This post was originally published to Seyfarth’s Global Privacy Watch blog.
California Senate Bill 690 (SB 690), introduced by Senator Anna Caballero, is continuing to proceed through the California state legislative process. The proposed bill would amend the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) by adding an exception to the statute which has the
Seyfarth Synopsis: In a significant decision for website operators, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court clarified that tracking users’ web activity does not constitute illegal wiretapping under the state’s Wiretap Act. The court found that person-to-website interactions fall outside the Act’s scope, which focuses on person-to-person communications. However, the court emphasized that other privacy laws could
Corporations face unprecedented challenges in safeguarding sensitive data and mitigating privacy risks in an era marked by the rapid proliferation of Internet of Things, or IoT, devices.
Recent developments, including federal and state regulators’ heightened focus on privacy enforcement, highlight the importance of proactive risk management, compliance and data governance. As IoT and smart devices continue to hit the marketplace, heightened scrutiny for businesses’ data governance practices follows.
The Federal Trade Commission’s recent technology blog, “Cars & Consumer Data: On Unlawful Collection & Use”[1] underscores the agency’s commitment to enforcing consumer protection laws. Despite their blog’s focus on the car industry, the FTC’s message extends to all businesses, emphasizing its vigilance against illegal — or “unfair and deceptive” — collection, use and disclosure of personal data.
Recent enforcement actions are a stark reminder of the FTC’s proactive stance in safeguarding consumer privacy.
Geolocation data is a prime example of sensitive information subject to enhanced protections under the Federal Trade Commission Act. Much like mobile phones, cars can reveal consumers’ persistent, precise locations, making them susceptible to privacy infringements.Continue Reading Careful Data Governance Is a Must Amid Enforcement Focus
On August 2, 2024, Illinois Governor J. B. Pritzker signed legislation reforming Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). Senate Bill 2979 immediately amends BIPA to limit a private entities’ potential liability for collecting or sharing biometric data without consent.
The BIPA amendment followed a call for action directed at the legislature from the Illinois courts.
This post was originally published to Seyfarth’s Global Privacy Watch blog.
On July 10th, the European Commission issued its Implementing Decision regarding the adequacy of the EU-US Data Privacy Framework (“DPF”). The Decision has been eagerly awaited by US and Europe based commerce, hoping it will help business streamline cross-Atlantic data transfers, and by
Seyfarth Synopsis: The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois recently denied Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider a prior dismissal of his privacy action due to untimeliness. In a case titled Bonilla, et al. v. Ancestry.com Operations Inc., et al., No. 20-cv-7390 (N.D. Ill.), Plaintiff alleged that consumer DNA network Ancestry DNA violated the
Seyfarth Synopsis: Federal judges are requiring attorneys to attest as to whether they have used generative artificial intelligence (AI) in court filings, and if so, how and in what manner it was used. These court orders come just days after two New York attorneys filed a motion in which ChatGPT provided citations to non-existent caselaw
You may have recently seen press reports about lawyers who filed and submitted papers to the federal district court for the Southern District of New York that included citations to cases and decisions that, as it turned out, were wholly made up; they did not exist. The lawyers in that case used the generative artificial
From court closures and the way judges conduct appearances and trials to the expected wave of lawsuits across a multitude of areas and industries, the COVID-19 outbreak is having a notable impact in the litigation space—and is expected to for quite some time.
To help navigate the litigation landscape, we are kicking off a webinar
At the end of 2019, the Second Circuit finally weighed in on an issue that has divided federal courts considering applications for discovery pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782, through which a litigant can obtain an order from a federal court for discovery to be used in a foreign proceeding. (You can read more about Section 1782 here and here). Federal courts have split over whether Section 1782 allows a party to obtain documents controlled by an entity in the United States but that are held overseas—for example, records held in the London office of a corporation headquartered in New York.1 In a pair of recent decisions, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit joined the Eleventh Circuit in holding that Section 1782 does permit discovery of documents held outside the United States and that are within the control of a US individual or entity.
Continue Reading Second Circuit Weighs in on the Extraterritorial Application of 28 U.S.C. § 1782