This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Recently, the Cologne District Court ruled that a German mobile operator’s use of Google Analytics violated the GDPR’s requirements for international data transfers. The Cologne District Court ruling only applies to the defendant in the case, Telekom Deutschland GmbH.
Subject access requests : The possibility that companies responding to data subject access requests from individuals will have to provide copies of entire documents containing their personal data, rather than only extracts. The court concluded that the legitimate interest could have been furthered through less intrusive means.
UK DPA launches data transfer consultation What happened : The ICO launched a consultation covering its international data transfer guidance, draft transfer risk assessment tool (“TRA”) and draft international data transfer agreement (“ IDTA ”). These developments, and more, covered below.
As covered in our Annual Review , 2020 was a blockbuster year for European dataprotection. The guidelines will be a new “go to” resource for those preparing for, and responding to, data breaches. Deliveroo algorithm ruled discriminatory by Italian court. English court rules GDPR does not apply to U.S. website.
Nevertheless, when considering the appropriateness of protective measures, the obligation rests on the data controller to prove that they met the required standard. The rulings arose at the request of both the German and Lithuanian courts, following local administrative fines. The Court ruled that: “Scoring” (i.e.,
On March 2, 2023, the Court of Justice of the EU (“CJEU”) decided, in case C-268/21 , that the GDPR applies to the production of evidence in civil court proceedings. The case sets limits on, but does not preclude, the production of personal data in court proceedings.
Understanding Advanced eDiscovery’s Function in Contemporary Legal Practice In the age of digitization, there has been a radical change in the way that evidence is gathered, handled, and examined in the court system. Nowadays, law firms must deal with enormous volumes of electronic data, much of which may be pertinent to their cases.
The Fourth Circuit made clear that trial courts must consider the import of class-action waivers signed by putative class members before certifying class actions against a Defendant. According to the Fourth Circuit, this “error affect[ed] the whole of the certification order.”
I think we can all agree that data privacy is a fundamental and sacred, right. We live in a country where a court of law recently ruled that the All Writs Act couldn’t compel Apple to unlock an iPhone belonging to an accused terrorists. When that happens, the level of dataprotection exponentially recedes.
Since these models generally evolve, regulators and courts might argue that—in the event of a performance issue or other regulatory concern—the model’s earlier outputs are important to understanding its later performance. Another benefit is the simplicity of the policy, which would make compliance relatively easy.
The TDPA provides for a private right of action for violation of the prohibition to sell, lease, or disclose data. Compensatory damages or damages between $200 and $1,000 are authorized for each unlawful sale, as are reasonable attorneys’ fees and court costs. See Vance v. Amazon.com Inc. , C20-1084JLR, 2021 WL 1401633, at *2 (W.D.
I think we can all agree that data privacy is a fundamental and sacred, right. We live in a country where a court of law recently ruled that the All Writs Act couldn’t compel Apple to unlock an iPhone belonging to an accused terrorists. When that happens, the level of dataprotection exponentially recedes.
Over 18 years of its existence, Google Analytics, and other Google services have become indispensable data processing tools for business owners and various organizations, such as educational institutions, healthcare, and sometimes even government agencies. It happened a few years ago. Presidential Executive Order No. 12.333 (E.O.
Further, in a case that we have covered previously involving a supermarket using video surveillance with facial recognition capabilities, the Spanish dataprotection authority (the “AEDP”) fined grocer Mercadona for violating numerous provisions of the EU’s General DataProtection Regulation.
As a general rule, however, the FTC’s Division of Privacy and Identity Protection (the “DPIP”) initiates privacy and cybersecurity investigations via civil investigative demands (“CIDs”). A CID is a type of Commissioner-authorized subpoena, enforceable in court, that subjects the recipient to a number of formalized processes and timelines.
And yet…the Roommates.com opinion has waned in importance over the years, especially as courts have mostly cited it for the defense and thus merged it into mainstream defense-favorable Section 230 jurisprudence. Part 312, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act’s Regulations Overview of the E.U.’s Privacy Review: 16 C.F.R.
The court says this isn’t a dispositive issue because “Judge Coogler would have come to the conclusion that Defendants were content providers and thus not entitled to immunity under Section 230 even if he had not considered Anderson.” I disagree strongly with this court’s assessment. TikTok ruling.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content