On November 2, 2020, Singapore’s legislature finally approved amendments to the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA). The changes become law once a government gazette is passed (possibly before the end of 2020). If you operate in Singapore, handle Singapore data, or maintain a server in Singapore, it is crucial that you have protocols in place to guide employees on what to do when a data breach occurs and consider doing a data breach tabletop exercise. (We have organized a number of these drills for clients in preparation for breach notification requirements in Australia and now Singapore.) (more…)
The results are in, and California voters have approved the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) which was listed on the ballot as Proposition 24. The law, most of which does not go into effect until January 1, 2023, will substantially overhaul and amend the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) which went into effect just this year, on January 1, 2020, with final regulations issued just a few months ago, on August 14, 2020. And indeed, CCPA obligations continue to evolve, with proposed amendments to the regulations proposed by the Attorney General’s Office mid-October 2020.
New privacy developments continue to come from California, with a new proposed modifications to CCPA regulations, continuing CCPA litigation, and voting beginning on Proposition 24, an initiative to overhaul the CCPA. We provide insight into each below.
Proposed Third Modified CCPA Regulations
In mid-October 2020, just a few months after the “finalization” of the regulations, the California Office of Attorney General proposed a handful of proposed modifications to regulations implementing the California Consumer Privacy Act. The abbreviated comment period for the proposed modifications closed on October 28th, which means the Attorney General must now review the comments, draft a response, and either further modify the proposed regulations or submit them in their current form for approval by the California Office of Administrative Law (OAL).
California’s Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed into law two bills to amend the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”). He also vetoed two other consumer privacy bills based on concerns about potential conflicts with existing state and federal law. Collectively, these four bills represented the most significant privacy legislation that came out of the California Legislature’s 2019-20 term, which came to a close on September 30th.
Only one of the two new CCPA amendments, AB713, includes substantive changes to the law. It streamlines the CCPA’s health information exception and imposes new obligations on CCPA businesses and others that handle deidentified patient information.
The other CCPA amendment, AB1281, simply extends the CCPA’s employee and B2B exemptions to January 1, 2022 if voters fail to pass Proposition 24 (CPRA or CCPA 2.0) in November. Those exemptions are currently set to expire on December 31st of this year.
Newsom also vetoed two consumer privacy bills despite expressing support for the goals of each. SB980 would have expanded consumer rights with respect to genetic information collected by direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies. Newsom’s veto was motivated by concerns that the law could have “unintended consequences” for the operation of the state’s communicable disease reporting requirements, including those applicable to COVID-19. The other bill, AB1138, would have imposed additional parental consent requirements on social media network operators. Newsom vetoed it to avoid potentially overlapping state and federal compliance obligations, citing parallels between the bill and federal regulations under the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA”).
Here we outline the significant features of each of the new CCPA amendments.
*This article was adapted from “Global Overview,” appearing in The Privacy, Data Protection and Cybersecurity Law Review (7th Ed. 2020)(Editor Alan Charles Raul), published by Law Business Research Ltd., and first published by the International Association of Privacy Professionals Privacy Perspectives series on September 28, 2020.
Privacy, like everything else in 2020, was dominated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Employers and governments have been required to consider privacy in adjusting workplace practices to account for who has a fever and other symptoms, who has traveled where, who has come into contact with whom, and what community members have tested positive or been exposed.
As a result of all this need for tracking and tracing, governments and citizens alike have recognized the inevitable trade-offs between exclusive focus on privacy versus exclusive focus on public health and safety.
After three years of discussions and in a final debate, the Swiss parliament has agreed on the final draft bill of a new and modernized data protection law.
In particular, the National Council and the Council of States found a compromise on the these outstanding issues: (more…)
In 2017, the Swiss government issued a draft bill for a new Swiss Data Protection Act (“nDPA”) with two main goals: (1) to enhance the level of protection of personal data provided in the current Swiss Data Protection Act which dates back to 1992 (largely, to align with the EU GDPR); and (2) to ensure that there is an “adequate” level of data protection to allow for the continued flow of personal data from the EEA to Switzerland.
Posting revised August 13, 2020
On July 2, 2020, Sidley partner Alan Raul, founder and co-head of Sidley’s Privacy and Cybersecurity practice, hosted Adam Klein, Chairman of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (“PCLOB” or “the Board”), for a Monitor-Side Chat.
The discussion focused largely on the Commission’s work since Mr. Klein became Chairman in October, 2018. Key topics of the chat included:
- Mission, Operation and Access of PCLOB
- Balancing Counter-Terrorism and Privacy
- Comparison of U.S. and Foreign Checks and Balances
- FISA Reform
- Emerging Technologies
(*As with all posts, this article is for informational purposes only; Sidley Austin LLP does not have offices in or practice law in Brazil; Felipe Saraiva is a former Sidley associate licensed to practice law in Brazil.)
The enactment of Law n. 13.709/2018 (the Brazilian Data Protection Law, or “LGPD”) in 2018 was followed by great enthusiasm from the general public in Brazil. Indeed, the comprehensive law has been viewed as a necessary measure for the country to join a select but growing group of nations in the systematic protection of individuals’ personal data.
Originally, the LGPD provided for a 12-month grace period for its enforcement; however, this term was subsequently extended to 24 months, as legislators understood the initial time frame wouldn’t give companies enough time to adapt. As previously analyzed in an article by these authors published on January 20, 2020, the LGPD’s provisions require a great deal of compliance effort from all organizations that are subject to the law.
In view of the current crisis caused by the spread of COVID-19, the compliance difficulties companies are facing, and the fact that the actual creation of the National Agency of Data Protection (“ANPD”) called for in the law is still pending, Brazilian legislators are further extending the LGPD’s grace period; these legislators now indicate that enforcement of the law’s general provisions are extended to May 3, 2021, while its legal sanctions would become enforceable as of August 1, 2021.
On June 25, 2020, Sidley partner, Alan Raul, founder and co-head of Sidley’s privacy and cybersecurity practice, hosted Bruno Gencarelli, head of International Data Flows and Protection at the European Commission, for a Monitor-Side Chat.
The discussion focused largely on the Commission’s report on two years of the GDPR which was issued on 24 June 2020. Key themes of the report include:
- EU data protection authorities (“DPAs”) should increase their efforts towards the adoption of a harmonised approach to responding to cross-border investigations;
- a call for greater resources to be given to DPAs by EU Member States to ensure the GDPR is sufficiently enforced;
- a need for greater consistency among EU Member States on interpretations of the GDPR in national laws in order to avoid unnecessary burdens on companies; and
- greater utilisation of the data portability right under the GDPR to ensure individuals have greater involvement in the digital economy by enabling them to switch between different service providers and make use of other innovative services.