Global Privacy & Security Compliance Law Blog

RuNet Law: New Russian Law Could Significantly Impact Telecom and Internet Providers and Social Media Platforms

Posted in Legislative & Regulatory Developments, Privacy, Security

Broadly written rules would allow the Russian government greater central control over content and data flows, and greater access to users’ information.

By Fiona M. Maclean and Ksenia Koroleva

On May 1, 2019, the Russian President signed draft law No. 608767-7, commonly referred to as the Russian Internet Law, or “RuNet Law” (Federal Law No. 90-FZ “On Amending Federal Law ‘On Communications’ and Federal Law ‘On Information, Information Technology and Information Protection’”). The majority of RuNet Law amendments will come into effect on November 1, 2019.

The RuNet Law’s principal provisions include:

  • Introducing rules for the centralization and control of data traffic (g., the RuNet Law establishes a centralised Russian Internet data traffic routing system)
  • Requiring entities involved in the transfer of data to install additional equipment and comply with new obligations that aim to ensure such centralization

Continue Reading

ICO Launches Consultation on Age-Appropriate Design: A Code of Practice for ISS

Posted in GDPR, Legislative & Regulatory Developments, Privacy

Online services have until 31 May to respond to 16 draft standards of age-appropriate design.

By Fiona Maclean and Olga M. Phillips

The ICO is required by s123 of the Data Protection Act 2018 to prepare a code of practice which contains guidance on standards of age-appropriate design of relevant information society services likely to be accessed by children. On 15 April, the ICO published a draft code of practice on age-appropriate design for online services (the Code). A copy of the Code can be found here.

Who does the Code apply to?

The Code is aimed at Information Society Services (ISS), which is defined as “any service normally provided for remuneration, at a distance, by electronic means and at the individual request of a recipient of services”. In practice, this definition extends to almost all online services including apps, websites, social media platforms, online messaging services, online marketplaces, content streaming services, and even news and educational websites.

The reference to “remuneration” is often seen as confusing. However, the ICO clarified that remuneration covers services funded by advertising, but also those provided to end users free of charge.

ISS should also note that the Code applies if children (i.e. a person under 18) are likely to use the service. This definition includes services that are designed specifically for children, as well as those that may appeal to children or those that were designed for adults but have, in fact, attracted children. Continue Reading

UK’s Proposed “Online Harms” Compliance and Enforcement Regime Will Target Platforms

Posted in Privacy, Security

UK publishes White Paper with hard-hitting regulatory proposals to tackle online harms.

By Alain Traill, Stuart Davis, Andrew Moyle, Deborah Kirk and Gail Crawford

On 8 April 2019, the Home Office and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) published an “Online Harms White Paper”, proposing a new compliance and enforcement regime intended to combat online harms. The regime is designed to force online platforms to move away from self-regulation and sets out a legal framework to tackle users’ illegal and socially harmful activity. Although the regime appears to target larger social media platforms, the proposals technically extend to all organisations that provide online platforms allowing user interaction or user-generated content (not limited to social media companies or even ‘service providers’ in the traditional sense) and set out a potentially onerous and punitive compliance and enforcement regime for a broad set of online providers. Continue Reading

What Companies Can Learn From CNIL’s Privacy Consent Cases on Targeted Marketing … in 60 Seconds

Posted in GDPR, Privacy

The closure of four cases involving targeted advertising provides lessons for navigating compliance standards under the GDPR.

By Myria Saarinen and Elise Auvray

Four French advertising technology companies that received a warning in 2018 from the French Data Protection Authority (CNIL) have all implemented the regulator’s required changes. The recent closure of the cases highlights opportunities for businesses at all layers of the adtech value chain to address emerging compliance challenges.

The companies — Fidzup, Teemo, Singlespot, and Vectaury — collect geolocation data for targeted advertising purposes via third-party apps. Initially, the French regulator found that they had failed to obtain an informed, freely given, and specific consent from app users, since:

  • The information provided was insufficient, as it was unclear, used complex terms, and was difficult to access.
  • The consent was not based on an affirmative declaration, as the options were pre-ticked.
  • Users were not asked to consent to the processing of their geolocation data specifically.

Continue Reading

EDPB Clarifies Use of Consent and Other Legal Grounds for Clinical Trials, but Challenges Remain

Posted in GDPR, Legislative & Regulatory Developments

European regulators are expected to align their processes and guidance to accommodate the EDPB’s recommended approach to processing special categories of personal data.

By Gail E. Crawford, Frances Stocks Allen, and Mihail Krepchev

In January, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) issued an opinion (Opinion) on the interplay between the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Clinical Trials Regulation (CTR), which: (1) confirms that consent under the GDPR and CTR are different concepts; and (2) sets out the EDPB’s recommendations on the appropriate legal basis required for processing personal data in connection with clinical trials conducted in the EEA (which is unlikely to be consent).

Practical Takeaways

While the Opinion brings some much-needed certainty to the area of consent and other legal grounds for clinical trials, challenges remain. Outlined below are the key challenges and the steps that sponsors of clinical trials in the EEA (Sponsors) should take when designing their research activities: Continue Reading

No Deal Brexit and Data Transfers: Companies Must Prepare Now

Posted in GDPR, Legislative & Regulatory Developments, Privacy

Companies should identify data flows, implement a data transfer solution, and update internal documents and privacy notices.

By Fiona M. Maclean and Jane Bentham

Since our blog on “What a “No Deal” Brexit Means for UK Data Privacy”, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) has published two information notes on data transfers in the event of a “no deal” Brexit:

  • A general note on the various data transfer mechanisms (and exceptions) under the GDPR
  • A specific note on the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), the UK regulator, as a Lead Supervisory Authority for Binding Corporate Rules

The UK government has also issued a paper titled “Implications for Business and Trade of a no Deal Exit on 29 March 2019,” including a small section on data transfers. The paper states that the government’s primary aim is to ensure that the UK leaves the EU on 29 March 2019 (the Exit Date) with an agreed and approved Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration (the Proposed Deal). Of course it is possible that Brexit may be delayed by extending Article 50 to give the UK more negotiating time with the EU. Continue Reading

4 Questions to Consider When Dealing With Children’s Data in the US

Posted in GDPR, Legislative & Regulatory Developments, Privacy, Security

The FTC and many state attorneys general aggressively monitor apps, websites, and internet-connected products for COPPA compliance.

By Jennifer C. Archie, Michael H. Rubin, and Alexander L. Stout

In the United States, collecting data directly from children under 13 years of age is tightly regulated by a federal statute, which is aggressively monitored and enforced. Under the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), even seemingly straightforward online data collection and storage practices such as logging an IP address or storing an email address are subject to strict requirements, such as providing notice and obtaining advanced parental consent prior to collection or storage.

Under COPPA, obtaining proper consent can be technically or administratively burdensome, expectations shift with technological advancement, regulatory exceptions are vague, and penalties are calculated on a per-violation basis. COPPA is enforced by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and state attorneys general, both of which are very active in this area. Although the FTC maintains a website with answers to frequently asked questions, the law is complicated, and companies should consult with an attorney. Continue Reading

DIFC Issues New Direct Marketing and Electronic Communications Guidelines

Posted in GDPR, Legislative & Regulatory Developments, Privacy

The DIFC guidelines provide practical guidance for DIFC-registered entities engaging in electronic direct marketing, including useful “dos” and “don’ts”.

By Brian A. Meenagh, Fiona M. Maclean, and Laura Holden

What Do DIFC-Registered Entities Need to Know?

In January 2019, the Commissioner for Data Protection for the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) issued new Direct Marketing and Electronic Communications Guidelines, aimed at DIFC-registered entities that collect and maintain personal data for electronic direct marketing purposes.

The document provides practical guidance on the rules relating to the collection, maintenance, and use of personal data for electronic direct marketing purposes set out in the Data Protection Law, DIFC Law No.1 of 2007 (DP Law), which is based on the (now superseded) UK Data Protection Act 1998 and EU Data Privacy Directive 1996. However, the guidelines also take into account the latest direct marketing requirements under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive 2002, providing practical examples of “do’s” and “don’ts” for entities to consider. The guidelines also appear to leverage provisions from the October 2018 draft of the EC’s new e-Privacy Regulation (ePR) which is currently anticipated to come into force in 2021. Continue Reading

European Commission Adopts Adequacy Decision for Japan

Posted in GDPR, Legislative & Regulatory Developments

The European Commission adopted its adequacy decision for Japan on 23 January 2019, opening the doors for personal data to flow freely between the two major global economies.

By Fiona M. Maclean and Laura Holden

The Adequacy Decision

Following two years of dialogue between the European Union (EU) and Japan, the European Commission (EC) adopted its mutual adequacy decision (Decision) for Japan on 23 January 2019. As noted in the EC’s press release, the decision is effective immediately.

Japan now joins a list of select jurisdictions recognised as adequate by the EC, notably: Andorra, Argentina, Canada (for private entities only), Faeroe Islands, Guernsey, Israel, Isle of Man, Jersey, New Zealand, Switzerland, Uruguay, and the United States (EU-U.S. Privacy Shield). The Decision is the first of its kind adopted since the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) became applicable in May 2018. Continue Reading

5 Ways for Companies to Limit GDPR Penalties

Posted in GDPR, Privacy

EU data protection authorities are imposing increased penalties under the GDPR, with more proceedings forecast for 2019.

By Tim Wybitul, Prof. Dr. Thomas Grützner, Dr. Wolf-Tassilo Böhm, and Dr. Isabelle Brams

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has been in effect since May 2018. Although the French data protection authority (CNIL) has imposed the highest fine to date — €50 million on 21 January 2019 — German federal data protection authorities have already imposed fines for GDPR infringements in 41 cases nationwide and say that they have “very many” additional fine proceedings in progress. This first wave of fines has come from five German authorities, with 11 authorities having not yet imposed any fines under the GDPR.

Under the former German data protection law, companies faced a maximum penalty of €300,000 for violations. However, the GDPR provides authorities with different disciplinary options and they can now impose fines of up to €20 million or more. The maximum fine may amount to up to 4% of the worldwide annual turnover. Hence, corporates with an annual revenue of more than €500 million may face fines exceeding the €20 million threshold. Continue Reading

LexBlog