Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools are becoming commonplace in workplace. According to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Chair Charlotte Burrows, “as many as 83 percent of employers and up to 99 percent of Fortune 500 companies now use some form of automated tool to screen or rank candidates for hire.”

Just as the use of AI

2023 has seen a flurry of general state privacy laws, with twelve (12) such laws now on the books.  The next one to “go live,” on December 31, 2023, is the Utah Consumer Privacy Act (UCPA).  With no general federal privacy law in sight, the state privacy landscape continues to get more crowded and challenging

Earlier this month, the Oregon state legislature introduced Senate Bill (SB) 619, “relating to protections for the personal data of consumers.”  The bill has since been referred to the Senate Committee on Judiciary and the Joint Committee on Ways and Means.  Of course, Oregon would not be the first state to enact general, or omnibus, privacy legislation; to date, five states (California, Virginia, Colorado, Connecticut, and Utah) have done so, with the first two operative as of today.  Likewise, Oregon is not the only state to introduce new omnibus privacy legislation this month.  The introduction of this bill (and other general state privacy legislation) remains significant because the prospect for omnibus federal privacy legislation (in the near term) fizzled out when the 117th Congress adjourned.   

No bill exists in a vacuum.  Structurally, SB 619 generally follows the Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act (VCDPA), as do the laws enacted by Colorado, Connecticut, and Utah. 

SB 619 is only 17 pages long, not as slim as the VCDPA (8 pages), but not as bulky as the California Consumer Privacy Act (59 pages).  Unlike the CCPA, SB 619 does not reference any implementing regulations; however, implementing regulations could be added.

As with any omnibus state privacy bill, the proposed legislation raises some key questions:Continue Reading A New Consumer Data Protection Bill in Oregon: A Summary of SB 619

To say that class action litigation regarding the use or collection of “biometric information” – such as fingerprints, face records, or voice records – is expensive would be a gross understatement.  The damages sought, and sometimes recovered, in litigation under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act and similar laws that impose statutory penalties can be

If you manage a company that collects and otherwise processes personal data (which is just about every company, these days), you may need to protect your own pocketbook.  As governments across the globe continue to enact and enforce data privacy, data protection, and cybersecurity laws, data becomes more readily available, and the volume of incidents

It’s a great time to be a privacy attorney.  On October 17, 2022, the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) released the next draft of the regulations under the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020 (CPRA) as well as a document explaining the proposed modifications.  Two days of public hearings were recently held on October 21-22

In Illinois, the Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) regulates the collection and use of “biometric information” such as fingerprints, facial images, and voice records.  It imposes significant penalties and has generated a cottage industry of class action litigation—hundreds of cases have been filed and millions of dollars in liability have been assessed.  It is also the most well known and heavily litigated of a slew of newly enacted, or soon to be passed, state and local laws aimed to regulate biometric information.

Many Illinois defendants had hoped that their liability under BIPA could be limited because, they argued, a one-year statute of limitations should apply to BIPA claims.  But, in a recently issued decision, Tims v. Black Horse Carriers, Inc., 2021 IL App (1st) 200563, the Illinois Court of Appeals rejected this position for a majority of BIPA claims.  It held that a five-year statute of limitations applies to the most frequently cited sections of the statute.
Continue Reading Illinois Court of Appeals: Statute of Limitations for Most Biometric Privacy Claims Remains at Five Years

Last year the FTC mandated what an organization’s written cybersecurity program should include to avoid being deemed “unfair and deceptive” to consumers,[1] and this year California consumers whose personal information is compromised may file lawsuits against organizations that failed to implement “reasonable security.”[2]

But several states provide legal safe harbors to organizations with written cybersecurity programs. Now, Utah is considering joining them. Under House Bill 158, referred to as the Cybersecurity Affirmative Defense Act (the “Proposed Act”),[3] if at the time of a data breach a covered entity has created, maintained, and complied with a written cybersecurity program it has an affirmative defense to a civil tort claim.
Continue Reading Utah Considers a Cybersecurity Safe Harbor as Ransomware Runs Riot

Does your business collect personal information from residents in California? Does it monitor user activity on its website? If so, there is a good chance it will need to comply with the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”), which takes effect January 1, 2020.

Following the European Union’s implementation of GDPR, California adopted the CCPA, which