Photo of Kyle Fath

Kyle Fath

Contact:Read more about Kyle Fath

Though attempts to pass comprehensive federal consumer privacy legislation again stalled in 2024, efforts targeted at addressing national security-related privacy concerns had more success. Along with the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, Congress passed the Protecting Americans’ Data from Foreign Adversaries Act (“PADFA”) as part of a sweeping foreign aid bill, which was subsequently signed into law by President Biden on April 23, 2024. PADFA, which went into effect on June 24, 2024, followed President Biden’s Feb. 2024 Executive Order 14117 “Preventing Access to Americans’ Bulk Sensitive Personal Data and United States Government-Related Data by Countries of Concern” (“EO”), under which the Department of Justice was directed to establish and implement regulations (initially reported by SPB here). The DOJ’s rulemaking process, which began in late fall of last year, culminated in the issuance of a final rule (“Bulk Data Regs”) on December 27, 2024, and publication of the same in the Federal Register on January 4, 2025. The Bulk Data Regs largely become effective 90 days after publication in the Federal Register, on April 4, with certain provisions going into effect 270 days following publication.Continue Reading Transferring U.S. Data Overseas? Consider Whether the DOJ’s Bulk Data Regulations or PADFA May Apply to Your Organization

In two recent proposed consent orders by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission), the agency has emphasized critical data governance practices that all data controllers should carefully consider. These cases, Gravy Analytics/Venntel and Mobilewalla, primarily focus on issues related to the brokerage of consumer mobile device location data and other adtech and data broker practices. However, the settlements, and the learnings that can be gleaned from them, are relevant beyond location data and these specific industries. Indeed, the data governance measures required of the respondents by the FTC signal the FTC’s thinking around what it considers proper data governance and privacy compliance programs, and can be used as a guide as to how companies in all industries should be framing such programs to both avoid FTC scrutiny and address compliance with the patchwork of state consumer privacy laws.Continue Reading What Should Data Controllers Take Away From Recent FTC Privacy Case Settlements?

On October 30, 2023, The Biden Administration announced its Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence (“AI EO”). Building on the White House’s Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights, the AI EO created a framework allowing for innovation in artificial intelligence (“AI”) while setting standards and protections in the use and development of AI. You can read more about the AI EO, and other AI-related developments, here.Continue Reading 300 Days Since Biden’s AI Executive Order: What have Federal Agencies Accomplished and What is on the Horizon?

Since its inception in 1998, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) has been the cornerstone of protecting the personal data of minors under the age of 13 in the United States. COPPA imposes various requirements, including parental consent, notice and transparency, and data minimization, among other things, on online services that are “directed to children [under 13]” and “mixed audience” online services, or those that have actual knowledge that they have collected personal data from a child [under 13] online.

Many organizations that previously did not have to worry about COPPA or COPPA-based standards as applied to state consumer privacy laws should be aware of the trend in state privacy legislation to expand restrictions and obligations beyond COPPA’s under age 13 standard, to minors that are at least 13 and under the age of 18 (“Teens”). This trend began in 2020 with the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) requiring consent for “sale” of personal information of consumers at least age 13 but younger than 16 years of age  (the California Privacy Rights Act expanded that requirement to “sharing” as well). Consent must be given by the Teen or, if the consumer is under age 13, by the parent, using COPPA verification standards. Other relevant aspects regarding this trend, of which organizations should be aware, include:Continue Reading Trending: Teens’ Data Subject to Heightened Restrictions Under Ten (and Counting?) State Privacy Laws

The Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act, 410 ILCS 513/1, et seq. (“GIPA”), which was passed in 1998 and amended in 2008, had until recently received little attention from the plaintiffs’ bar. That changed last August, after a court granted certification in a federal GIPA class action involving alleged unauthorized disclosure of consumers’ genetic information to unknown third-party developers by a website that sold DNA analysis reports. See Melvin v. Sequencing, LLC, 344 F.R.D. 231, 233 (N.D. Ill. 2023). Over 50 GIPA cases were filed in 2023 alone in the wake of that ruling, with many more now pending in Illinois state and federal courts. As this litigation trend continues almost a year following the granting of class certification in Melvin, companies are asking: what is GIPA, are we subject to it, and what should we do to mitigate litigation risk?  Employers, insurance companies, and others that collect health- and genetic-related information should read on to learn more.Continue Reading Employers and Insurance Companies Continue To Be Targeted with Deluge of Claims Under the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act

The recently released discussion draft of the American Privacy Rights Act rejects the opt-out approach to targeted advertising in 17 state consumer privacy laws, and instead requires express affirmative opt-in consent for tailoring online ads based on a specific viewer’s interests and activities, akin to the prevailing European approach.  In a guest post published earlier…

Washington’s My Health My Data Act (“MHMDA”) and Nevada’s SB 370 (“NV CHD Law”) (collectively, “CHD Laws”) went into effect at the end of last month, on March 31, 2024 (as many know, MHMDA’s geofencing prohibition went into effect last summer). Unlike the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”), a federal law which governs privacy and security in traditional healthcare settings, CHD Laws regulate “consumer health data” or “CHD”– a very broadly defined term as we discuss below and in a prior post – collected by companies in a broad swath of health and non-health related industries alike. Even ancillary purposes like providing accessibility accommodations and defending personal injury claims are enough to trigger the laws. CHD Laws impose restrictions and obligations on regulated entities far more burdensome than state consumer privacy laws, many of which already regulate some of the same health data, and unlike those general consumer privacy laws are not proposed to be preempted by the potential federal America Privacy Rights Act.

As such, compliance programs that businesses may have developed to comply with state consumer privacy laws, such as the California Privacy Protection Act (“CCPA”), will not be sufficient to address the requirements of the CHD Laws, though they can be leveraged such as for consumer rights request and processor management. There are some material differences beyond the scope of the data regulated. For example, businesses must add another website footer link (and potentially elsewhere, such as in mobile apps) and post a separate privacy policy applicable to the processing of CHD. The facilitation of consumer rights must be CHD-specific, for example providing the right to delete just CHD, rather than all personal information. Moreover, businesses that have CHD use cases not within narrow exceptions (e.g., as necessary to provide a requested product or service), which differ somewhat as between the two laws, will have to grapple with the foreboding consent and authorization requirements which, in some cases, could result in subjecting visitors or customers to a litany of notices and pop-ups in an environment already plagued by what some dub as “consent fatigue.”Continue Reading Are you Ready for Washington and Nevada’s Consumer Health Data Laws?

This week, House Committee on Energy and Commerce Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) and Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation Chair Maria Cantwell (D-WA) unveiled their bipartisan, bicameral discussion draft of the American Privacy Rights Act (APRA draft).[1] Chair Rodgers’ and Chair Cantwell’s announcement of the APRA draft surprised many congressional observers after comprehensive privacy legislation stalled in 2022.Continue Reading April’s APRA: Could Draft Privacy Legislation Blossom into Law in 2024?

On March 8, 2024, the California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA” or “Agency”) Board (“Board”) will consider draft regulations that set forth how automated decisionmaking technology (“ADMT”) and profiling will be regulated under the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”).  The proposal includes the regulation of a new concept of “behavioral advertising” that is deemed “extensive profiling”…

Hundreds of lawyers and several privacy regulators from California, Washington State, Oregon, Colorado, Connecticut, and the Federal Trade Commission gathered in Los Angeles last week for the second annual California Lawyers Association Privacy Summit (“Summit”). Among many engaging sessions on pressing topics, the panels with privacy regulators stood out discussions on enforcement priorities and administrative fines and injunctions, along with punchy and newsworthy statements – including that they are “plotting” and that considering the typical investigation presents “hundreds or thousands of violations,” potential fines are “significant.”

Perhaps even more newsworthy is that due to a California Court of Appeal order laid down as the Summit wound down on Friday, the stay in enforcement of the CCPA regulations was lifted. This happened as many companies were treating March 29, 2024, the end of the stay period, as the effective and enforcement date of regulations promulgated under the CPRA’s amendments by the California Privacy Protection Agency. The appeals order also nullifies the year delay in effectiveness of issued CCPA regulations that the trial court had required, making almost certain that CCPA regulations on risk assessments, cybersecurity assessments, and automated decision-making and profiling will be promulgated and in effect sometime this year, perhaps as early as Q2 or Q3.

Will 2024 be the year of privacy enforcement? In view of signaling from California regulators and those in other jurisdictions, and in view of several upcoming effective dates and regulatory deadlines, ongoing enforcement by regulators in California and beyond, and an impending uptick in privacy enforcement, it just might be. Stay tuned for future posts on these issues. Keep reading for more detailed takeaways regarding the Summit.Continue Reading Potential CCPA Fines “Significant”, California AG’s Office “Plotting” and Other Takeaways From Privacy Regulators during Privacy Summit in Los Angeles