Government Regulation, Legislation & Enforcement – Page 4

Update from the Australia/New Zealand privacy conference and the changes to Australian privacy and cybersecurity laws

Nov 25 2022

By Cameron Abbott, Rob Pulham and Stephanie Mayhew

We’ve just returned from the annual iapp Australia/New Zealand privacy conference held in Sydney this week, and it was a whirlwind. Even if you’re not one of around half of Australians affected by two of the biggest data breaches in our recent history, you’ll be aware a lot is changing – and a lot more is poised to change – in this space.

We’ll be blogging over the coming weeks about some of the key themes and changes your organisation will need to prepare for, including:

– new regulatory enforcement tools

– higher expectations of the way personal information is collected and secured, and when it needs to be destroyed

– potential removal of key exemptions such as the employee records exemption that your business may currently rely on,

– and of course the major penalty increases that seek to deter privacy breaches being viewed as ‘the cost of doing business’,

as Australia tightens the protections around the collection and use of Australians’ personal information.

Stay tuned!

EU Digital Services Act: Fundamental Changes for Online Intermediaries?

Nov 21 2022

By Claude-Étienne Armingaud, Dr. Ulrike Elteste and Dr. Thomas Nietsch

The European Union has taken another step to set out its new legal framework for online intermediaries. Following the publication of the Digital Markets Act (Regulation (EU) 2022/1925) in the EU Official Journal on 12 October 2022, the Digital Services Act has now also been published in the EU Official Journal as Regulation (EU) 2022/2065.

While the Digital Markets Act focuses on the behavior of large “gatekeepers” towards other businesses, the Digital Services Act aims to fully harmonize the rules on the safety of online services and the dissemination of illegal content online. In particular, its Articles 4 to 10 replace the current provisions on the liability privilege enjoyed by online intermediaries in the eCommerce Directive 2000/31/EC. The privilege as such broadly remains intact, but is punctured in a number of ways. For example, the Digital Services Act encourages preemptive screening and provides that “trusted flaggers” must receive priority in the future. Providers of online platforms that allow consumers to enter into distance contracts with traders must obtain certain minimum information from the traders they admit to their platform. They may have to notify consumers if they become aware that products sold on their platform do not comply with legal requirements.

Again, “very large” online platforms and search engines receive the legislator’s (and the EU Commission’s) special attention. They must comply with additional transparency requirements and analyze and mitigate systemic risks.

But other intermediaries must also timely amend their terms of service, improve their complaint handling, and increase their transparency to avoid fines that can reach 6% of their global turnover. Specifically, online platforms must in the future provide clear information on “each specific advertisement presented to each individual recipient”, including “meaningful information directly and easily accessible from the advertisement about the main parameters used to determine the recipient to whom the advertisement is presented and, where applicable, about how to change those parameters”.

Most obligations bearing on companies subject to the Digital Services Act will start to apply on 17 February 2024. However, all but small online platforms and search engines will be required to publish information on the usage of their services (Statement) on their website, with an initial Statement to be published by 17 February 2023 at the latest. Intermediaries designated as “very large online platforms” or “very large online search engines” by the EU Commission will need to comply with most of their new obligations from four months after being notified of their “very large” status.

UK Data Protection: Beware of the consequences of unsolicited marketing emails!

Oct 11 2022

By Claude-Étienne Armingaud and Keisha Phippen

Sending unsolicited marketing emails could prove costly to UK organisations, as bike and car accessory retailer Halfords have recently discovered.

Last month, Halfords were handed a fine of £30,000 by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) for sending around half a million unsolicited marketing email messages to customers who had not previously opted-in to marketing (see here).

The fine was issued under the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations (PECR), which gives people specific privacy rights in relation to electronic communications and restricts how unsolicited direct marketing is carried out.

An investigation carried out by the ICO found that the retailer broke the laws governing electronic communications by sending out emails relating to a government voucher scheme that gave people £50 off the cost of repairing a bike at any participating store or mechanic in England. The email not only pointed customers to the government website, it also invited them to book a bike assessment and to redeem their voucher at their chosen Halfords store. The ICO concluded that the insinuation of Halfords having a direct connection with the government scheme encouraged its customers to redeem the voucher in its stores and that Halfords was therefore advertising its own services.

PECR prevents organisations from sending emails or messages to people unless they have consented to it or they are an existing customer who has bought similar products or services in the past (known as the “soft opt-in” rule).

Halfords argued that the email constituted a service message and should not be categorised as direct marketing, but the ICO maintained that the email did constitute direct marketing because it satisfied the definition of such under Paragraph 35 of the ICO’s Direct Marketing Guidance (see here). In addition, the ICO concluded that the soft opt-in rule could not apply because the targeted customers had already opted out.

Andy Curry, Head of Investigations at the ICO said: “This [decision] sends a message to similar organisations to review their electronic marketing operations, and that we will take necessary action if they break the law.”

Privacy and cybersecurity laws expected to undergo a significant overhaul in the wake of Optus data breach

Sep 29 2022

By Cameron Abbott, Rob Pulham and Stephanie Mayhew

Over the past two years, the Privacy Act has been the subject of long-awaited reform in Australia however, it seems the Optus data breach may have given it some much needed momentum.

The Optus attack is understood to have affected the details of 11.2m Optus customers, and of that 2.8m individuals have had their driver’s licence and/or passport numbers compromised. The hacker claims to have extracted the data from an API – software that allows two different systems to talk to each other. Therefore, if the claim is true the hacker didn’t need to provide authentication (e.g. a username and password) to retrieve the data.

In the wake of the attack, the Government has shared its plans to pursue substantial reforms that will include increased penalties under the Privacy Act (currently capped at $2.22m per offence) as well as changes to data breach notification laws to allow companies to rapidly inform financial institutions of affected individuals in an effort to minimise fraud.

The data breach also highlights the risks involved in collecting large amounts of personal information and storing this for excessive time periods. While the Privacy Act promotes the collection of a minimum amount of personal information, i.e. only that information that is necessary for a particular purpose and which the entity intends to use or disclose – individuals generally have limited control over how long their information is retained for.

During the initial stages of the Privacy Act review, the Attorney General’s Department sought submissions from entities on their views as to whether individuals should be given the right to have their personal information erased. Optus in submissions to the review argued against such a change stating that the right to erase personal data would involve significant technical hurdles and compliance costs that would outweigh the benefits. Of course this incident has happened just as stores are gearing up for Halloween – a fitting time for those public submissions to come back to haunt them.

Argentina announces upgrades to data protection obligations

Sep 16 2022

By Cameron Abbott, Stephanie Mayhew and Dadar Ahmadi-Pirshahid

Argentina’s Data Protection Authority, the Agency for Access to Public Information (the Agency), has published a draft bill that proposes to bring Argentina’s 22 year old data protection law more in line with the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation.

Amongst other things, the bill modernises Argentina’s data protection law to deal with more recent issues including cloud computing, biometric and genetic data. It provides greater scope for international transfers of information by allowing transfers under the sanction of adequate data protection guarantees in the absence of a decision by the Agency that the importing country has adequate data protection. It additionally requires Data Controllers to document and notify the Agency of data breaches within 48 hours of becoming aware of a breach.

The draft bill is open for public comment until 30 September 2022. Any entity wishing to submit commentary is encouraged to reach out to K&L Gates to help facilitate the submission process.

UK Government publishes new proposed data protection law

Jul 27 2022

By Claude-Étienne Armingaud, Nóirín McFadden and Keisha Phippen

The UK Government has finally published its highly anticipated Data Protection and Digital Information Bill (the Bill), marking the first significant post-Brexit change to the UK’s data protection regime. Following Brexit, the UK continued following the EU General Data Protection Regulation, incorporated into UK law as the UK GDPR, and the UK implementation of the EU ePrivacy Directive, the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003 (PECR), also remained in force.

The Bill is only at the start of the legislative process, and it remains to be seen how it will develop if it is amended during its passage through Parliament, but early indications are that it represents more of an evolution than a revolution in the UK regime. That will come as a relief to businesses that transfer personal data from the EU to the UK, because it reduces the risk that the EU might rescind the UK’s adequacy status.

For a start, the Bill actually preserves the UK GDPR, its enabling legislation the Data Protection Act 2018, and the PECR, because it is drafted as an amending act rather than a completely new legislative instrument. This does not contribute to user-friendliness, as interpreting UK data protection requirements will require a great deal of cross-referencing across texts.

The more eye-catching proposed changes in the Bill include:

The inclusion of a list of “legitimate interests” that will automatically qualify as being covered by the lawful basis in UK GDPR Article 6(e).
Some limitations on data subject access requests, such as the possibility of refusing “vexatious or excessive” requests.
More exemptions from the requirement to obtain consent to cookies.
Much higher fees for breach of PECR.

The Bill will now progress through various Parliamentary stages over the coming months in order to become law.

The Importance of Managing DSARs

Jun 28 2022

By Claude-Étienne Armingaud and Inès Demmou

With its December 2021 fine imposed on French telephone operator Free Mobile, the French data protection authority (CNIL) reiterated the importance of responding to data subject access requests (DSARs) within the relevant timeline (usually 30 days), with all the relevant and required information (Article 13 and 14 GDPR) and ensuring the security of users’ personal data (Article 32 GDPR).

Another sanction by the Dutch Supervisory Authority relating to the principle of data minimization confirmed that such DSARs could not be conditioned by overly complex mechanisms, such as a requirement to upload a full copy of an identity document.

These sanctions demonstrate that data subjects have acquired the awareness necessary to exercise their rights, and that data controllers must implement effective channels and internal processes to handle DSARs properly, effectively, in a timely manner, and in a way that would not, in turn, generate its own set of breaches of the GDPR.

To find out more, see our full alert here.

New concerns over China’s ability to access user data on WeChat

Jun 21 2022

By Cameron Abbott and Hugo Chow

A recent report by cybersecurity firm, Internet 2.0, has raised concerns about the Chinese Communist Party’s ability to access the data of millions of users around the world of social media and payment application, WeChat.

WeChat is significant as it is the application that nearly all citizens in China use on a daily basis for communication, payments for services and as a way for citizens to connect through social media. Although the majority of WeChat’s more than 1 billion users are located in China, there are approximately 600,000 users in Australia, 1.3 million users in the UK, and 1.5 million users in the United States.

One of the concerns the report outlines is that although WeChat states that its servers are kept outside mainland China, all user data that WeChat logs and posts to its logging server goes directly to Hong Kong. And the report argues that under Hong Kong’s new National Security Legislation, there is little difference between Hong Kong resident servers and servers in mainland China.

As a result, due to China’s National Intelligence Law which requires organisations and citizens to “support, assist and cooperate with the state intelligence work”, there are concerns that the WeChat logging data that goes to servers in Hong Kong may be accessed by the Chinese Government upon request. The report states that the data that goes to Hong Kong is log data, which includes the user’s mobile network, device information, GPS information, phone ID, the version of the operating system of the device, but does not include information such as content of a conversation.

Another concern the report outlines is that although there was no evidence that chats were stored outside the user’s device, the report found that WeChat had the potential to access all the data in a user’s clipboard. This means that there is the potential for WeChat to access the data that is copied and pasted by users on WeChat, which is a risk to people using password managers that rely on the clipboard feature to copy and paste their passwords.

We expect to hear more about these sorts of concerns from a range of jurisdictions.

EU-REPUBLIC OF KOREA ADEQUACY DECISIONS FINALIZED

Jan 14 2022

By Claude-Etienne Armingaud, Andrew L. Chung, Camille Scarparo and Eric Yoon

Following the conclusion of the adequacy talks in March 2021, the European Commission has adopted on 17 December 2021 an adequacy decision addressing the transfers of personal data to the Republic of Korea under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Law Enforcement Directive.

Both texts prohibit the transfer of personal data to “third countries” unless (a) the destination country benefits from (i) an adequacy decision or (ii) appropriate safeguards, such as standard contractual clauses (see our alert here) or codes of conduct (see our alert here); or (b) one of the limited derogations under Article 49 GDPR applies.

With regards to the adequacy talks, the Republic of Korea agreed on the implementation of additional safeguards. Accordingly, the reform of Republic of Korea’s data protection framework (the Personal Information Protection Act) in August 2020, implemented several additional safeguards including transparency provisions and enforcement power strengthening of the Personal Information Protection Commission (§70).

The Republic of Korea adequacy decision complements the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) of July 2011 and allows a seamless flow of personal data between the Republic of Korea and the European Union.

Unlike the UK adequacy decision which contains a sunset clause (see our alert here), the Republic of Korea adequacy decision is not limited in time. However, pursuant to Article 45.3 GDPR, the European Commission carry out a first review of the decision after three years to evaluate any evolution in the Republic of Korea data protection framework, that would lead to divergence with the EU regulations (§220).

The Republic of Korea now belongs to the increasing group of third countries benefiting from an adequacy decision (including, since GDPR’s entry into force, Japan and the UK).

The firm’s global data protection team (including in each of our European offices) remains available to assist you in achieving the compliance of your data transfers at global levels.

New GDPR Guidelines on Data Transfers

Dec 01 2021

Claude-Étienne Armingaud, Camille Scarparo and Bastien Pujol

On 19 November 2021, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) adopted new guidelines on the interplay between Article 3 GDPR (territorial scope) and Chapter V GDPR (transfer of personal data to third countries or international organization) of the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”).

Those draft Guidelines aim at clarifying the mechanism of international transfers and more specifically provide a necessary assistance to controllers and processors in the European Union (“EU”) or otherwise subject to GDPR, including guidance on when a data importer would be subject to GDPR and an interpretation of the concept of international transfer.

In order to characterize a processing as a “transfer”, the EDPB relied on the three following cumulative criteria:

The data exporter (a controller or processor) is subject to the GDPR for the given processing;
- As a reminder, while GDPR generally applies to all entities processing personal data and established in the EU, it can also have an extra territorial reach for certain processing operations consisting in (i) offering products or services to individuals in the EU (e.g. ecommerce and apps) or (ii) monitoring of EU individuals’ behavior taking place in the EU (e.g. cookies and other tracking technologies).
The data exporter transmits or makes available the personal data to the data importer (another controller, joint-controller or processor); and
- In that regard, the mere remote access to the data would still qualify as a “data transfer” and it remains to be hopefully clarified in the final Guidelines whether the sharing of personal data among joint-controllers (both subject to GDPR from the inception of the processing operations) would in and of itself be considered as a data transfer.
The data importer is in a third-country or is an international organization.

In addition, a processing that meets these three criteria will be considered a transfer when the importer is established in a third-country and subject to the GDPR following provisions of article 3.2 GDPR. The EDPB considered that when the controller located in a third-country is already subject to GDPR, “less protection/safeguards are needed”. Nevertheless, conflicting national laws, government access in the third-country as well as the difficulty to enforce and obtain redress against an entity outside the EU should be addressed when developing relevant transfer tools.

The EDPB specified that personal data directly collected from the data subjects, at their own initiative, should not to be considered as a transfer.

An online public consultation is opened on the matter until 31 January 2022.

Catagory:Government Regulation, Legislation & Enforcement