Category: Cybersecurity

GDPR Privacy Rules: The Other Shoe Drops

Four years after GDPR was implemented, we are seeing the pillars of the internet business destroyed. Given two new EU decisions affecting the practical management of data, all companies collecting consumer data in the EU are re-evaluating their business models and will soon be considering wholesale changes.

On one hand, the GDPR is creating the world its drafters intended – a world where personal data is less of a commodity exploited and traded by business. On the other hand, GDPR enforcement has taken the form of a wrecking ball, leading to data localization in Europe and substitution of government meddling for consumer choice.

For years we have watched the EU courts and enforcement agencies apply GDPR text to real-life cases, wondering if the legal application would be more of a nip and tuck operation on ecommerce or something more bloody and brutal. In 2022, we received our answer, and the bodies are dropping.

In January Austrian courts decided that companies can’t use Google Analytics to study their own site’s web traffic. The same conclusion was reached last week by French regulators. While Google doesn’t announce statistics about product usage, website tracker BuiltWith published that 29.3 million websites use Google Analytics, including 69.5 percent of Quantcast’s Top 10,000 sites, and that is more than ten times the next most popular option. So vast numbers of companies operating in Europe will need to change their platform analytics provider – if the Euro-crats will allow them to use site analytics at all.

But these decisions were not based on the functionality of Google Analytics, a tool that does not even capture personally identifiable information – no names, no home or office address, no phone numbers. Instead, these decisions that will harm thousands of businesses were a result of the Schrems II decision, finding fault in the transfer of this non-identifiable data to a company based in the United States. The problem here for European decision-makers is that US law enforcement may have access to this data if courts allow them. I have written before about this illogical conclusion and won’t restate the many arguments here, other than to say that EU law enforcement behaves the same way.

The effects of this decision will be felt far beyond the huge customer base of Google Analytics.  The logic of this decision effectively means that companies collecting data from EU citizens can no longer use US-based cloud services like Amazon Web Services, IBM, Google, Oracle or Microsoft. I would anticipate that huge cloud player Alibaba Cloud could suffer the same proscription if Europe’s privacy panjandrums decide that China’s privacy protection is as threatening as the US.

The Austrians held that all the sophisticated measures taken by Google to encrypt analytic data meant nothing, because if Google could decrypt it, so could the US government. By this logic, no US cloud provider – the world’s primary business data support network – could “safely” hold EU data. Which means that the Euro-crats are preparing to fine any EU company that uses a US cloud provider. Max Schrems saw this decision in stark terms, stating, “The bottom line is: Companies can’t use US cloud services in Europe anymore.”

This decision will ultimately support the Euro-crats’ goal of data localization as companies try to organize local storage/processing solutions to avoid fines. Readers of this blog have seen coverage of the EU’s tilt toward data localization (for example, here and here) and away from the open internet that European politicians once held as the ideal. The Euro-crats are taking serious steps toward forcing localized data processing and cutting US businesses out of the ecommerce business ecosystem. The Google Analytics decision is likely to be seen as a tipping point in years to come.

In a second major practical online privacy decision, earlier this month the Belgian Data Protection Authority ruled that the Interactive Advertising Bureau Europe’s Transparency and Consent Framework (TCF), a widely-used technical standard built for publishers, advertisers, and technology vendors to obtain user consent for data processing, does not comply with the GDPR. The TCF allows users to accept or reject cookie-based advertising, relieving websites of the need to create their own expensive technical solutions, and creating a consistent experience for consumers. Now the TCF is considered per-se illegal under EU privacy rules, casting thousands of businesses to search for or design their own alternatives, and removing online choices for European residents.

The Belgian privacy authority reached this conclusion by holding that the Interactive Advertising Bureau was a “controller” of all the data managed under its proposed framework. As stated by the Center for Data Innovation, this decision implies “that any good-faith effort to implement a common data protection protocol by an umbrella organization that wants to uphold GDPR makes said organization liable for the data processing that takes place under this protocol.” No industry group will want to put itself in this position, leaving businesses to their own devices and making ecommerce data collection much less consistent and much more expensive – even if that data collection is necessary to fulfill the requests of consumers.

For years companies thought that informed consumer consent would be a way to personalize messaging and keep consumer costs low online, but the EU has thrown all online consent regimes into question. EU regulators have effectively decided that people can’t make their own decisions about allowing data to be collected. If TCF – the consent system used by 80% of the European internet and a system designed specifically to meet the demands of the GDPR – is now illegal, then, for a second time in a month, all online consumer commerce is thrown into confusion. Thousands were operating websites with TCF and Google Analytics, believing they were following the letter of the law.  That confidence has been smashed.

We are finally seeing the practical effects of the GDPR beyond its simple utility for fining US tech companies.  Those effects are leading to a closed-border internet around Europe and a costlier, less customizable internet for EU citizens. The EU is clearly harming businesses around the world and making its internet a more cramped place. I have trouble seeing the logic and benefit of these decisions, but the GDPR was written to shake the system, and privacy benefits may emerge.

Copyright © 2022 Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP All Rights Reserved.
For more articles about international privacy, visit the NLR Cybersecurity, Media & FCC section.

Fitness App Agrees to Pay $56 Million to Settle Class Action Alleging Dark Pattern Practices

On February 14, 2022, Noom Inc., a popular weight loss and fitness app, agreed to pay $56 million, and provide an additional $6 million in subscription credits to settle a putative class action in New York federal court. The class is seeking conditional certification and has urged the court to preliminarily approve the settlement.

The suit was filed in May 2020 when a group of Noom users alleged that Noom “actively misrepresents and/or fails to accurately disclose the true characteristics of its trial period, its automatic enrollment policy, and the actual steps customer need to follow in attempting to cancel a 14-day trial and avoid automatic enrollment.” More specifically, users alleged that Noom engaged in an unlawful auto-renewal subscription business model by luring customers in with the opportunity to “try” its programs, then imposing significant barriers to the cancellation process (e.g., only allowing customers to cancel their subscriptions through their virtual coach), resulting in the customers paying a nonrefundable advance lump-sum payment for up to eight (8) months at a time. According to the proposed settlement, Noom will have to substantially enhance its auto-renewal disclosures, as well as require customers to take a separate action (e.g., check box or digital signature) to accept auto-renewal, and provide customers a button on the customer’s account page for easier cancellation.

Regulators at the federal and state level have recently made clear their focus on enforcement actions against “dark patterns.” We previously summarized the FTC’s enforcement policy statement from October 2021 warning companies against using dark patterns that trick consumers into subscription services. More recently, several state attorneys general (e.g., in Indiana, Texas, the District of Columbia, and Washington State) made announcements regarding their commitment to ramp up enforcement work on “dark patterns” that are used to ascertain consumers’ location data.

Article By: Privacy and Cybersecurity Practice Group at Hunton Andrews Kurth

For more cybersecurity legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.
 
Copyright © 2022, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Rights Reserved.

Texas AG Sues Meta Over Collection and Use of Biometric Data

On February 14, 2022, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton brought suit against Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, over the company’s collection and use of biometric data. The suit alleges that Meta collected and used Texans’ facial geometry data in violation of the Texas Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act (“CUBI”) and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“DTPA”). The lawsuit is significant because it represents the first time the Texas Attorney General’s Office has brought suit under CUBI.

The suit focuses on Meta’s “tag suggestions” feature, which the company has since retired. The feature scanned faces in users’ photos and videos to suggest “tagging” (i.e., identify by name) users who appeared in the photos and videos. In the complaint, Attorney General Ken Paxton alleged that Meta,  collected and analyzed individuals’ facial geometry data (which constitutes biometric data under CUBI) without their consent, shared the data with third parties, and failed to destroy the data in a timely matter, all in violation of CUBI and the DTPA. CUBI regulates the collection and use of biometric data for commercial purposes, and the DTPA prohibits false, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.

Among other forms of relief, the complaint seeks an injunction enjoining Meta from violating these laws, a $25,000 civil penalty for each violation of CUBI, and a $10,000 civil penalty for each violation of the DTPA. The suit follows Facebook’s $650 million class-action settlement over alleged violations of Illinois’ Biometric Privacy Act and the company’s discontinuance of the tag suggestions feature last year.

Article By Hunton Andrews Kurth’s Privacy and Cybersecurity Practice Group

For more privacy and cybersecurity legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2022, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Rights Reserved.

Is Your School District Ready for the Next Round of Cyber Attacks?

It isn’t if, but when, the next round of cyber-attacks will happen. One common type of cyber-attack that schools face is ransomware, where a hacker takes over a school district’s computer systems and holds the systems “hostage” until the district pays a ransom or can restore the system on its own. Restoration for some districts can be nearly impossible.

Like any other multi-million-dollar organization with sensitive data, schools are unfortunately natural targets for cyber-attacks. Per one leading anti-malware provider, in 2021 alone, 62 school districts and 26 colleges and universities were impacted by ransomware. These attacks disrupted learning at 1,043 individual schools. The recovery costs following an attack can be very significant. For example, Baltimore County Public Schools spent more than $8.1 million on recovery after an attack at the end of 2019.

And it isn’t just the ransom amounts that can be frightening. Public concern over compromised data security, feelings of invasion of privacy, and negative public perception can also pose real and significant consequences for school districts. Imagine the response of a guardian or parent who receives notice that his or her student’s personal information has been compromised. The inability to access necessary computer or network systems may also require schools to close and disrupt both short- and long-term operations. In 2021, on average, a school in the United States experienced seven days of downtime following a cyber-attack before resuming educational operations, and significant additional time was required to fully recover from the attack.

Why Are Schools Attractive Targets?

School districts are appealing targets for two main reasons: (1) school districts often have one of the largest budgets in the community, making them an appealing financial target; and (2) the data school districts store includes highly-sensitive student and employee personal information, including Social Security numbers, health information, and other pupil data. This information can be a gold mine to cyber criminals who are interested in identify theft or simply extorting money from a school district.

What Should School Districts Do?

School district administration should embrace cybersecurity best practices to protect their schools from cyber-attacks. This requires administrators to review current practices and thereafter remain vigilant in conducting an ongoing review of such practices. Here are a few things school districts can do to help protect themselves:

  • Develop a communication plan. Time is critical when a cyber-attack occurs. It is essential that you are ready to address guardians and parents, the media, and the community, and to work with your insurers and law enforcement immediately when an attack happens. Different laws require notice to individuals affected by privacy breaches. Your district should pre-emptively develop a communication plan so it is immediately ready to address required stakeholders. This communication plan should be routinely discussed with relevant administrators and employees.
  • Update Systems. Network users should apply software patches and updates as soon as possible. Hackers often exploit systems that don’t timely install patches and updates.
  • Create a strong password policy. Password policies must require users to update in regular intervals and integrate best practices, including passphrases, sequences and having different passwords for multiple accounts.
  • Purge outdated technology. Schools may hang on to older devices due to budget constraints. However, older devices may not be as secure as newer systems.
  • Implement multi-factor authentication to protect network access.

Some tips to help districts recover more quickly include:

  • Back up essential data frequently. The ability to restore data is a significant factor in determining whether a school district should pay a ransom.
  • Train employees. Train staff to recognize phishing emails and other types of cyber-attacks.
  • Develop a cyber-attack response plan. Schools should work with their IT staff, IT providers and legal counsel to pre-emptively develop a plan to handle varying cyber-attacks and return to normal operations.
  • Evaluate cyber liability insurance coverage. Based on publicly available information, ransom demands vary dramatically: as low as $10,000 to millions of dollars.
  • Stay in close contact with experienced legal counsel. To the extent protected personal information was accessed or taken, notification to the victims and, in some states, notification to data protection authorities may be required. Legal counsel familiar with these situations help coordinate communication with law enforcement and communication with staff, students, and the public. Legal counsel also communicates with the threat actors, coordinates with your insurance company, and assists with records requests that may come in post-attack.

Most importantly, school districts should engage with their insurance agent, legal counsel and IT staff now to develop and gain a mutual understanding of the process that will be followed at the time of a cyber-attack, as well as best practices that are to currently be utilized by district employees and officials. These pre-emptive, relationship-building opportunities may expose vulnerabilities and will best prepare your district for a cyber-attack. A proactive approach may also help your district avoid an attack altogether or, at a minimum, reduce the damage.

©2022 von Briesen & Roper, s.c
For more about education, visit the NLR Public Education & Services section.

White House Focuses on Improving the Cybersecurity of National Security Systems

President Biden recently signed a National Security Memorandum on cybersecurity. This memorandum was required by an earlier executive order, which we previously have discussed here.  The new memorandum (NSM) requires certain network cybersecurity measures for any government information system that is used for highly sensitive national security purposes. The requirements go into effect on a rolling basis over the next 6 months.

Systems covered include those used for intelligence activities, command and control of military forces, or weapons systems (dubbed, “National Security Systems” or “NSS”). Requirements will include use of multifactor authentication, encryption, cloud technologies, and endpoint detection services.  Notably, the NSM:

  1. requires agencies to identify their National Security Systems and report cyber incidents to the National Security Agency (NSA) (the agency tasked with responsibilities over NSS);
  2. authorizes the NSA to create Binding Operational Directives requiring agencies to take specific actions against known or suspected cybersecurity threats and vulnerabilities; and
  3. requires agencies to secure cross domain solutions (i.e., tools that transfer data between classified and unclassified systems).

The NSM also outlines how the cybersecurity requirements will be implemented.

Putting it into Practice: At this point, the NSM is directed only at requirements for agencies (rather than contractors or vendors). But, as we’ve seen in the past, once agencies have new policies and processes in place, these requirements are likely to impact or flow-down to contractors that support National Security Systems.

This article was written by Townsend Bourne and Nikole Snyder of Sheppard Mullin law firm. For more articles on cybersecurity, please see here.

As the California Attorney General Focuses on Loyalty Programs, What Do Companies Need to Remember?

The California attorney general (AG) celebrated data privacy day by doing an “investigative sweep” of the loyalty programs of retailers, supermarkets, home improvement stores, travel companies, and food service companies, and sending out notices of non-compliance to businesses that the AG’s office believes might not be fully compliant with the CCPA. As the AG focuses its attention on loyalty programs, the following provides a reminder of the requirements under the CCPA.

What is a loyalty program?

Loyalty programs are structured in a variety of different ways. Some programs track dollars spent by consumers; others track products purchased. Some programs are free to participate in; others require consumers to purchase membership. Some programs offer consumers additional products; other programs offer prizes, money, or products from third parties. Although neither the CCPA nor the regulations implementing the CCPA define a “loyalty program,” as a practical matter most, if not all, loyalty programs have two things in common: (1) they collect information about consumers, and (2) they provide some form of reward in recognition of (or in exchange for) repeat purchasing patterns.[1]

What are the general obligations under the CCPA?

Because loyalty programs collect personal information about their members, if a business that sponsors a loyalty program is itself subject to the CCPA, then its loyalty program will also be subject to the CCPA. In situations in which the CCPA applies to a loyalty program, the following table generally describes the rights conferred upon a consumer in relation to the program:

Right Applicability to Loyalty Program
Notice at collection A loyalty program that collects personal information from its members should provide a notice at the point where information is being collected regarding the categories of personal information that will be collected and how that information will be used.[2]
Privacy notice A loyalty program that collects personal information of its members should make a privacy notice available to its members.[3]
Access to information A member of a loyalty program may request that a business disclose the “specific pieces of personal information” collected about them.[5]
Deletion of information A member of a loyalty program may request that a business delete the personal information collected about them. That said, a company may be able to deny a request by a loyalty program member to delete information in their account based upon one of the exceptions to the right to be forgotten.
Opt-out of sale A loyalty program that sells the personal information of its members should include a “do not sell” link on its homepage and permit consumers to opt-out of the sale of their information. To the extent that a consumer has directed the loyalty program to disclose their information to a third party (e.g., a fulfillment partner) it would not be considered a “sale” of information.
Notice of financial incentive To the extent that a loyalty program qualifies as a “financial incentive” under the regulations implementing the CCPA (discussed below), a business should provide a “notice of financial incentive.”[4]

Are loyalty programs always financial incentive programs?

Whether a loyalty program constitutes a “financial incentive” program as that term is defined by the regulations implementing the CCPA depends on the extent to which the loyalty program’s benefits “relate to” the collection, retention, or sale of personal information.”[6] While the California Attorney General has implied that all loyalty programs “however defined, should receive the same treatment as other financial incentives,” a strong argument may exist that for many loyalty programs the benefits provided are directly related to consumer purchasing patterns (i.e., repeat or volume purchases) and are not “related” to the collection of personal information.[7] If a particular loyalty program qualifies as a financial incentive program, a business should consider the following steps (in addition to the compliance obligations identified above):

  • Notify the consumer of the financial incentive.[8] The regulations implementing the CCPA specify that the financial incentive notice should contain the following information:
    • A summary of the financial incentive offered.[11] In the context of a loyalty program a description of the benefits that the consumer will receive as part of the program would likely provide a sufficient summary of the financial incentive.
    • A description of the material terms of the financial incentive. [12] The regulation specifies that the description should include the categories of personal information that are implicated by the financial incentive program and the “value of the consumer’s data.”[13]
    • How the consumer can opt-in to the financial incentive.[14] Information about how a consumer can opt-in (or join) a financial incentive program is typically conveyed when a consumer reviews an application to join or sign-up with the program.
    • How the consumer can opt-out, or withdraw, from the program. [15] This is an explanation as to how the consumer can invoke their right to withdraw from the program.[16]
    • An explanation of how the financial incentive is “reasonably related” to the value of the consumer’s data.[17] While the regulations state that a notice of financial incentive should provide an explanation as to how the financial incentive “reasonably relates” to the value of the consumer’s data, the CCPA requires only that a reasonable relationship exists if a business intends to discriminate against a consumer “because the consumer exercised any of the consumer’s rights” under the Act.[18] Where a business does not intend to use its loyalty program to discriminate against consumers that exercise CCPA-conferred privacy rights, it’s not clear whether this requirement applies. In the event that a reasonable relationship must be shown, however, the regulations require that a company provide a “good-faith estimate of the value of the consumer’s data that forms the basis” for the financial incentive and that the business provide a “description of the method” used to calculate that value.[19]
  • Obtain the consumer’s “opt in consent” to the “material terms” of the financial incentive,[9] and
  • Permit the consumer to revoke their consent “at any time.”[10]

FOOTNOTES

[1] FSOR Appendix A at 273 (Response 814) (including recognition from the AG that “loyalty programs” are not defined under the CCPA, and declining invitations to provide a definition through regulation).

[2] Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100(a) (West 2021); Cal. Code Regs. tit. 11, 999.304(b), 305(a)(1) (2021).

[3] Cal. Code Regs. tit. 11, 999.304(a) (2021).

[5] Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100(a).

[4] CAL. CODE REGS. tit. 11, 999.301(n); 304(d); 307(a), (b).

[6] CAL. CODE REGS. tit. 11, 999.301(j) (2021).

[7] FSOR Appendix A at 75 (Response 254).

[8] Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.125(b)(2) (West 2021).

[11] CAL. CODE REGS. tit. 11, 999.307(b)(1) (2021).

[12] CAL. CODE REGS. tit. 11, 999.307(b)(2) (2021).

[13] CAL. CODE REGS. tit. 11, 999.307(b)(2) (2021).

[14] CAL. CODE REGS. tit. 11, 999.307(b)(3) (2021).

[15] CAL. CODE REGS. tit. 11, 999.307(b)(4) (2021).

[16] Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.125(b)(3) (West 2021).

[17] CAL. CODE REGS. tit. 11, 999.307(b)(5) (2021).

[18] Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.125(a)(1), (2) (West 2021).

[19] CAL. CODE REGS. tit. 11, 999.307(b)(5)(a), (b) (2021).

[9] Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.125(b)(3) (West 2021).

[10] Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.125(b)(3) (West 2021).

©2022 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.
For more articles about data privacy, visit the NLR Cybersecurity, Media & FCC section.

New Poll Underscores Growing Support for National Data Privacy Legislation

Over half of all Americans would support a federal data privacy law, according to a recent poll from Politico and Morning Consult. The poll found that 56 percent of registered voters would either strongly or somewhat support a proposal to “make it illegal for social media companies to use personal data to recommend content via algorithms.” Democrats were most likely to support the proposal at 62 percent, compared to 54 percent of Republicans and 50 percent of Independents. Still, the numbers may show that bipartisan action is possible.

The poll is indicative of American’s increasing data privacy awareness and concerns. Colorado, Virginia, and California all passed or updated data privacy laws within the last year, and nearly every state is considering similar legislation. Additionally, Congress held several high-profile hearings last year soliciting testimony from several tech industry leaders and whistleblower Frances Haugen. In the private sector, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has come out in favor of a national data privacy standard similar to the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

Politico and Morning Consult released the poll results days after Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) accepted a 24,000-signature petition calling for Congress to pass a federal data protection law. Senator Wyden, who recently introduced his own data privacy proposal called the “Mind Your Own Business Act,” said it was “past time” for Congress to act.

He may be right: U.S./EU data flows have been on borrowed time since 2020. The GDPR prohibits data flows from the EU to countries with inadequate data protection laws, including the United States. The U.S. Privacy Shield regulations allowed the United States to circumvent the rule, but an EU court invalidated the agreement in 2020, and data flows between the US and the EU have been in legal limbo ever since. Eventually, Congress and the EU will need to address the situation and a federal data protection law would be a long-term solution.

This post was authored by C. Blair Robinson, legal intern at Robinson+Cole. Blair is not yet admitted to practice law. Click here to read more about the Data Privacy and Cybersecurity practice at Robinson & Cole LLP.

For more data privacy and cybersecurity news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2022 Robinson & Cole LLP. All rights reserved.

Two Recent Developments Promise to Shed Light on Accrual of BIPA Claims

In the aftermath of two recent appellate court decisions addressing when claims under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA” or the “Act”) (740 ILCS 14/1 et seq.) accrue, it appears likely that the Illinois Supreme Court will need to provide clarity on this critical question. First, the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, found in Watson v. Legacy Healthcare Financial Services, LLC, et al.  that claims under sections 15(a) and (b) of the Act accrue with each and every capture and use of a plaintiff’s biometric identifier or information. Second, in Cothron v. White Castle System, Inc. the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals declined to directly address the issue of when a claim under BIPA accrues, and instead has certified the question for review by the Illinois Supreme Court. While the holding in Watson provides some clarity as to when certain BIPA claims accrue, it leaves open critical questions regarding how to calculate: (i) the number of BIPA violations; and (ii) monetary damages under the Act.

The Watson v. Legacy Healthcare Financial Services, LLC, et al. Decision

Plaintiff Brandon Watson sued Legacy Healthcare Financial Services, LLC, Lincoln Park Skilled Nursing Facility, LLC, and South Loop Skilled Nursing Facility, LLC (collectively, the “Defendants”) in March 2019, alleging that the Defendants violated BIPA by scanning the fingers or hands of their respective employees, including plaintiff, for timekeeping purposes. Plaintiff alleged that the scanning violated sections 15(a) and (b) of the Act, which place both restrictions and affirmative obligations on private entities related to biometric identifiers (such as fingerprints, voiceprints, retinal scans and facial geometry) and biometric information (e.g., information based on biometric identifiers to the extent used to identify an individual):

  • Private entities in possession of biometric identifiers or biometric information must develop a written policy, made available to the public, establishing a retention schedule and guidelines for destroying the information.  740 ILCS 14/15(a).
  • Private entities which collect, capture, purchase, receive or otherwise obtain biometrics must first inform the subject of that fact in writing, as well as the specific purpose and length of time for which the information will be retained, and must obtain a written release executed by the subject.  740 ILCS 14/15(b).

Plaintiff alleged that he began working for at least one of the Defendants in December 2012. Because the Act contains no provision as to when claims accrue or the applicable limitations period, Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that Plaintiff’s claims accrued on the first day the Defendants allegedly collected his biometric information and Plaintiff’s claims were thus time-barred. In response, Plaintiff argued that his suit was not time-barred because his claims accrued with each alleged capture of his biometric information that Defendants obtained without providing notice and obtaining consent. The trial court granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding  that Plaintiff’s claims accrued with the initial scan of his finger or hand  in December 2012. Thereafter, the trial court granted Plaintiff’s Rule 304(a) motion for an interlocutory appeal.

The Appellate Court reversed and remanded, finding that a claim under the Act accrues after “each and every capture and use of plaintiff’s fingerprint or hand scan.” In reaching this result the Appellate Court analyzed the plain language of the Act and the legislative history of the Act, and accepted as true that the Defendants captured Plaintiff’s biometric information twice per day when he clocked in and out of work.

The Cothron v. White Castle System, Inc. Decision

Plaintiff Latrina Cothron sued White Castle System, Inc. (“White Castle”) alleging that White Castle violated BIPA when it required plaintiff to scan her finger in order to access work computers. Moreover, plaintiff alleged that White Castle disclosed the scans of her fingers to its third-party vendor as part of process to authenticate the finger scan and ultimately grant access to the work computers. Based on these allegations, plaintiff asserted claims under sections 15(b) and (d) of the Act. In addition to the obligations of section 15(b), outlined above, section 15(d) prohibits a private entity from disclosing, redisclosing or otherwise disseminating biometric information without consent.  740 ILCS 14/15(d).

White Castle moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the suit was untimely since plaintiff’s claims accrued in 2008 when BIPA was enacted. The trial court denied White Castle’s motion, but certified its order for immediate appeal to the Seventh Circuit. In turn, the Seventh Circuit examined the arguments of both parties and ultimately concluded that the question of when a claim accrues under BIPA is a novel question which has not yet been addressed by the Illinois Supreme Court. As a result, the Seventh Circuit stayed proceedings in the Cothron matter and certified the question of when claims accrue under BIPA to the Illinois Supreme Court.

The Rulings’ Impact on Your Business

It is likely that it will take a ruling from the Illinois Supreme Court to provide further clarity on when claims under the Act accrue. In the interim, the Watson decision will obviously impact early BIPA case evaluations. It also, however, raises at least two unrelated issues that will likely be the subject of debate and litigation going forward.

First, Watson was based on the allegations in the complaint, without the benefit of discovery and additional information regarding the operation of the finger/hand scanning device(s) utilized by the Defendants.  Key to the decision is the Watson court’s conclusion that every use of the scanning device(s) results in the capture of Plaintiff’s biometric information, and the Court’s description of that capture as resulting in a permanent record. While that statement is likely based on allegations made in the complaint, it is possible, or even probable, that it is not factually accurate. Although variations exist, the scanning technology used in many biometric timekeeping devices creates only a single permanent record — from the very first scan of the individual’s finger or hand. Commonly, the later scans do not collect or store information, but only exist fleetingly as comparisons of the permanent, initial scan data. As a result, the applicability of the Watson decision may vary based on the actual operation of the scanning devices at issue in any single case.

Second, in response to Defendants’ concerns about the “ruinous” monetary damage awards that may result from the ruling in Watson, the Appellate Court went out of its way to note “that damages are discretionary[,] not mandatory” under BIPA. In so holding, the Appellate Court found that Section 20 of BIPA provides a list of possible damages, but notes that list constitutes what a “prevailing party may recover.” 740 ILCS 14/20 (emphasis added). The Appellate Court’s decision to highlight the discretionary nature of an award of monetary damages under BIPA stands in stark contrast to the position often taken by the plaintiffs’ bar. Indeed, the plaintiffs’ bar consistently asserts that the right to recover liquidated damages under BIPA is absolute given the Illinois Supreme Court’s 2019 decision in Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entm’t Corp. However, the Rosenbach decision merely found that once a plaintiff meets the basic statutory requirement of being “aggrieved,” he or she is merely “entitled to seek recovery” under Section 20. The Watson Court’s emphasis that monetary damages are discretionary under BIPA is likely to open new lines of discovery and argument regarding the calculation of damages, if any, sustained by a particular BIPA plaintiff and whether or not those damages justify the imposition of discretionary liquidated damages set forth in the Act.

Ultimately, every business should perform a critical analysis as to any business practice that potentially concerns biometrics (including employee timekeeping, identification procedures or security protocols). The failure to fully comply with BIPA, even when such a failure results in no actual injury to an individual, may lead to significant liability. Vedder Price attorneys are at the forefront in defending BIPA claims and counseling clients on BIPA-related policy and disclosure language.

© 2022 Vedder Price
For more articles on BIPA, visit the NLR section Cybersecurity, Media & FCC section.

BREAKING: Seventh Circuit Certifies BIPA Accrual Question to Illinois Supreme Court in White Castle

Yesterday the Seventh Circuit issued a much awaited ruling in the Cothron v. White Castle litigation, punting to the Illinois Supreme Court on the pivotal question of when a claim under the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act (“BIPA”) accrues.  No. 20-3202 (7th Cir.).  Read on to learn more and what it may mean for other biometric and data privacy litigations.

First, a brief recap of the facts of the dispute.  After Plaintiff started working at a White Castle in Illinois in 2004, White Castle began using an optional, consent-based finger-scan system for employees to sign documents and access their paystubs and computers.  Plaintiff consented in 2007 to the collection of her biometric data and then 11 years later—in 2018—filed suit against White Castle for purported violation of BIPA.

Plaintiff alleged that White Castle did not obtain consent to collect or disclose her fingerprints at the first instance the collection occurred under BIPA because BIPA did not exist in 2007.  Plaintiff asserted that she was “required” to scan her finger each time she accessed her work computer and weekly paystubs with White Castle and that her prior consent to the collection of biometric data did not satisfy BIPA’s requirements.  According to Plaintiff, White Castle violated BIPA Sections 15(b) and 15(d) by collecting, then “systematically and automatically” disclosing her biometric information without adhering to BIPA’s requirements (she claimed she did not consent under BIPA to the collection of her information until 2018). She sought statutory damages for “each” violation on behalf of herself and a putative class.

White Castle before the district court had moved to dismiss the Complaint and for judgment on the pleadings—both of which motions were denied.  The district court sided with Plaintiff, holding that “[o]n the facts set forth in the pleadings, White Castle violated Section 15(b) when it first scanned [Plaintiff’s] fingerprint and violated Section 15(d) when it first disclosed her biometric information to a third party.”  The district court also held that under Section 20 of BIPA, Plaintiff could recover for “each violation.”  The court rejected White Castle’s argument that this was an absurd interpretation of the statute not in keeping with legislative intent, commenting that “[i]f the Illinois legislature agrees that this reading of BIPA is absurd, it is of course free to modify the statue” but “it is not the role of a court—particularly a federal court—to rewrite a state statute to avoid a construction that may penalize violations severely.”

White Castle filed an appeal of the district court’s ruling with the Seventh Circuit.  As presented by White Castle, the issue before the Seventh Circuit was “[w]hether, when conduct that allegedly violates BIPA is repeated, that conduct gives rise to a single claim under Sections 15(b) and 15(d) of BIPA, or multiple claims.”

In ruling yesterday this issue was appropriate for the Illinois Supreme Court, the Seventh Circuit held that “[w]hether a claim accrues only once or repeatedly is an important and recurring question of Illinois law implicating state accrual principles as applied to this novel state statute.  It requires authoritative guidance that only the state’s highest court can provide.”  Here, the accrual issue is dispositive for purposes of Plaintiffs’ BIPA claim.  As the Seventh Circuit recognized, “[t]he timeliness of the suit depends on whether a claim under the Act accrued each time [Plaintiff] scanned her fingerprint to access a work computer or just the first time.”

Interestingly, the Seventh Circuit drew a comparison to data privacy litigations outside the context of BIPA, stating that the parties’ “disagreement, framed differently, is whether the Act should be treated like a junk-fax statute for which a claim accrues for each unsolicited fax, [], or instead like certain privacy and reputational torts that accrue only at the initial publication of defamatory material.”

Several BIPA litigations have been stayed pending a ruling from the Seventh Circuit in White Castle and these cases will remain on pause going into 2022 pending a ruling from the Illinois Supreme Court.  While some had hoped for clarity on this area of BIPA jurisprudence by the end of the year, the Seventh Circuit’s ruling means that this litigation will remain a must-watch privacy case going forward.

Article By Kristin L. Bryan of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

For more data privacy and cybersecurity legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© Copyright 2021 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

Patch Up – Log4j and How to Avoid a Cybercrime Christmas

A vulnerability so dangerous that Cybersecurity and Infrastructure (CISA) Director Jen Easterly called it “one of the most serious [she’s] seen in [her] entire career, if not the most serious” arrived just in time for the holidays. On December 10, 2021, CISA and the director of cybersecurity at the National Security Agency (NSA) began alerting the public of a critical vulnerability within the Apache Log4j Java logging framework. Civilian government agencies have been instructed to mitigate against the vulnerability by Christmas Eve, and companies should follow suit.

The Log4j vulnerability allows threat actors to remotely execute code both on-premises and within cloud-based application servers, thereby obtaining control of the impacted servers. CISA expects the vulnerability to affect hundreds of millions of devices. This is a widespread critical vulnerability and companies should quickly assess whether, and to what extent, they or their service providers are using Log4j.

Immediate Recommendations

  • Immediately upgrade all versions of Apache Log4j to 2.15.0.
  • Ask your service providers whether their products or environment use Log4j, and if so, whether they have patched to the latest version. Helpfully, CISA sponsors a community-sourced GitHub repository with a list of software related to the vulnerability as a reference guide.
  • Confirm your security operations are monitoring internet-facing systems for indicators of compromise.
  • Review your incident response plan and ensure all response team information is up to date.
  • If your company is involved in an acquisition, discuss the security steps taken within the target company to address the Log4j vulnerability.

The versatility of this vulnerability has already attracted the attention of malicious nation-state actors. For example, government-affiliated cybercriminals in Iran and China have a “wish list” (no holiday pun intended) of entities that they are aggressively targeting with the Log4j vulnerability. Due to this malicious nation-state activity, if your company experiences a ransomware attack related to the Log4j vulnerability, it is particularly important to pay attention to potential sanctions-related issues.

Companies with additional questions about the Log4j vulnerability and its potential impact on technical threats and potential regulatory scrutiny or commercial liability are encouraged to contact counsel.

Article By Philip J. Bezanson, Brittney E. Justice, Claire E. Cahoon, and Seth D. DuCharme of Bracewell LLP

For more cybersecurity legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2021 Bracewell LLP