SPB’s Gabrielle Martin authored a piece on the recently passed Illinois HB 3773. The bill amends the Illinois Human Rights Act to protect employees against discrimination from, and require transparency about, the use of AI in employment-related decisions. Head over to Employment Law Worldview, for an in-depth discussion of the bill, including a contrast
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?
In this blog post, we breakdown the new Vietnamese cybersecurity regulations which apply to both Vietnamese and foreign organisations. Alongside the ongoing consultation for the Ministry of Public Security’s proposed data law, Vietnam is taking steps to move towards a data protection compliance regime in line with other countries and regions, such as the EU – something of particular relevance in a country with one of highest internet user growth rate (nearly 80 million internet users).
What Is the CAS Decree?
The Cybersecurity Administrative Sanctions Decree (CAS Decree) is a decree unveiled by the Vietnamese Ministry of Security to the Ministry of Justice in mid-May 2024.
The first draft was published for consultation in September 2021 and has undergone multiple revisions following public consultations.Continue Reading Summarising the New Vietnamese Cybersecurity Regulations
State legislatures across the country were busy in 2023 and so far this year passing comprehensive consumer privacy laws and creating a vexing patchwork of compliance obligations.
Legislatures in Iowa, Indiana, Tennessee, Montana, Florida, Texas, Oregon, Delaware, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Kentucky, Maryland, Nebraska and Minnesota all enacted consumer privacy laws of their own with an additional consumer privacy law in Vermont awaiting action by the Governor. The fifteen laws passed in 2023 and 2024 join laws in California, Virginia, Colorado, Utah, and Connecticut which already are in effect. A chart at the end of this blog post notes each law’s effective date, three of which are effective at the end of this month.
While inspired by the EU General Data Protection Regulation and the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”), the new state consumer privacy laws take materially different approaches in many ways. States also have passed more targeted privacy laws pertaining specifically to consumer health data (beyond treating it as a category of sensitive personal data), the protection of children (beyond limiting the use of personal data), AI-specific laws (not part of a comprehensive consumer data regime) and laws regulating data brokers (typically controllers that sell personal data they do not directly collect from consumers). Congress continues to consider a federal law that would mostly preempt the state consumer privacy laws, as well as other laws specific to children’s online safety with partial preemption. In the meantime, data controllers (and to a lesser degree processors) face the challenge of determining which state consumer privacy laws apply and whether to apply applicable laws based on consumer residency or to apply a national highest standard to all consumers.
The SPB privacy team has developed a comprehensive guide on state consumer privacy laws, including comparison charts on key issues to help determine which laws apply and tips for enhancing information governance. Most of the new state consumer privacy laws require controllers to conduct and retain documentation of data privacy impact or risk assessments. Minnesota’s new consumer privacy law also requires a documented privacy compliance program reasonably designed to ensure compliance and data inventories. The most recent draft of the federal privacy law mandates privacy-by-design.
Following are some highlights of the emerging ‘high water mark’ (strictest requirement) for key aspects of consumer privacy in the United States:Continue Reading State Privacy Law Patchwork Presents Challenges
In May 2024 alone, Singapore’s data protection regulator, the Personal Data Protection Commission (Commission) has issued three enforcement decisions that imposed a total of SG$102,000 (approximately US$76,000) in regulatory fines for infringements of Singapore’s Personal Data Protection Act (Act).Continue Reading Singapore Ramps Up Data Protection Enforcement – Five Useful Takeaways
Last week was a busy one for AI regulation. The week started and ended with big news from Colorado: on Monday, Colorado’s legislature passed “Concerning Consumer Protections in Interactions with Artificial Intelligence Systems” (SB 24-205) (Colorado AI Law) and, on Friday, Governor Jared Polis (D) signed the Colorado AI Law “with reservations” according to his letter to Colorado’s legislature. Although the Colorado legislature is the first U.S. lawmaker to pass general AI legislation, Colorado’s Governor has expressly invited Congress to replace the Colorado AI Law with a national regulatory scheme before the Colorado AI Law’s February 1, 2026, effective date.Continue Reading All Eyes on AI: Colorado Governor Throws Down the Gauntlet on AI Regulation After Colorado General Assembly Passes the Nation’s First AI Law
Last week, the Illinois House of Representatives joined the Illinois Senate in passing amendments to the state’s Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) to limit the scope of possible damages for violations of BIPA. As covered extensively here on PW, last year in Cothron v. White Castle, the Illinois Supreme Court held that an individual person accrues a separate statutory claim each time a defendant collects or discloses the individual’s biometric information in violation of BIPA. While the dissent in Cothron accurately observed that the combination of statutory damages and “per-scan” accrual meant that businesses could face “punitive, crippling liability . . . wildly exceeding any remotely reasonable estimate of harm,” the Cothron majority determined that “concerns about potentially excessive damage awards under the Act are best addressed by the legislature.”Continue Reading Illinois Legislature to Amend BIPA to Overrule Illinois Supreme Court Damages Decision
PrivacyWorld is pleased to report that the first part of a two-part article comparing Kentucky, Maryland and Nebraska’s new consumer privacy laws was published by OneTrust Data Guidance. These three state privacy laws were the 3rd, 4th and 5th laws enacted in 2024, following the new consumer privacy laws in New Hampshire and New Jersey enacted in January.Continue Reading OneTrust DataGuidance Publishes Team SPB’s Comparison of the Kentucky, Maryland and Nebraska Consumer Privacy Laws – Part 1
Privacy pros know that tracking all the US consumer privacy laws is a challenge. The Privacy World team is here to help. In this post, we’ve collated information and resources regarding the consumer privacy laws in Texas, Oregon and Florida – all three of which are effective as of July 1, 2024. While the Florida privacy law’s status as an “omnibus” consumer privacy law is debatable given its narrow applicability and numerous carveouts, we’ve included it in this post for completeness. We’ve also provided a list of effective dates for the other state consumer privacy laws enacted but not yet in effect and some compliance approaches for your consideration.Continue Reading Are You Ready for July 1? Florida, Oregon, and Texas on Deck
On 7 May 2024, Singapore’s Parliament introduced an Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority of Singapore (ACRA) Registry and Regulatory Enhancements Bill (Bill), which will limit public disclosures of company directors’ residential addresses on the business registry in Singapore.Continue Reading Singapore Looks to Tighten Corporate Disclosures of Directors’ Personal Data