In case you missed it, below are recent posts from Consumer Privacy World covering the latest developments on data privacy, security and innovation. Please reach out to the authors if you are interested in additional information.
English Courts’ Stance on Low-Value Data Breach Claims Continues to Harden, But There May be Hiccups Along the Way
Over the last couple of years, the High Court has been sceptical of low-value compensation claims for minor data breaches (see our previous articles here and here). Such scepticism is illustrated by the High Court:
- criticising the “kitchen sink” approach adopted by claimants who bring overly complex claims with multiple causes of action and narrowing the scope of claims by dismissing misuse of private information and breach of confidence claims as in Warren v DSG Retail Ltd [2021] EWHC 2168 (QB), Johnson v Eastlight Community Homes Ltd [2021] EWHC 3069 (QB) and William Stadler v Currys Group Limited [2022] EWHC 160 (QB);
- transferring straightforward, low-value data breach claims to the County Court as the most appropriate court to hear the claim as in Warren v DSG Retail Ltd, Johnson v Eastlight Community Homes Ltd, Ashley v Amplifon Limited [2021] EWHC 2921 and William Stadler v Currys Group Limited; and
- condemning data breach claims for damages when there is little to no harm or the harm claimed has no prospect of meeting the de minimis threshold for receiving damages as in Rolfe v Veale Wasbrough Vizards LLP [2021] EWHC 2809 (QB).
A recently published case in England and the Opinion of EU Advocate General, Campos Sanchez-Bordona, on UI v Österreichische Post AG in October 2022 have given further support to the approach of the High Court, although the traffic has not been all one way as the High Court decision in Driver v Crown Prosecution Service [2022] EWCH 2500 (KB) departed slightly from this emerging line of judicial thinking.
We take a closer look at these three cases below and provide you with some key takeaways.Continue Reading English Courts’ Stance on Low-Value Data Breach Claims Continues to Harden, But There May be Hiccups Along the Way
Illinois Appellate Court Issues Key, Plaintiff-Favorable Opinion On BIPA Data Retention Disclosure Requirements
Biometric privacy suits brought under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) continue to remain one of the hottest areas of class action litigation today, which can be attributed primarily to the fact that high statutory damages awards can be recovered by large classes of employees, consumers, and similar groups of individuals for mere technical violations of the law. To further compliance matters, many BIPA decisions issued to date have skewed heavily in favor of plaintiffs, which has resulted in a significant expansion of potential litigation risk under the statute.
In Mora v. J&M Plating, Inc., No. 2-21-0692, 2022 IL App (2d) 210692 (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. Nov. 30, 2022), the Illinois Second District Court of Appeals continued the trend of plaintiff-favorable BIPA decisions in 2022, holding that private entities run afoul of BIPA’s Section 15(a) data retention and destruction disclosure requirements where they fail to have in place a BIPA-compliant data retention/destruction disclosure at the time biometric data is initially possessed, and that subsequent disclosures cannot serve retroactively to remedy prior violations of this component of the law. Importantly, Mora underscores the need for companies to ensure they have satisfied all of the applicable requirements of BIPA prior to the time any biometric data is collected or possessed in order to mitigate the sizeable legal risks associated with legal non-compliance. Continue Reading Illinois Appellate Court Issues Key, Plaintiff-Favorable Opinion On BIPA Data Retention Disclosure Requirements
CPW Week in Review
In case you missed it, below are recent posts from Consumer Privacy World covering the latest developments on data privacy, security and innovation. Please reach out to the authors if you are interested in additional information.
Telephone Solicitation: New Rules Regarding Hours and Frequency Effective in 2023 in France
As of March 1, 2023, a series of restrictions on telephone solicitation will be added to those already in place in France.
Opening hours
Telephone canvassing will only be possible on weekdays (excluding public holidays) and only from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. and from 2 p.m. to 8 p.m.
This measure applies even to
2022 Q3 Artificial Intelligence & Biometric Privacy Report
Welcome to the 2022 Q3 edition of the Artificial Intelligence & Biometric Privacy Report, your go-to source for keeping you in the know on all recent major artificial intelligence (“AI”) and biometric privacy developments that have taken place over the course of the last three months. We invite you to share this resource with your colleagues and visit Squire Patton Boggs’ Data Privacy, Cybersecurity & Digital Assets and Privacy & Data Breach Litigation homepages for more information about our capabilities and team.
Also, we are extremely pleased to announce that our own Kristin Bryan was named as a 2022 Law360 Cybersecurity & Privacy MVP. As Law360 notes, “[t]he attorneys chosen as Law360’s 2022 MVPs have distinguished themselves from their peers by securing hard-earned successes in high-stakes litigation, complex global matters and record-breaking deals.” You can read more about Kristin’s Law360 award here: Law360 MVP Awards Go to 188 Attorneys From 78 Firms.Continue Reading 2022 Q3 Artificial Intelligence & Biometric Privacy Report
CPW Week in Review
In case you missed it, below are recent posts from Consumer Privacy World covering the latest developments on data privacy, security and innovation. Please reach out to the authors if you are interested in additional information.
Have You Updated Your French B2C T&Cs Yet? | Consumer Privacy World
CPW Week in Review
In case you missed it, below are recent posts from Consumer Privacy World covering the latest developments on data privacy, security and innovation. Please reach out to the authors if you are interested in additional information.
Federal Court Dismisses Biometric Privacy Class Action Brought Against University, On Basis It Was a Regulated “Financial Institution”
For almost four years now, attorneys have remained relentless in their quest to extend the outer boundaries of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) as far as courts are willing to allow. During this period, many defendants have struggled with procuring dismissals of BIPA class claims.
One particular defense, however, has developed into an extremely robust tool for companies engaged in biometric privacy class suits: BIPA’s “financial institution” exemption. Contrary to what its name suggests, the benefits of this entity-level carve-out extend to a range of entities well beyond traditional banks and financial institutions. A recent BIPA opinion issued by a Northern District of Illinois court demonstrates the expansive scope of the exemption and provides several key takeaways for defendants to defend against—and outright defeat—BIPA claims at a time when biometric privacy class action exposure continues to grow.Continue Reading Federal Court Dismisses Biometric Privacy Class Action Brought Against University, On Basis It Was a Regulated “Financial Institution”
CPW Week in Review
In case you missed it, below are recent posts from Consumer Privacy World covering the latest developments on data privacy, security and innovation. Please reach out to the authors if you are interested in additional information.