March 2018

On March 8, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued its highly anticipated decision in In re Zappos.com, Inc., finding that allegations of future risk of identity theft from a data breach are sufficient to confer standing. This decision fuels an ongoing circuit split, pitting the D.C., Sixth, Seventh and now Ninth Circuits against the Second, Fourth, and Eighth Circuits over whether the mere exposure of personal information – without actual identity theft or credit/debit card fraud – establishes Article III standing.

On March 16, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued its decision on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) omnibus order of 2015, relating to challenges to four of the FCC’s determinations relating to cell phones.  The appellate court upheld the FCC’s determinations that consumers can revoke consent to receive marketing calls by “any reasonable means” that clearly expresses the desire to receive no further messages from the caller, and an exception for certain “emergency” healthcare-related calls.  On the other hand, the court set aside the FCC’s decision regarding the definition of an “automatic telephone dialing system” (ATDS), and how callers can deal with reassigned numbers where the previous owner had consented to receive marketing calls.

On 1 February 2018, Singapore Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) released its response to feedback on its public consultation on approaches to managing personal data in the digital economy, which took place in Q3 2017 (the Public Consultation). The purpose of  the Public Consultation, was to seek public feedback on proposed changes to Singapore’s data protection regime, the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA).  The key proposed changes to the PDPA include the relaxation of the consent requirement to collect, use and disclose personal data in Singapore and the introduction of a mandatory data breach notification regime.

We set out below a summary of the key points that you should know about the public feedback and PDPC’s response.

Uber recently announced the launch of Uber Health, a non-emergency ride service that allows healthcare providers to schedule and pay for transportation for their patients. The stated purpose of the service is to expand medical transportation to traditionally underserved areas. Roughly 3.6 million Americans miss medical appointments each year due to lack of reliable transportation, contributing to the roughly $150 billion per year the healthcare industry loses due to missed appointments.  

On February 12, 2018, the Article 29 Working Party (WP29) published guidance regarding Article 49 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) for public comment.  The deadline for submitting comments on the draft is March 26, 2018, and responses should be emailed to JUST-ARTICLE29WP-SEC@ec.europa.eu.

Like the current EU Data Protection Directive, the GDPR prohibits the onward transfer of Personal Data to: (1) a country that has not been deemed to provide an adequate level of protection (e.g. the U.S.); and (2) where the entity therein has committed to handle the Personal Data of European data subjects applying appropriate safeguards in accordance with Article 46 of the GDPR.  For example, organizations comply with Article 46 by implementing Binding Corporate Rules (BCRs) or Standard Contractual Clauses or by participating in a recognized certification mechanism such as the EU-US Privacy Shield Framework.  However, Article 49 of the GDPR provides for transfers to entities in a country without an adequate level of protection under a series of narrowly tailored exceptions called derogations.