June is proving to be a very active month for the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in construing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, including what sorts of consumer interactions are sufficient to meet the requirements for consent to receive marketing or other messages. This post reports on an extraordinary warning letter issued to PayPal, criticizing a user-agreement based approach to collecting consent. Next week, we will report on a series of TCPA interpretative guidance which was adopted yesterday by a vote of 3 to 2.

On June 11, the FCC publicly released a warning letter sent to PayPal, Inc., by the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau, stating that PayPal’s new user agreement “may violate” a federal law called the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or TCPA. The TCPA requires a consumer’s consent before a business may make certain types of phone calls or send automated text messages. PayPal had released a modification of its existing user agreement (set to go into effect on July 1) that would authorize the company to make “autodialed or prerecorded calls and text messages” for a variety of purposes and at any telephone number PayPal associates with the customer.

The recent showdown over renewal of certain provisions of the USA Patriot Act (often called simply the Patriot Act) and the subsequent enactment of the USA Freedom Act have raised a number of questions about the ongoing impact of these laws on data traversing or being stored in the United States. While the new law takes the NSA out of the direct business of maintaining metadata (which includes phone number called, the time and duration of the call, and location

On Wednesday, April 8, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) entered a consent decree and levied a $25 million civil penalty against AT&T to settle a data breach that exposed the information of nearly 280,000 customers.  This order comes on the heels of other recent FCC enforcement actions for privacy violations, demonstrating an invigorated effort by the FCC to “exercise its full authority” against companies that fail to secure customer data.

Until last week’s AT&T decision, the October 2014

This week the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’) heard a case that could destabilise data flows between the US and EU under the EU-US Safe Harbor Decision. In Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner(C-362/14), the same court that last year approved the “right to be forgotten” online heard evidence about the adequacy of US data protection regulations for EU citizens’ data and considered whether recent revelations about the NSA and PRISM programmes should affect determinations

By Chei-Liang Sin, Luke Grubb & Sally Murphy

The Personal Data Protection Commission (the Commission) was established in January 2013 to implement and enforce The Personal Data Protection Act 2012 (PDPA). The PDPA fully came into force on 2 July 2014. So far, the Commission has mainly used its investigation and enforcement powers to take action against organisations not adhering to the Do Not Call provisions of the PDPA. However, the Commission is also in the process of investigating

The State of California, long the most proactive U.S. state in enacting data privacy laws, has again modified its breach notification and data protection laws.  This week, Governor Jerry Brown signed two privacy bills into law:  SOPIPA (SB 1177), aimed at regulating the use of student data, and AB 1710, targeting data protection more broadly.  Taken together, these bills highlight the continuing compliance challenges facing American businesses which must conform not only to state-specific privacy standards, but also monitor

A Stored Communications Act (SCA) search warrant case arising out of a New York federal  narcotics trafficking investigation is being closely watched by EU data protection authorities, privacy advocates, multinational internet service providers, and law enforcement, among others, as the  parties pursue an expedited appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Captioned In re Search Warrant, No. 13 Mag. 2814, M9-150, the case involves  a U.S. law enforcement request for the contents of an Outlook.com email box,

The Straits Times reported on 14 August that Singapore’s Personal Data Protection Commission (the “Commission”) is investigating a complaint from a user that Xiaomi has breached the Personal Data Protection Act 2012 (“PDPA”). This is believed to be the first investigation under the main PDPA rules unrelated to the Do Not Call registry which came into force on 2 July 2014. This investigation will be followed with interest as it may set the tone for how

On July 17th, the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act (DRIPA) came into effect in the United Kingdom reinstating the Government’s powers to require communication providers to retain traffic data (also known as metadata) and enabling the Government to serve warrants to intercept communications data on companies outside of the United Kingdom to the extent they were providing services to UK users.  DRIPA became law following emergency “fast-tracked” procedures on the basis that its enactment was essential to ensure continued

By Kevin Boyle and Alex Stout

On Wednesday, the Attorney General of California released a new privacy guide, titled Making Your Privacy Practices Public.  The guide doesn’t purport to be a restatement of California law (or other law) and expressly disclaims that, but it does present what the AG’s office views as a best practice approach to crafting privacy disclosure materials while covering some unique California requirements.  It also highlights recent revisions to California’s online privacy law (known as