On October 11, 2019, the leaders of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) (together, the Agencies) issued a joint statement highlighting the application of anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) obligations under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) to persons engaged in activities involving digital assets (Joint Statement). On the same day, the SEC filed an emergency action to halt a digital asset distribution, citing BSA/AML concerns.1
On 22 August 2019, the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) announced the implementation of the Online Protection of Children’s Personal Data Regulation (儿童个人信息网络保护规定), (“the Regulation”) which came into force on 1 October 2019. The Regulation comprises a list of rules which seek to ensure the safety of children’s personal data and promote a healthy upbringing for children.
This constitutes the latest step in China’s drive to sophisticate its data protection regime and adds to legislation under the framework of the Cybersecurity Law, implemented in 2017. It contains similarities to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) in the U.S. and the GDPR in the EU.
As there is no official English translation of the Regulation, this article summarises its key points.
Earlier today, the California Attorney General ended months of anticipation by releasing the text of his proposed California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) regulations. Comments on the proposed regulations are due by December 6, 2019, and the Attorney General’s office will hold public hearings on the regulations on December 2 (Sacramento), December 3 (Los Angeles), December 4 (San Francisco), and December 5 (Fresno).
In an effort to reduce barriers to coordination of care, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) is considering changes to Federal restrictions on the sharing of substance use disorder (“SUD”) records. The proposed changes would modify 42 C.F.R. Part 2 (“Part 2”) regulations that place restrictive conditions on the disclosure of SUD patient records—limitations that go above and beyond Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) restrictions.
The barriers imposed by these rules—which have been in place since the 1970s—have become the focus of particular attention in light of the opioid crisis, as members of Congress and other stakeholders have raised concerns about how the Part 2 statute and implementing regulations may inhibit efforts to respond and coordinate care. Members of Congress have called for reform, but have been unsuccessful at seeking legislative fixes thus far.
This article first appeared on Thomson Reuters Regulatory Intelligence.
The summer of 2018 may be regarded as a pivotal time in the history of data privacy laws. The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) came into effect in May 2018, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) was signed into law in June 2018 (and comes into effect on January 1, 2020), and a draft of India’s Personal Data Protection Bill (India DP Bill) was released in July 2018 (and is now under review by India’s government).
These developments, and more generally, the recent proliferation of data privacy laws around the world (notably, in Australia, China, Brazil, Hong Kong, and Singapore) represent a compliance challenge for many multinational organizations.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has struck a major blow to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) enforcement authority, holding that the agency cannot seek its preferred remedy of monetary restitution in federal court.
In recent years, the FTC has used Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act)1 as its preferred enforcement mechanism, and it has done so to great effect. In 2017, for example, the FTC obtained $5.29 billion in restitution under this section. Civil penalties, which are authorized under a different part of the statute, totaled just $176 million that same year.
*This article was first published by Bloomberg Law in August 2019
Companies doing business with California consumers are impacted by the California Consumer Privacy Act (effective Jan. 1, 2020). The CCPA’s private right of action provision gives California residents the right to sue companies when their personal information is subject to unauthorized access and exfiltration, theft, or disclosure due to a company’s failure “to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices.”
Under this provision, consumers may seek actual damages, declaratory or injunctive relief, and statutory damages, which begin at $100 and continue up to $750 “per consumer per incident.” The potential aggregated exposure through consumer class actions could be significant, and companies are searching for ways to mitigate private lawsuits.
The UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) has recently issued a draft version of its statutory code of practice for sharing of personal data between controllers under the GDPR and the UK Data Protection Act 2018 (“DPA”) (the “Draft Code”) which provides a number of practical recommendations which controllers should take into account when sharing personal data.
The High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence (“AI HLEG”), an independent expert group set up by the European Commission in June 2018 as part of its AI strategy, has published its final Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) (the “Guidelines”).
These Guidelines form part of a wider focus by the Commission on AI, with President-elect of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen commenting most recently on July 16, in her proposed political guidelines, that: “In my first 100 days in office, I will put forward legislation for a coordinated European approach on the human and ethical implications of Artificial Intelligence…”.
On June 20, 2019, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) approved a North American Electric Reliability Corp. (“NERC”) petition to adopt Reliability Standard CIP-008-6 to strengthen the reporting requirements for attempts to compromise the operation of the United States’ bulk electric system. The prior Critical Infrastructure Protection (“CIP”) Reliability Standards only required reporting where an incident compromised or disrupted one or more reliability tasks. The new standard applies to all registered entities subject to the CIP Reliability Standards.