Data Matters Privacy Blog Home Page - Data Matters Privacy Blog

On April 21, 2021, the European Commission (EC) issued its eagerly awaited draft proposal on the EU Artificial Intelligence Regulation (Draft AI Regulation) – the first formal legislative proposal regulating Artificial Intelligence (AI) on a standalone basis. The Draft AI Regulation is accompanied by a revision of the EU’s rules on machinery products, which lay down safety requirements for machinery products before being placed on the EU market. The new draft Machinery Products Regulation – proposed by the EU Commission on the same day – intends to tackle safety issues that arise in emerging technologies. The Draft AI Regulation (which appears to have borrowed a number of principles from existing EU legislation, including the EU General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 (GDPR)) has an intentionally broad scope, and regulates the use of AI in accordance with the level of risk the AI system presents to fundamental human rights and other key values the EU adheres to. AI systems that are considered to present an “unacceptable” level of risk are banned from the EU, and “high-risk” systems are subject to strict requirements. AI systems which are considered to present a lower risk level are subject to transparency requirements or are not regulated at all. Companies engaged in the development, manufacturing, importation, distribution, servicing, and use of AI – irrespective of industry – should assess to what extent their products are implicated and how they will address any regulatory requirements they are subject to. The Draft AI Regulation foresees maximum administrative fines of up to €30m or 6% of total worldwide annual turnover in the event of non-compliance – meaning fines are higher than the ones under the GDPR.

Artificial Intelligence; European Union; GDPR; International; Legislation; Policy

Supreme Court Considers Injury and Typicality Questions in Case With Implications for Data Breach and Privacy Class Action Litigation

Apr 22 2021

Daniel Craig and Marisa Levitt

On March 30, 2021, the Supreme Court heard arguments in TransUnion LLC. v. Ramirez, a case in which Respondent Ramirez brought a class action lawsuit against Petitioner TransUnion, alleging that it incorrectly placed a flag on his credit report; the flag suggested that Ramirez was on a list of potential terrorists and criminals maintained by the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (the “OFAC list”) because his name was similar to two individuals whose name were on that list. After Ramirez learned he had been flagged, he requested a copy of his credit report from TransUnion. TransUnion sent him a copy of his credit report, which did not include any reference to the OFAC list, and a second mailing indicating that his name was a potential match for a name on the OFAC list. Ramirez sued on behalf of himself and a class of over 8,000 individuals who received similar mailings, alleging that TransUnion violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) by (i) incorrectly flagging him as potentially appearing on the OFAC list and (ii) sending him the information about the potential match separately from his requested credit report, which he argued was confusing because the mailing regarding the OFAC list did not include FCRA-required information about how to dispute and correct the incorrect information.

Data Breaches; Litigation; National Security; OFAC

DOL Puts Plan Sponsors and Other Fiduciaries on Notice: ERISA Requires Appropriate Precautions to Mitigate Cybersecurity Threats

Apr 20 2021

Colleen Theresa Brown, Mary C. Niehaus and Teresa A. Napoli

There just may be a new cybersecurity regulator in town.

In an effort it describes as “an important step” toward safeguarding more than $9.3 trillion in retirement assets, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) published its first cybersecurity guidance last week (Cybersecurity Guidance). The Cybersecurity Guidance is directed at plan sponsors and fiduciaries regulated by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) as well as plan participants and beneficiaries. Significantly, the Cybersecurity Guidance formally states the DOL’s position that cybersecurity is a matter of fiduciary responsibility under ERISA, stating that ERISA requires plan fiduciaries to take appropriate precautions to mitigate cybersecurity risks.

Cybersecurity; Financial Privacy; Policy; Regulation

Supreme Court Considers Injury and Typicality Questions in Case With Implications for Data Breach and Privacy Class Action Litigation

DOL Puts Plan Sponsors and Other Fiduciaries on Notice: ERISA Requires Appropriate Precautions to Mitigate Cybersecurity Threats

Categories

Archives

Contacts