the CFPB and does not impact those entities regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission or Federal Trade Commission.

On July 1, 2014, Delaware Governor Jack Markell signed into law a bill that creates new safe destruction requirements for the disposal of business records containing consumer personal information. The new law requires commercial entities conducting business in Delaware to take reasonable steps to destroy their consumers’ “personal identifying information” prior to the disposal of electronic or paper records. The law will take effect on January 1, 2015.

On May 6, 2014, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) announced a new proposed rule impacting privacy notices that financial institutions are required to issue under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (“GLB”). Under the current GLB Privacy Rule, financial institutions must mail an annual privacy notice (the “GLB Privacy Notice”) to their customers that sets forth how they collect, use and disclose those customers’ nonpublic personal information (“NPI”) and whether customers may limit such sharing.

On October 26, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission finalized its settlement agreements with two businesses that allegedly exposed thousands of customers’ sensitive personal information by allowing peer-to-peer (“P2P”) file-sharing software to be installed on the companies’ computer systems. The approved settlements prohibit Georgia auto dealer Franklin’s Budget Car Sales, Inc. (“Franklin”) and Utah-based debt collector EPN, Inc. (“EPN”) from misrepresenting their privacy and information security practices and requires both businesses to establish and maintain a comprehensive information security program subject to biennial, independent, third-party audits for 20 years. The settlement with Franklin also bars the company from violating the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (“GLBA”) Safeguards Rule and Privacy Rule.

On November 7, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it had settled charges against payday lending and check cashing companies alleged to have improperly disposed of consumers’ personal information. In its complaint, the FTC maintained that PLS Financial Services, Inc., and The Payday Loan Store of Illinois violated the FTC’s Disposal Rule as well as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act’s Privacy Rule and Safeguards Rule by disposing of documents that contained consumers’ Social Security numbers, bank account numbers and credit reports in unsecured dumpsters near the companies’ payday lending and check cashing retail stores. The FTC also alleged that the companies violated the FTC Act by misrepresenting that they would reasonably protect consumer information.

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.

In recent weeks, both state and federal regulators have considered security breach notification legislation. On June 15, 2012, Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy signed a budget bill that, among other things, amends the state’s security breach notification law. The changes, which will take effect on October 1, 2012, most notably require businesses to notify the state Attorney General no later than the time when notice of a security breach is provided to state residents. Although the law does not specify when notice must be provided to affected individuals, the law states that such notice must be made “without unreasonable delay,” subject to law enforcement delays and the completion of an investigation by the business to determine the nature and scope of the incident, to identify affected individuals, or to restore the reasonable integrity of the data system. As we previously reported, Vermont also recently amended its breach notification statute to require businesses to notify the state Attorney General within 14 days of discovering a security breach or concurrently when notifying consumers, whichever is sooner.

On June 7, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission announced settlement agreements with two businesses that allegedly exposed customers’ sensitive personal information by allowing peer-to-peer (“P2P”) file-sharing software to be installed on their company computers and networks.

In its complaint against Franklin’s Budget Car Sales (“Franklin”), a Georgia automobile dealership that also provides financing services to its customers, the FTC alleged that Franklin failed to implement reasonable security measures to protect the consumer personal information that Franklin routinely collects in connection with its business. The FTC claimed that personal information of approximately 95,000 customers, including names, Social Security numbers, addresses, dates of birth, and drivers’ license numbers were made available and disclosed by a P2P application installed on a computer that was connected to Franklin’s computer network. In addition to alleging violations of Section 5 of the FTC Act, the FTC also claimed that Franklin violated the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act (“GLB”). This is the first FTC case against an auto dealer involving GLB violations. The FTC stated in its complaint that Franklin failed to implement reasonable security policies and procedures in violation of the GLB Safeguards Rule, and also failed to send consumers annual privacy notices and to provide the required opt-out mechanisms in violation of the GLB Privacy Rule.

On June 13, 2011, Representative Mary Bono Mack (R-CA) released a discussion draft of the Secure and Fortify Data Act (the “SAFE Data Act”), which is designed to “protect consumers by requiring reasonable security policies and procedures to protect data containing personal information, and to provide for nationwide notice in the event of a security breach.”  Representative Bono Mack is Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade.  In a press release, Representative Bono Mack remarked that “E-commerce is a vital and growing part of our economy.  We should take steps to embrace and protect it – and that starts with robust cyber security.”  She added that “consumers have a right to know when their personal information has been compromised, and companies and other organizations have an overriding responsibility to promptly alert them.”

On February 11, 2011, Representative Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) introduced two pieces of legislation that, in her words, “send a clear message—privacy over profit.” The Do Not Track Me Online Act of 2011 (HR 654), would direct the Federal Trade Commission to promulgate regulations that establish standards for a “Do Not Track” mechanism. The regulations also would require covered entities to disclose their information practices to consumers, and to respect consumers’ choices regarding the collection and use of their information. The bill includes a provision that would allow the FTC to exempt from its regulations certain “commonly accepted commercial practices” such as using consumer information to provide and improve products and services, to comply with law, or to carry out basic business functions like accounting, quality assurance or internal auditing.

On December 10, 2010, Senior Advisor to U.S. Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), Daniel Sepulveda, briefed the Centre for Information Policy Leadership at Hunton & Williams LLP (the “Centre”) members on Senator Kerry’s forthcoming privacy legislation.  The bill, which will be introduced next Congress, aims to establish a regulatory framework for the comprehensive protection of individuals’ personal data that authorizes rulemakings by the Federal Trade Commission.

On October 27, 2010, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “CFTC”) issued two notices of proposed rulemaking (“NPRMs”), citing Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (“GLBA”) privacy rules, and marketing and data disposal rules of the Fair Credit Report Act (“FCRA”).

The proposed rules come in the wake of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which places two new categories of covered entities (i.e., “swap dealers” and “major swap participants”) under the CFTC’s jurisdiction.  Under the proposals, those entities would be subject to certain GLBA privacy rules that regulate the treatment of consumers’ nonpublic personal information, and sections of the FCRA that address affiliate marketing and data disposal.

Today, eight federal financial regulatory agencies issued a final Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ("GLBA") model privacy notice.  The final model notice incorporates financial institutions' required disclosures pursuant to Section 503 of the GLBA.  The GLBA requires, in relevant part, that financial institutions provide consumers with information regarding their collection and sharing of nonpublic personal information.  Financial institutions that adopt the final model notice will be deemed in compliance with the GLBA notice requirements.  The final model notice is the result of the agencies' consumer research and testing.  It is touted as succinct, easy to use and consumer friendly. The final model notice will take effect 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Publication is anticipated shortly.

The federal financial services agencies are expected to shortly announce a proposed-final Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (“GLBA”) model form privacy notice.  The model notice incorporates financial institutions' required disclosures pursuant to Section 503 of the GLBA.  Financial institutions that use the form to provide notice to consumers will be deemed in compliance with the privacy notice provisions of the GLBA.  Once adopted and published in the Federal Register, the financial services agencies' final model notice will take effect in 30 days.

The GLBA requires, in relevant part, that financial institutions provide consumers with notice of their privacy policies and practices.  The privacy notice must describe a financial institution's disclosure of nonpublic personal information to affiliated and nonaffiliated third parties.  In addition, the notice must also give consumers a reasonable opportunity to opt out of certain sharing with nonaffiliated third parties.

On June 30, 2009, the Obama Administration sent legislation to Congress that would create a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency ("CFPA").  Working with state regulators, the new agency would assume authority for the privacy provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and would have the power to write rules and impose penalties pursuant to a variety of existing statutes, including the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act.  To date, these powers have been shared among all financial services regulators, including the Federal Trade ...