Rapid advances in automation have the potential to disrupt a number of sectors, perhaps none more so than the automobile industry. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has accordingly announced its intention to take “active steps to prepare for the future by engaging with new technologies to ensure safety without hampering innovation.” Most recently, on October 4, 2018, DOT issued Preparing for the Future of Transportation: Automated Vehicles 3.0 (AV 3.0), its third round of guidance on the topic. Like its 2017 predecessor, “Automated Driving Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety,” AV 3.0 emphasizes the development of voluntary, consensus-based technical standards and approaches while noting that there are cross-cutting policy issues where federal leadership may be necessary. AV 3.0 also builds on its predecessors by emphasizing that it reflects the view of all of DOT’s operating administrations; by providing much more detailed guidance on the development and testing of automated vehicle technologies; and by announcing some specific regulatory steps DOT plans to take in the near future. (more…)
Companies with robust cybersecurity programs may still be vulnerable to attack. A new, first-of-its-kind law in Ohio now recognizes this fact. On November 1, 2018, the Ohio Data Protection Act (SB 220) establishes a safe harbor from state tort actions in data breach cases for entities that have developed an information security program with “administrative, technical, and physical safeguards for the protection of personal information and that reasonably conforms to an industry recognized cybersecurity framework.” Without establishing minimum cybersecurity standards, the Ohio law affords defendants an “affirmative defense” against state tort actions and establishes an important precedent that may serve as a model for other states and the federal government to follow. (more…)
The growing network of internet of things (IoT) devices is expected to reach 30 billion devices by 2020. Despite this tremendous growth, the state of IoT regulation is patchwork at best. Although the FTC is the primary security regulator for consumer IoT devices, there are no comprehensive regulations or laws specific to the unique challenges of the IoT market. This absence of clear and unambiguous standards can be a burden for IoT companies who are looking to innovate while maintaining their customers’ privacy. (more…)
On Friday, August 31, the California legislature unanimously passed a host of “clean-up” amendments to the new California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), AB 375, as it set about addressing flaws and other concerns in the state’s groundbreaking data privacy law. These amendments are now awaiting Governor Brown’s signature. (more…)
Companies subject to New York’s Cybersecurity Regulation are acting quickly to finalize their compliance obligations as the fifth “due date,” September 4, 2018, quickly approaches.
By September 4, 2018, Covered Entities must ensure that their cybersecurity programs have in place certain additional safeguards:
- an audit trail that shows detection of and response to material cybersecurity events;
- written security procedures, guidelines, and standards for the development of in-house applications and for the evaluation and testing of externally developed applications;
- data retention policies and procedures for the disposal on a periodic basis of nonpublic information no longer necessary for business operations;
- risk-based policies, procedures, and controls to monitor the activity of authorized users and detect unauthorized access; and security controls, such as encryption, to protect non-public business relations and personal information.
Notably, for this upcoming deadline, Covered Entities that have received a limited exemption must still comply with the regulatory provision regarding data retention policies and procedures for the periodic disposal of nonpublic information. (more…)
On June 28, 2018, California Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (AB 375). According to the bill’s author, it was consciously designed to emulate the new European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) that went into effect on May 25, and if and when it goes into effect, it would constitute the broadest privacy law in the United States. It is intended to give consumers more transparency regarding and control over their data and establishes highly detailed requirements for what companies that collect personal data about California residents must disclose. (more…)
*UPDATE: The ballot initiative has been replaced by a new California law, AB 375. Please see California Enacts Broad Privacy Protections Modeled on GDPR for more information.
On June 25, 2018, California Secretary of State Alex Padilla announced that a potentially significant privacy initiative is eligible for the Nov. 6 general election ballot. If passed, the ballot initiative — the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) — would immediately make sweeping changes to California’s privacy laws. This initiative would likely create a de facto national standard on transparency around third-party sharing as well as consumer rights to restrict data sharing and could affect many business models that depend on data monetization to offer a free good or service. Many see the law as having echoes of the new European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) that went into effect on May 25. If voters pass the initiative, it would go into effect shortly after the election — providing little time to develop an extensive internal regulatory program, yet providing immediate exposure to penalties for failures to have those extensive compliance processes in operation. (more…)
On 11 June 2018, members of a Committee within the European parliament (“MEPs”) narrowly voted in favour of suspending the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield (“Privacy Shield”), an agreement that facilitates the transfer of personal data of EU data subjects to the U.S., unless the U.S. government fully complies with the Privacy Shield data protection requirements by 1 September 2018. Although the resolution is only a draft and has no legal effect, it reflects continued European concerns surrounding Privacy Shield. (more…)
In recent years, the Federal Trade Commission has increasingly exercised its enforcement authority to target deceptive and unfair information security practices. During this time, enforcement actions have targeted companies for failing to honor their promises to implement “reasonable” or “industry standard” security practices, defend against well-known security threats, put in place basic security measures, or take many other basic data security steps. And despite challengers arguing that the FTC provided insufficient notice before pursuing these actions or that the actions otherwise exceeded the FTC’s Section 5 enforcement authority, the Commission generally has a track record of successfully defending its prerogatives. (more…)
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) bar has been reeling ever since the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit overturned a couple of key Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules in ACA International v. FCC, including the FCC’s overbroad interpretation of the definition of an autodialer. However, the ruling still left several key provisions in place that facilitate the potential for significant liability and sow uncertainty for everyday business and compliance operations. Now the commission has issued a public notice seeking input about how it should interpret the TCPA. Comments are due June 13, 2018, with replies due June 28. (more…)