In our prior blog post, we discussed how the Washington Privacy Act (WPA) had passed the state’s senate and would be taken up by the state’s House of Representatives. On March 22, 2019, the House Innovation, Technology & Economic Development Committee held a public hearing on the legislation. A recording of the almost two-hour hearing…

Having escaped the bleak midwinter of the Midwest for a few brief days, I find myself sitting poolside in sunny Orlando experiencing a few tantalizing hours of near summer temps. As I watch the inflatables being splashed about gleefully by children (mine included) impervious to the water’s lingering chill, my thoughts naturally turn to privacy and security (which is not a euphemism for my ill-fitting swimsuit by the way).

One of the myriad of issues arising from the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) is the extent to which financial institutions subject to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) must comply with the CCPA’s requirements in light of Section 1798.145(e), which provides that the CCPA “shall not apply to personal information collected, processed, sold, or disclosed pursuant to [the GLBA], and implementing regulations.” Because the CCPA’s definition of “personal information” is broader than the GLBA’s definition of “nonpublic personal information,” financial institutions have been faced with the daunting task of not only data mapping but also classifying that data based on whether it is subject to the GLBA. 

Following the GDPR, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and other newly introduced state privacy legislation, the Washington Senate has proposed its own GDPR-like consumer privacy act. Washington Senate Bill 5376, the Washington Privacy Act, as first proposed on January 22, 2019 and substituted February 24, 2019 applies “not only to technologies and products of today but to technologies and products of tomorrow.” If approved, it will go into effect July 31, 2021.

The Act will apply to legal entities that conduct business in Washington or produce products or services that intentionally target Washington residents. These entities must also either (1) control or process data of at least 100,000 consumers or (2) derive 50 percent gross revenue from the sale of personal information and process or control personal information of at least 25,000 consumers. Under the Act, personal data is any information that is linked or reasonably linkable to an identified or identifiable natural person.

You can add Nevada to the growing list of the states that are considering privacy-related legislation in the wake of last year’s enactment of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). Nevada is one of three states that already require certain entities to provide online privacy notices to disclose the types of personal information that they collect from consumers. Senate Bill 220 would supplement that existing law by allowing consumers to submit notices to businesses directing them not to sell any personal information the business has collected or will collect about the consumer (i.e., an opt-out). An entity that receives such a notice would be forbidden from selling the consumer’s personal information.

It should come as no surprise that educational institutions are among the top targets for hackers and purveyors of personally identifiable information. In 2017, only the financial and healthcare sectors had more data breaches. Yet despite the looming menace of increased cyber-attacks, federal regulation of student data remains woefully inadequate. The Family Educational Rights & Privacy Act (“FERPA”) was enacted back in 1974, when the Internet was still a gleam in ARPANET’s eye and Jeff Bezos was only ten years old, and it has not been amended since 2001. It certainly protects (or tries to protect) student data from unwarranted disclosure or use, but it and the regulations that implement it do not meaningfully protect student data from theft or destruction. More importantly, FERPA fails to address, except in a few narrow situations, what kinds of obligations third-party contractors have vis-à-vis the student data that they collect and use. However, because FERPA has no preemption provisions, its mandates are a floor, not a ceiling; this means that states can step in and enact more stringent rules and regulations.