On May 24, 2018, President Donald Trump signed into law the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (the Act). The Act is effective immediately except as otherwise stated in certain provisions.
The Act makes many significant modifications to the postcrisis financial regulatory framework, although it leaves the core of that framework intact.
One major consequence of the Act may be an increased potential for mergers, acquisitions and organic growth among regional and midsize banks, as well as community banks, because of provisions that increase the thresholds that must be met before various financial regulatory requirements apply.
On 28 May 2018, the European Data Protection Board (the “EDPB”) released a statement on the revision of the ePrivacy Regulation (the “proposed Regulation”) and its impact on the protection of individuals in relation to the privacy and confidentiality of their communications. It is the first statement of substance by the EDPB since it was established by the EU General Data Protection Regulation on 25 May 2018. The statement calls on the European Commission, Parliament and Council to work together to ensure a swift adoption of the proposed Regulation, which will replace the current ePrivacy Directive (the “Directive”).
On May 15, 2018, various media outlets reported that the Trump administration decided to eliminate the position of White House Cybersecurity Coordinator. According to reports, John Bolton, appointed as National Security Adviser effective April 2018, had been instrumental in the decision that the position was no longer necessary based on the reasoning that the role was already addressed by other members of President Trump’s national security staff. The administration’s decision was met with sharp criticism, including from Democrats in Congress such as U.S. Senator Mark R. Warner (D-VA) who called the move “mindboggling” and cybersecurity expert Bruce Schneier, who called it “a spectacularly bad idea.”
Whether you are marking today with a glass of champagne, a shot of whiskey, or a hot cup of tea, today marks a significant day for privacy professionals world-wide.
Here’s to all of the privacy professionals who have put in so many hours to prepare for the GDPR, fully effective as of Friday May 25, 2018 at midnight in Brussels; that is 6 PM eastern on Thursday, May 24th for toasting purposes.
For business executives, policymakers, and consumers who have become aware of the GDPR in recent weeks and are interested in learning more, visit our GDPR resource page here.
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…)
In its preview of hot privacy and cybersecurity topics for 2018, Data Matters noted that this year the Supreme Court was scheduled to decide a number of cases with potentially substantial privacy implications. This past week, the Court issued its opinion in one such case, Byrd v. United States, a case concerning “whether a driver has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a rental car when he or she is not listed as an authorized driver on the rental agreement.” Concluding that a driver does have such an expectation, the Court issued a narrow and unanimous opinion that, as laid out below, could have implications for commercial privacy expectations in other contexts. (more…)
On May 8, Georgia Governor Nathan Deal announced that he was vetoing Senate Bill 315 (“SB 315” or “the bill”), cybersecurity legislation that would have expanded the criminalization of “unauthorized computer access” to capture, in addition to traditional hacking, activity that opponents warned is necessary to robust private and public sector cyber defense. In his veto statement, Governor Deal commented that parts of SB 315 “have led to concerns regarding national security implications and other potential ramifications” that caused him to conclude that “while intending to protect against online breaches and hacks, SB 315 may inadvertently hinder the ability of government and private industries to do so.” (more…)
For defense contractors, January 1, 2018 brought with it not only a new year, but also a new era – an era in which contractors must comply with the entire set of more detailed cybersecurity requirements under Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 252.204-7012. As we have flagged before on Data Matters, this DFRAS provision applies to all Department of Defense (DOD) contracts (except for those involving commercial, off-the-shelf items) and places a number of substantial obligations on contractors, including that they comply with the security requirements in National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-171, “Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information in Nonfederal Information Systems and Organizations,” and report certain cyber incidents to DOD. (more…)
*This Article Recently appeared in the IAPP’s The Privacy Advisor on April 24th, 2018
The IAPP’s Privacy Advisor recently published the below article on the ABA’s Privacy Law Specialist designation, describing how to apply and receive the designation, and highlighting how Sidley Austin is the first law firm to embrace the accreditation broadly. Read the full article written by the IAPP’s Molly Hulefeld here.