Even when stringent protective orders are in place, clients are often concerned that the sensitive information they are required to produce in litigation will end up being disclosed or used for improper purposes. Clients often ask whether the protective order
By Shan Nanayakkara
In TR v Land Hessen (C‑768/21) the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) found that following a personal data breach, a supervisory authority is under no obligation to exercise its corrective powers, specifically the power to
On October 30, 2023, the SEC announced charges against SolarWinds and its Chief Information Security Officer Timothy Brown.
Read our full analysis at www.nortonrosefulbright.com.
Special thanks to Law Clerk Ian Slingsby (Washington, DC) for his assistance in the
Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) is considered the most comprehensive law governing the processing of biometric data. Passed in 2008, BIPA sets out requirements for private entities, including employers, that collect, use, store, and share biometric information. It’s also one of the most popular class action suits today – hundreds, if not thousands of cases have been filed in recent years – and there is no sign that the litigation is slowing down.
The Singapore High Court and the Hong Kong District Court have both considered the right to compensation for injury to feelings in two recent cases involving misuse of personal data but arrived at different conclusions.
On March 10, 2020, the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) issued guidance to all of its regulated institutions engaged in virtual currency business activity, requiring them to have plans for preparedness to manage the possible operational and financial risks posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. NYDFS requires the plans to be submitted by Thursday, April 9, 2020.
In a judgment which will be warmly welcomed by employers (and their insurers) in the UK, the UK Supreme Court today overruled the Court of Appeal in holding that that Morrisons supermarkets is not vicariously liable for a data breach maliciously caused by a former employee.
Recent legal action by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) will shed light on the Federal Court’s willingness to enforce and monitor compliance with the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). On February 6, the OPC filed a notice of application (the Application) in the Federal Court seeking a declaration that Facebook has contravened PIPEDA and various orders that would compel Facebook to bring itself into compliance. [1] Organizations governed by PIPEDA should keep a close eye on the Court’s inquiry as well as any eventual order enforcing compliance with the Act.
The Grand Chamber of the ECHR held that Spanish shop workers’ right to privacy under Article 8(1) of the ECHR was not violated when their employer obtained evidence of theft from covert CCTV footage of the employees.
On 1 October 2019, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) delivered its judgement on Case C – 673/17 (the “Planet49” case), which relates to the consent and transparency requirements for the use of cookies and similar technologies. The ECJ largely followed the March 2019 Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar and the judgment is generally consistent with the recent regulatory guidance issued by the UK and French data protection authorities in this area.