Photo of Megan Herr

Whether clients are forming, growing or governing businesses, Megan assists in the corporate deals and transactions necessary to move forward. A corporate attorney, Megan focuses her practice on helping clients of all sizes – from emerging startups to international corporations – establish, grow and protect business.

Resulting in Zoom Promising to Implement an Information Security Program, Resembling the SHIELD Act

Key point: The Letter of Agreement between the New York Attorney General and Zoom Video Communications, Inc. provides insight into what the Attorney General may consider satisfying the Reasonable Safeguards requirement under the SHIELD Act.

On May 7, 2020 Zoom Video Communications, Inc. (Zoom) became the first company to experience one of the new enforcement tools available to the New York Attorney General’s Office (NYAG) under the Stop Hacks and Improve Electronic Data Security Act (SHIELD Act).

The SHIELD Act took effect on March 21, 2020, and requires any person or business owning or licensing computerized data containing the private information of a New York resident “to develop, implement and maintain reasonable safeguards to protect the security, confidentiality and integrity of that private information.” GBL § 899-BB(2).

Continue Reading Zoom’s Popularity Leads to New York Investigating Its Security Flaws

Keypoint: The use of no-contact temperature taking devices can be an important part of a company’s return-to-work program, but companies should fully vet these devices to ensure that they are not unintentionally violating privacy laws or exposing themselves to potential liabilities.

As U.S. companies start planning and implementing return-to-work plans, many are considering whether to use no-contact temperature taking devices.

The federal government has recognized that taking temperatures is a step that companies can take to mitigate the risk of spreading coronavirus. For example, the CDC interim guidance for critical infrastructure workers recommends that employers “measure the employee’s temperature and assess symptoms prior to them starting work.” EEOC return-to-work guidance also recognizes that employee screening “may include continuing to take temperatures . . . of all those entering the workplace.”

States and cities also have recommended taking temperatures. For example, in Colorado, the Governor’s office has encouraged large workplaces to implement symptom and temperature checks as part of the state’s gradual return-to-work strategy. New York Mayor Bill de Blasio has stated that temperature checks will be part of the City’s return-to-work program. New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy suggested that restaurants could check temperatures before allowing customers to enter.

However, the taking of temperatures creates logistical issues such as who should take the temperatures, what precautions should be in place, and when and where the temperatures should be taken. As with many other facets of this pandemic, companies have looked to technology to answer some of these questions, and there are many solutions – some old, some new – in the marketplace.

Depending on the type of device, the use of no-contact temperature taking devices can raise numerous privacy issues. As companies begin to vet and implement these devices, they will need to ensure that they do not unintentionally violate privacy laws or assume potential liabilities.

Continue Reading U.S. Privacy Law Implications with the Use of No-Contact Temperature Taking Devices

Keypoint: If properly deployed, the use of COVID-19 contact-tracing apps by employers, in combination with other measures, could be an effective way to return employees to the workforce. However, before deploying these apps, employers should take caution to fully vet the technologies being used to ensure that employee privacy is respected.

As the United States and Europe have started the process of returning to work, the development, deployment, and use of COVID-19 contact-tracing apps has become a focal point for how governments intend to mitigate risk. ChinaSingapore, and South Korea have already implemented national contact-tracing apps. European countries and Australia have been rapidly working towards their deployment.

In connection with the rapid development of governmental contact-tracing apps, tech companies have started to develop similar apps for employers. A handful of employer-focused contact-tracing apps are already on the market and many more are in development. Some employers are already planning to deploy these apps. For example, Ferrari recently announced that it will utilize a contact-tracing app as part of its “Back on Track” plan.

The use of these apps raises numerous privacy concerns for U.S. employers. As employers begin to vet these apps, they will need to ensure that they do not unintentionally violate privacy laws or assume liabilities by deploying them with their workforce.

Continue Reading U.S. Privacy Law Implications for Employers Considering Employee Contact-Tracing Apps

Keypoint: The AG’s office again signals that the CCPA’s July 1 enforcement deadline will not be extended.

In another sign that the California Attorney General has no plans to delay the CCPA’s July 1, 2020, enforcement deadline, on Friday April 10, 2020, the AG’s office issued a press release reminding California residents of their data privacy rights during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Continue Reading CCPA Update: AG Says CCPA Privacy Rights Now “More Important Than Ever”

Keypoint: After an active winter of proposed state privacy laws, it appears that all eyes will once again be on California for the remainder of the year as we wait for final CCPA regulations, the fate of the CCPA 2.0 ballot measure, and other privacy bills being considered by the California legislature.

Over the past few months, there has not been a lack of things to talk about as it relates to U.S. privacy law developments. Between the CCPA, Washington Privacy Act, CCPA 2.0, and numerous privacy bills proposed in state legislatures, practically every day brought a new story.  However, a lot has changed in a short period of time.

First, the Washington Privacy Act failed to pass (although Washington did enact a facial recognition bill). Then, the world changed with the Coronavirus pandemic.

Yet, there are still developments in U.S. privacy law. Below is an overview of the ones that we have been tracking over the past few weeks.

Continue Reading U.S. Privacy Law Update: Analyzing the Status of the CCPA, CCPA 2.0, and Other Proposed State Privacy Legislation

Keypoint: The California Attorney General’s office does not currently plan to extend the CCPA’s enforcement deadline but left the door open to reconsider its position as the coronavirus crisis unfolds.

As we previously reported, on March 17, 2020, over thirty trade associations, companies, and organizations sent a letter to California Attorney General Becerra requesting that, in light of the coronavirus crisis and unfinished status of the regulations, he “forebear from enforcing the CCPA until January 2, 2021 so businesses are able to build processes that are in line with the final regulations before they may be subject to enforcement actions for allegedly violating the law’s terms.”

Continue Reading CCPA Update: California AG Responds to Request to Postpone CCPA’s Enforcement Deadline

Keypoint: This modified draft of proposed regulations retracts some of the modifications as published on February 10 and adds new revisions. There is an additional comment period, which delays publication of final regulations and further shortens the time businesses will have to drive compliance before the July 1, 2020 enforcement date.

On Wednesday, March 11, 2020, the California Attorney General’s office published a notice of second set of modifications to the text of the proposed regulations regarding the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). The Attorney General’s office also published redline and clean versions of the second set of modified regulations.

In the below post, we first provide a brief background of the regulatory process. We then discuss the most significant changes made in this latest round of revisions.

Continue Reading CCPA Update: Second Set of Modified Proposed Regulations Published

data privacyKeypoint: The Washington House of Representatives passed an amended version of the WPA containing a private right of action.

On Friday, March 6, the Washington House of Representatives passed an amended version of the Washington Privacy Act (WPA) (SB 6281). Among other changes, the House WPA contains a private right of action that would allow state residents to sue data controllers for technical violations of the bill’s provisions. The House WPA now moves back to the Senate for further consideration. Lawmakers have until Thursday, March 12, to resolve the differences between the House and Senate WPA versions.

Continue Reading Washington Privacy Act Update: Amended Bill Passes House

Conceptual image about how a laptop computer with internet open a virtual door to worldwide information sharing.Keypoint: The WPA version that passed out of the House committee contains a private right of action along with other changes strengthening the WPA’s privacy provisions.

On Friday, February 28, the Washington House Innovation, Technology & Economic Development Committee (ITED) voted to pass a strengthened version of the Washington Privacy Act (WPA) out of committee. As discussed in our prior post, on February 14, the Washington Senate voted overwhelmingly to pass the WPA. Yet, after moving to the House, the WPA encountered substantial resistance from privacy advocates. At a public hearing on February 21, privacy advocates argued against the WPA’s lack of a private right of action, facial recognition provisions, and preemption of local laws, among other things.
Continue Reading Washington Privacy Act Update: Private Right of Action Added in House

As it did last year, the Washington state senate has overwhelmingly passed comprehensive consumer privacy legislation. The legislation, entitled the Washington Privacy Act (WPA), passed the state senate on February 14, 2020, by a vote of 46-1. The legislation will now move to the state house of representatives where it failed last year. A copy