Privacy

Conceptual image about how a laptop computer with internet open a virtual door to worldwide information sharing.Keypoint: The Virginia Privacy Act would create CCPA-like rights for Virginia residents while the Sale of Personal Data Act would create rights vis-à-vis “data sellers.”

Lawmakers in Virginia have proposed two bills that, if enacted, would create a number of privacy rights for Virginia residents and compliance burdens for covered entities.

The first bill – the Virginia Privacy Act (HB 473) – was prefiled on January 3, 2020, and offered on January 8, 2020. It would create CCPA-like rights for Virginia residents and new obligations on businesses such as a requirement to conduct risk assessments.

The second bill – which is unnamed but for our purposes will be referred to as the Sale of Personal Data Act (SB 641) – was prefiled on January 7, 2020, and offered on January 8, 2020. Among other things, it would require data sellers to implement reasonable security measures to protect personal data, respond to certain types of privacy requests, and notify Virginia residents of data breaches.

In addition to Virginia, lawmakers have proposed consumer privacy legislation in Florida, Illinois, Washington state, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Hawaii. Members of Husch Blackwell’s privacy and data security practice group will be hosting a webinar on February 4 at noon CST to discuss these proposed laws and to provide an update on the CCPA. To register, click here.

Below is our analysis of Virginia’s proposed legislation (as introduced). We will first analyze the Virginia Privacy Act and then separately analyze the Sale of Personal Data Act.

Keypoint: Florida lawmakers have proposed legislation that would require certain operators of websites to make online disclosures and accept requests to opt-out of sales of personal data but that would stop far short of creating CCPA-like privacy rights for Florida residents.

Florida lawmakers have introduced companion bills in the Florida House (HB 963) and Senate (SB 1670) that would create limited online privacy rights and obligations in the state. The legislation – which is yet to be named but for our purposes will be referred to as the 2020 Florida Consumer Privacy Act (Act) – appears to be very similar to the Nevada Online Privacy Protection Act, which was amended last year to add a right to opt-out of sales of covered information. The Act is therefore distinguishable from the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and more akin to the California Online Privacy Protection Act (CalOPPA).

Florida joins a number of other states considering consumer privacy legislation, including Illinois, Washington state, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Virginia, and Hawaii. Members of Husch Blackwell’s privacy and data security practice group will be hosting a webinar on February 4 at noon CST to discuss these proposed laws and to provide an update on the CCPA. To register, click here.

Below is our analysis of the Florida legislation (as introduced).

Conceptual image about how a laptop computer with internet open a virtual door to worldwide information sharing.Keypoint: Illinois lawmakers have proposed legislation that would create CCPA-like privacy rights for Illinois residents.

On January 8, 2020, Illinois state Senator Thomas Cullerton introduced the Illinois Data Transparency and Privacy Act (SB2330). This comes on the heels of last year’s legislative session in which two consumer privacy bills failed to pass.

Below is our analysis of the proposed legislation (as introduced).

data privacyKeypoint: Washington lawmakers will be filing the 2020 version of the Washington Privacy Act on Monday, January 13, 2020.

Those who follow privacy law will remember that last year Washington state came close to becoming the second state (after California) to enact consumer privacy legislation. That legislation – called the Washington Privacy Act (WPA) – overwhelmingly passed the state senate but failed in the house, in part, based on disagreements as to how the statute would be enforced and its facial recognition provisions. (See our prior post here.) The bill’s proponents; however, vowed to push the legislation again in 2020.

On Friday, January 10, 2020, the Washington Senate Democratic Caucus publicly released the 2020 version of the WPA. The release came in advance of the opening of the Washington legislature on Monday, January 13, 2020. The bill’s sponsors also will be holding a press conference on January 13, 2020, to discuss the bill.

Below is our analysis of the 2020 version of the WPA.

Conceptual image about how a laptop computer with internet open a virtual door to worldwide information sharing.Keypoint: 2020 promises to be another ground-breaking year in privacy and cybersecurity law in the United States.

2019 was an exciting year in privacy and cybersecurity law. In the United States, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) was the most significant story, but there also were developments in states such as New York and Nevada. Numerous other states also considered consumer privacy legislation, and federal lawmakers even jumped into the fray, proposing a variety of bills and regulations. Overseas, GDPR garnered the most headlines of course, but other countries, such as Brazil, also made news.

But 2019 was just the start. There is no doubt that privacy and cybersecurity law is undergoing a fundamental change in the United States. If nothing else, the legal landscape of privacy law in the United States promises to look very different by the end of the year.

Below we discuss what we anticipate will be the biggest stories in 2020 and beyond.

Key Points

  • The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) is the most stringent privacy law in the country providing claimants with a private right of action without alleging actual injury.
  • Recent decisions have held that companies outside of Illinois that collect, store or use information on employees and persons in Illinois are subject to BIPA mandates.
  • Courts have held that notice of the collection of biometric information must be obtained from all persons prior to collection of the biometric information.
  • A recent decision acknowledged that an expansive reading of the statute suggests that each scan of biometric information may constitute a single violation under the BIPA.
  • Union employees subject to a collective bargaining agreement must pursue their BIPA claims in arbitration or before an administrative board.
  • Claims of willful or intentional violation of the new law must be supported by facts.
  • BIPA contains no statute of limitations for actions brought under the law, and the issue of the applicable length of the statute of limitations remains unresolved.

As tech companies race to develop facial recognition software for new applications across industry sectors, including the automotive, cosmetic, and healthcare industries, state legislatures are developing privacy laws to protect individuals’ right to privacy and control over their biometric information. The Illinois BIPA is the most stringent biometric privacy law in the U.S for the following reasons:

Key Point:  On October 1, 2019, the amendments to Nevada’s privacy policy statute will go into effect, requiring entities subject to the statute to revise their online privacy policies and create an internal process to ensure compliance with the new opt-out right.

As we initially discussed back in May, the Nevada legislature recently amended the state’s existing online…

As we first reported in February, the Nevada legislature has been considering legislation that would amend its online privacy notice statutes, NRS 603A.300 to 360. Among other things, Nevada’s existing law requires “operators” to provide a notice to consumers that (1) identifies the types of information the operator collects online, (2) describes the process (if any) for consumers to review or request changes to their information, (3) describes the process by which the operator notifies consumers of changes to the notice, and (4) discloses whether a third party may collect covered information about an individual’s online activities over time and across different Internet websites or online services.

Consistent with the cliché that “everything’s bigger in Texas,” the Texas legislature has introduced not one, but two separate bills relating to the privacy of personal information. Although still in their nascent stages, both bills are following California’s lead in creating enhanced and stringent privacy protections for individual consumers.