Latham & Watkins

Subscribe to Latham & Watkins's Posts
California State Capital

Washington State’s landmark privacy law has inspired other states to pass similar laws with stringent requirements on a broad range of companies and processing activities.

By Heather B. Deixler, Clayton Northouse, Austin L. Anderson, Kiara E. Vaughn, and Kathryn Parsons-Reponte

Key Takeaways:

  • On April 27, 2023, Washington State enacted the My Health My Data law (My Health My Data Act), a health privacy law that broadly applies to personal information that is or can be linked to a consumer and identifies the consumer’s physical or mental health status.
  • On June 16, 2023, Nevada passed a similar law by enacting Senate Bill 370 (Nevada Health Privacy Law).
  • Both laws apply to consumer health information not covered under health data privacy laws like the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, as amended (HIPAA). However, while Nevada’s law shares similar terminology as Washington State’s law, it is narrower in scope and unlike the Washington State law, it does not include a private cause of action.
  • The requirements under both laws include publishing a consumer health data privacy policy, obtaining consent for the collection and sharing of consumers’ health data with prescriptive requirements, and establishing consumer health data rights.
  • While both laws will be enforced by the states Attorney General, the Washington State law also provides a private right of action, allowing individuals to directly bring an enforcement action against a business.
  • With certain exceptions (see small businesses and the geolocation restriction under My Health My Data), both laws will go into effect on March 31, 2024.

Washington State and Nevada have now passed health data privacy laws that impose obligations relating to the collection, processing, and sharing of “consumer health data.” Both laws (collectively, State Health Data Privacy Laws) go into effect on March 31, 2024, with some exceptions. The Washington State law’s ban on geofencing went into effect on July 23, 2023, and the law also includes a slight delay for small businesses, which are not subject to most of the law’s requirements until June 30, 2024.

Privacy concept: Home on digital background

Covered companies will need to take additional steps to comply with the law in light of the new obligations relating to consumer health data and minors under 18 years old.

By Marissa R. Boynton, Serrin Turner, Joseph C. Hansen, Jennifer Howes, and Dyllan Brown-Bramble

On June 6, 2023, the Connecticut legislature passed Substitute Senate Bill No. 3 (SB3), which significantly amends the Connecticut Data Privacy Act (CTDPA), thereby broadening its reach. While the CTDPA took effect on July 1, 2023, the amendments do not yet apply.

The provisions in SB3 concerning consumer health data were originally drafted to take effect on July 1, 2023, alongside the rest of the CTDPA. However, a day after SB3 passed, the state budget bill amended the provisions related to consumer health data. The provisions will now take effect on October 1, 2023.

Separately, the requirements for dating app operators will take effect on January 1, 2024; the requirements for social media platforms will take effect on July 1, 2024; and the requirements for online providers of services, products, or features used by minors under 18 will take effect on October 1, 2024.

Internet Security Concept

Florida’s law introduces novel provisions that depart from existing US state privacy laws, which businesses will need to carefully consider.

By Jennifer C. Archie, Clayton Northouse, Joseph C. Hansen, and Austin L. Anderson

Key Takeaways:

  • On June 7, 2023, Florida’s governor signed the Digital Bill of Rights into law, set to go into effect on July 1, 2024.
  • Unique to Florida, the law mainly targets very large enterprises, adopting a revenue threshold of at least $1 billion gross annual revenue for many of its requirements, and regulating companies engaged in specific enumerated digital lines of business.
  • The law also imposes obligations on all for-profit businesses (regardless of revenue threshold) that do business in the state and “sell” the sensitive personal data of Florida consumers.
  • Many of the law’s requirements are modeled off of Virginia’s privacy law, but covered businesses will need to pay special attention to unique requirements around consumer rights, privacy policy disclosures, and restrictions on data obtained from consumers under the age of 18.
  • The Florida Attorney General has exclusive enforcement authority, and penalties can reach up to $150,000 for certain violations, including failure to correct or delete a consumer’s personal data.
  • Favorably, the law provides a discretionary 45-day right to cure.
California State Capital

A California court has held that the regulations the California Privacy Protection Agency adopted in March 2023 may not be enforced until March 2024.

By Michael Rubin, Joseph Hansen, Austin Anderson, and Max Mazzelli

On June 30, 2023, a day before the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) as amended by the California Consumer Privacy Act (CPRA), and the accompanying regulations issued by the California Privacy Protection Agency (Agency), were set to come into force, the Superior Court of California granted a petition to restore a key aspect of the voter-enacted law: covered businesses must receive a one-year grace period between final adoption and enforcement of the CCPA regulations. Certain forthcoming regulations will also receive a one-year grace period.

cybersecurity

The French Data Protection Authority imposed a €280,000 fine for GDPR infringements and a €100,000 fine for violation of French cookie rules.

By Myria Saarinen

On 11 May 2023 the French Data Protection Authority (the CNIL) handed down its decision on the health website Doctissimo, imposing a €280,000 fine for the infringement of four provisions of the GDPR and an additional €100,000 fine for the violation of Article 82 of the French Data Protection Act (the French Cookies Rule).

Founded in 2000 by medical doctors, Doctissimo is one of the most widely visited health and well-being websites in France, with the majority of visitors located in France and Belgium. The website hosts articles, tests, quizzes, and forums related to health and well-being.

Internet Cyber Security network with lock

The new laws introduce novel applicability thresholds and other requirements that businesses should consider when preparing for compliance with US state privacy laws, including those coming into effect from 2023 onwards.

By Robert Blamires, Marissa Boynton, Michael H. Rubin, Joseph Hansen, and Austin Anderson

Key Takeaways:

(i) Indiana, Montana, and Tennessee have all enacted general data privacy legislation, bringing the total to nine US state data privacy laws.

(ii) Montana will be the first of the three new laws to take effect on October 1, 2024, followed by Tennessee on July 1, 2025, and Indiana on January 1, 2026.

(iii) For businesses subject to existing similar general data privacy laws in other US states, many of the requirements will look familiar. The laws in Indiana and Tennessee generally follow in the wake of Virginia’s privacy law, while Montana’s law tracks more closely to Connecticut’s privacy law.  

(iv) All three laws will be exclusively enforced by the respective state attorneys general, but the penalties and applicable cure periods vary.

general data protection regulation GDPR

By Ian Felstead, Gail Crawford, Serrin Turner, Tim Wybitul, and Hayley Pizzey[1]

The final decision of the Irish Data Protection Commission (IDPC) in relation to the transfers of EU/EEA Facebook user data by Meta Platforms Ireland Limited (Meta Ireland) to its processor, Meta Platforms, Inc., in the US (the Transfers)[2] was published on 22 May 2023 (IDPC Decision).[3]

The IDPC found that the Transfers, made pursuant to Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs), did not comply with Article 46(1) GDPR, as the SCCs together with the supplementary measures implemented “do not compensate for the deficiencies in US law in issue”. The IDPC also found that the Transfers could not be made pursuant to any of the derogations under Article 49(1) GDPR. In particular, the IDPC concluded that the “contractual necessity” derogation could not be relied on by Meta Ireland “to justify the systematic, bulk, repetitive and ongoing transfers to the US”.

In light of these conclusions, the IDPC made an order suspending the Transfers (the Suspension Order).

Stock-Images-Law-Courts-European-Court-of-Justice-Luxemboug-Court-of-European-Union-Law-Exterior

The court determined that mere infringement of the GDPR is insufficient for a damages claim, but that there is no minimum threshold for non-material damages.

By Tim Wybitul, Myria Saarinen, Isabelle Brams, Floriane Cruchet, Camille Dorval, Charlotte Guerin, Lara Nonninger, and Hayley Pizzey

In a recent judgment (Case C-300/21), the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) held that mere infringement of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is insufficient to claim compensation under Article 82, absent any material or non-material damage suffered by the individual. In relation to non-material damage, the CJEU rejected the concept of a minimum threshold level of damage or harm to the individual.

Article 82 of the GDPR states that any person who has suffered material or non-material damage as a result of a GDPR infringement has the right to receive compensation.

The CJEU’s judgment has the potential to encourage non-material damages claims — whether individual or collective — as it is clear that there is no de minimis threshold for such damages. However, the judgment also holds that mere GDPR infringement is an insufficient basis for non-material damages and therefore the claimant must prove that they suffered damage — albeit not to a standard, European Union-wide minimal threshold. Therefore, the specific impact of this judgment will vary across Member States, depending on applicable domestic law underpinning non-material damages claims more broadly.

Organisations must provide individuals with information on the specific recipients of their data upon request.

By Tim Wybitul, Isabelle Brams, Calum Docherty, and Amy Smyth

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled that organisations must generally disclose the specific identity of data recipients on request from an individual in order to give effect to the right of access. Organisations may only limit their response to the mere categories of recipients if they cannot identify the specific recipients or if the request is manifestly unfounded or excessive. The court’s judgment in the case of RW v. Österreichische Post AG (Case C-154/21) follows the opinion given by CJEU Advocate General Giovanni Pitruzzella in mid-2022 (the Opinion). For background on the case and the Opinion, see this Latham & Watkins blog post.

The Dubai International Financial Centre urges companies to protect personal data when using artificial intelligence.

By Brian A. Meenagh, Ksenia Koroleva, and Lucy Tucker 

On 18 April 2023, the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC), a financial free zone with its own data protection laws, published a consultation paper (the Consultation Paper) regarding amendments to DIFC Data Protection Regulations (the Regulations) for a 30-day public consultation.

The Consultation Paper acknowledges that AI systems are important and useful but carry risks to personal data processing. The DIFC’s proposed approach urges all companies using AI systems to adopt and reinforce technical and organisational means to protect personal data when using AI.