On 3 July 2019, the ICO published its updated guidance on the use of cookies and similar technologies. This came shortly after it updated the cookie consent collection mechanism on its own website. Much of the guidance is unsurprising and reflects what companies already do in practice. However, other parts of the guidance are likely to require many organisations to make changes to their current cookies practices.
Following the now famous €50m fine imposed on Google LLC in January 2019,[1] the French Data Protection Authority (the CNIL) published a decision taken on 28 May 2019[2] imposing a fine of €400,000 on SERGIC, a company specialised in real estate development, purchase, sale, rental and property management.
On 20 June, the UK’s Information Commissioner (the ICO) published a report setting out its views on adtech, specifically the use of personal data in “real time bidding”, and the key privacy compliance challenges arising from it.
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 will have implications for almost all providers and users of online services.
The ICO has published a blog post on the role of “meaningful” human reviews in AI systems to prevent them from being categorised as “solely automated decision-making” under Article 22 of the GDPR. That Article imposes strict conditions on making decisions with legal or similarly significant effects based on personal data where there is no human input, or where there is limited human input (e.g. a decision is merely “rubber-stamped”).
On 12 April, the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) fined Bounty, a pregnancy and parent support club, £400,000 for illegally sharing personal data belonging to more than 14 million people. As the contravention took place just before the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) came into force, the fine was issued under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA).
The opinion includes whether consent is ‘freely given’ pursuant to the ePrivacy-Directive and GDPR and insight on what constitutes ‘informed consent.’
A mid-level German employment court recently had to consider the scope of subject access requests under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the context of compliance and whistle-blowing regimes. The Regional Labour Court (Landesarbeitsgericht) of Stuttgart decided that an employer was required not only to provide an employee with the records containing performance and behavioural data, but also to disclose information regarding internal investigations. This is the first reported successful enforcement of a data subject access right under Article 15 GDPR before a regional labour court in Germany. (The judgment was handed down on 20 December 2018 but has just been published in full text.)
This is the Data Protection Report’s eighth blog post in series of CCPA blog posts that will break down the major elements of the CCPA. Stay tuned for additional posts on the CCPA.
With significant enforcement activity and new laws being enacted or proposed since the start of the year, regulators in the EU and the US, several US states, and the US Congress are showing they mean business in terms of data privacy.
To help companies best protect consumer data and remediate enforcement risks, we provide below an overview of the following:
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”).