The discussion paper on the proposed changes to Hong Kong’s Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap.486) (the PDPO) was debated by the Legislative Council’s Panel on Constitutional Affairs’ (the Panel) on 20 January. The proposals set out in LC Paper. No. CB(2) 512/19-20(03) (the Paper) are summarised in our earlier post.… Continue Reading
Posted in Regulatory responseWritten by Partner Anna Gamvros and Associate Libby Ryan, both based in the Hong Kong office.
Earlier this week, the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau (the CMAB) released its discussion paper (LC Paper. No. CB(2) 512/19-20(03) (the Paper) seeking the Legislative Council’s Panel on Constitutional Affairs’ (the Panel) views on proposed changes to the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap.486) (the PDPO). The Paper was released on Monday 13th January, as part of an agenda for the Panel meeting which was held on Monday, 20th January, and follows proposals by the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data (the Commissioner) to … Continue Reading
Posted in Regulatory responseThe Turkish Data Protection Board (“Board”) announced the extension of VERBİS registration deadline until June 30, 2020 for:
Posted in Regulatory response
Turkey’s data protection legislation (TDPL) requires data controllers to notify the Turkish DPA of their processing activities. Unless exempt from the requirement, all data controllers (individuals and legal entities) who process personal data in Turkey must be registered with the Turkish DPA’s Register of Data Controllers Information System (VERBİS), prior to processing any personal data.
Data controllers which fail to fulfil this obligation may be subject to an administrative fine of an amount between TL 20,000–1,000,000 (approximately USD 3,600-180,000). Such fines will be issued at the discretion of the Data Protection Board and will be determined based on the … Continue Reading
Posted in Data breach, Regulatory response
On Friday, July 12, 2019, the Wall Street Journal reported that Federal Trade Commission and Facebook reached a settlement to resolve Facebook’s privacy issues surrounding the Cambridge Analytica disclosure discovered last year. The settlement imposes a US$5 billion dollars on the tech giant, which represents roughly 9% of Facebook’s total yearly revenue and is the largest civil and privacy fine ever imposed by the FTC. The fine largely surpasses the FTC’s previous imposed fine in a privacy action, when the FTC fined Google US$22.5 million to settle claims it misrepresented privacy assurances to Safari users.… Continue Reading
Posted in Regulatory response
On 15 April 2019, the ICO opened a public consultation on a draft code of practice titled Age Appropriate Design (the “Code”). The Code will remain open for public consultation until 31 May 2019.
The consultation document is described as a “code of practice for online services likely to be accessed by children.” However, its potential impact is in fact wider, and is perhaps better described as applying to all online services that are not demonstrably unlikely to be accessed by children, which it controversially defines as individuals under 18. For this reason, the Code in its current form … Continue Reading
On January 23, 2019, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) issued an opinion on the interplay between the Clinical Trials Regulation (“CTR”) and the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). See our previous blog posts on the GDPR here and here. The opinion also addresses GDPR requirements regarding (1) the legal basis for processing personal data in the course of a clinical trial protocol (primary use) and (2) the further use of clinical trial data for other scientific purposes (secondary use).
Even though the CTR already entered into force on June 16, 2014, the regulation’s application depends on the … Continue Reading
On January 21,2019 the French data protection authority (the CNIL) imposed a major fine on the U.S. Google entity, Google LLC. It follows two complaints filed as soon as the GDPR came into force by two consumer rights associations, None of Your Business and La Quadrature du Net.
We focus here on four key aspects of the decision: (a) why the Irish Data Protection Commission (Irish DPC) did not take the case; (b) the consent mechanism failings; (c) the privacy policy failings; and (d) the amount of the fine.… Continue Reading
Posted in Regulatory responseOn January 23rd 2019, the European Commission adopted its adequacy decision in relation to the export of personal data from the European Union (EU) to Japan. Concurrently, Japan has adopted an equivalent decision in relation to the export of personal data from Japan to the EU. Such mutual decision is the result of two-years of dialogue and negotiations between both parties.
According to a joint statement issued by Věra Jourová (Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality) and Haruhi Kumazawa (Commissioner of the Personal Information Protection Commission of Japan), “these mutual adequacy findings create the world’s largest … Continue Reading
On November 21, 2018, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court broke new ground by holding that employers have a legal duty to take reasonable care to safeguard its employees’ sensitive personal information from cyberattacks. Dittman v. UPMC, 2018 Pa. LEXIS 6072199 (Pa. Nov. 21, 2018).… Continue Reading
On November 23, 2018, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) issued highly anticipated draft Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) on the territorial scope of the GDPR. See our previous blog posts on the GDPR here and here. The Guidelines provide some clarity around the scope and applicability of the GDPR to data Controllers and Processors both inside and outside the EU.… Continue Reading
On November 30, 2018 the Cyber Security Protection Bureau, under the auspices of the PRC Ministry of Public Security (the “MPS”), issued a draft Guideline for Internet Personal Information Security Protection (the “Guideline”) along with a request for public comments.… Continue Reading
This is the Data Protection Report’s second post in a series of blog posts that will break down the major elements of the CCPA which will culminate in a webinar on the CCPA in October. This blog focuses on covered entities. Stay tuned for additional posts and information about our upcoming webinar on the CCPA.
California’s new privacy law, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) grants California residents extensive new privacy rights. One of the more significant aspects of the law however, is the number of business entities to which it applies. Companies around the world must comply with the … Continue Reading
Posted in Regulatory response
Data protection laws in Asia continue to be introduced and updated. One of the most recent developments in South East Asia is in Thailand. On 22 May 2018, the Thai Cabinet approved in principle a revised draft of Thailand’s first personal data protection act (Draft Act). This Draft Act is currently under consideration by the Council of State.
Thailand currently does not have any specific law regulating data protection. The Office of the Prime Minister first published the Draft Act in 2014. The Draft Act has undergone several rounds of changes and this article aims to give a high level … Continue Reading
Posted in Regulatory response
On July 5, the European Parliament passed a non-binding resolution, asking the European Commission, the EU’s executive body, to suspend the Privacy Shield framework. The EU-US Privacy Shield, designed by the US Department of Commerce and the European Commission, provides a mechanism for companies to transfer personal data between the EU and the US while remaining compliant with EU data protection laws.
The European Commission passed the data-sharing privacy framework on July 12, 2016, after its precursor, Safe Harbor, was struck down by the European Court of Justice on October 6, 2015.
Since the European Parliament’s resolution is … Continue Reading
Several U.S. states have recently introduced and passed legislation to expand data breach notification rules and to mirror some of the protections provided by Europe’s newly enacted General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). See our previous blog posts on GDPR here and here. Like their European counterparts, these state laws are intended to provide consumers with greater transparency and control over their personal data. The California and Vermont laws, in particular, go beyond breach notification and require companies to make significant changes in their data processing operations. See our earlier post on the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) here.… Continue Reading
The wait is finally over—this Friday the European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) will come into force. For many readers of this post, a huge amount of work will have been done in recent months in building up to compliance with the new regime. However, the challenges of GDPR certainly don’t end on the date this law goes into implementation. We have shared below some interesting points that we’ve seen arising recently, all of which relate to how things are likely to develop from today onwards, including enforcement predictions, challenges related to operationalizing data subject access procedures, and how … Continue Reading
The UK NIS Regulations (implementing the NIS Directive) come into force in the UK today (10 May 2018). These Regulations have received limited press attention, in part due to the emphasis that has been placed on GDPR implementation. However, the NIS Regulations represent a significant change in the legal environment relating to cybersecurity in the UK.… Continue Reading
Posted in Regulatory responseOn April 30, 2018, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released for public comment an administrative complaint and proposed consent agreement with mobile phone manufacturer BLU Products Inc. and its owner and president. Although the FTC has entered into many settlements relating to privacy and data security, this proposed settlement is particularly noteworthy for two reasons: (1) the FTC allegation that a company’s failure to implement appropriate security procedures to oversee a vendor’s security practices (including a lack of vendor due diligence) can violate Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act; and (2) the proposed remedy includes a separate … Continue Reading
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 … Continue Reading
Posted in Regulatory responseOn February 6, 2018, the Article 29 Working Party (WP29) adopted updated guidelines on Binding Corporate Rules (“BCRs“), which replace the previous WP29 working documents 153 and 195 on BCRs and Processor BCRs.… Continue Reading
As Data Protection Report posted on January 29, 2018, lawmakers in Colorado are considering legislation that, if enacted, would significantly strengthen Colorado’s data privacy protections. On Wednesday, February 14, 2018, an amended bill passed unanimously in Colorado’s House Committee on State, Veterans and Military Affairs.… Continue Reading
Posted in Regulatory response
On February 13, 2018, in Forman v. Henkin, 2018 NY Slip Op 01015, New York’s highest state court unanimously ruled that “private” social media posts may be subject to discovery in civil lawsuits.… Continue Reading
Posted in Regulatory response
On January 16, 2018, in Byrne v. Avery, the Connecticut Supreme Court unilaterally created a new state law cause of action for violation of a patient’s health care privacy. (Byrne v. Avery Center for Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.C., 327 Conn. 540, __ A.3d __ (Jan. 16, 2018)). Particularly noteworthy is the new standard for a physician’s level of care: compliance with HIPAA. In other words, violation of HIPAA can lead to a state law claim in Connecticut, but the decision does NOT create a private right of action under HIPAA.… Continue Reading
