Privacy & Information Security Law Blog

On October 21, 2015, the EU-U.S. Privacy Bridge Initiative, a group of transatlantic privacy experts that was convened in April of 2014, released its report on Privacy Bridges – EU and US Privacy Experts in Search of Transatlantic Privacy Solutions.

In an article published by E-Commerce Law Reports, Hunton & Williams partners Bridget Treacy and Lisa Sotto discuss the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (the “CJEU’s”) recent ruling invalidating the European Commission’s Safe Harbor Decision.

On October 16, 2015, the Article 29 Working Party (the “Working Party”) issued a statement on the consequences of the recent ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) invalidating the European Commission’s Safe Harbor Decision.

On October 16, 2015, the German Parliament adopted a new data retention law requiring telecommunications operators and Internet service providers to retain customer Internet and phone usage data, including phone numbers, call times, IP addresses, and the international identifiers of mobile users (if applicable) for 10 weeks. The law requires user location data obtained in connection with mobile phone services to be retained for four weeks. Telecommunications and Internet service providers also are required to ensure that the retained data is stored within Germany.

Hunton & Williams proudly announces that the firm was ranked in Tier 1 in The Legal 500 United Kingdom 2015 guide for data protection. Bridget Treacy, head of the firm’s UK Privacy and Cybersecurity practice, and Rosemary Jay, senior consultant attorney, both received recognition as leading individuals for data protection.

On October 14, 2015, the data protection authority (“DPA”) in the German state of Schleswig-Holstein (Unabhängiges Landeszentrum für Datenschutz) issued a position paper (the “Position Paper”) on the Safe Harbor Decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”).

On October 15 and 16, 2015, Hunton & Williams is pleased to sponsor PDP’s 14th Annual Data Protection Compliance Conference in London. Bridget Treacy, Head of the UK Privacy and Cybersecurity practice at Hunton & Williams, chairs the conference, which features speakers from the data protection industry, including Christopher Graham, UK Information Commissioner, and Rosemary Jay, senior consultant attorney at Hunton & Williams.

On October 2, 2015, California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris announced that her office settled a lawsuit against home design website, Houzz Inc. (“Houzz”). Houzz was charged with secretly recording incoming and outgoing telephone calls for training and quality assurance purposes without notifying its customers, employees or call recipients, in violation of California eavesdropping and wiretapping laws. As part of the settlement, the Attorney General required Houzz to destroy the recordings, pay a fine of $175,000 and hire a Chief Privacy Officer to supervise its compliance with privacy laws and conduct privacy risk evaluations to assess Houzz’s privacy practices. This is the first time that the Attorney General has required the hiring of a Chief Privacy Officer as part of a settlement.

On September 25, 2015, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (the “ICO”) issued a fine of £200,000 (approximately $303,000) to Home Energy & Lifestyle Management Ltd. (“HELM”) for making a large number of automated marketing calls in violation of the UK’s direct marketing laws. This is the largest fine that the ICO has issued to date in connection with automated marketing calls.

On October 6, 2015, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) issued its judgment in the Schrems v. Facebook case, following the Opinion of the Advocate General published on September 23, 2015. In its judgment, the CJEU concluded that:

• The national data protection authorities (“DPAs”) have the power to investigate and suspend international data transfers even where the European Commission (the “Commission”) has adopted a decision finding that a third country affords an adequate level of data protection, such as Decision 2000/520 on the adequacy of the protection provided by the Safe Harbor Privacy Principles (the “Safe Harbor Decision”).
• The Safe Harbor Decision is invalid.