Intel Publishes a Proposed Bill on Data Privacy
David Hoffman, Intel's associate general counsel and global privacy officer of the Santa Clara-based company said, “our model bill is designed to spur discussion that helps inspire meaningful privacy legislation.”
November 09, 2018 at 05:15 PM
4 minute read
Intel Corp. released a proposal for a federal bill on data privacy this week that it hopes will spur discussion on collection, use and sharing of consumers' personal information in the U.S. and lead to more uniform legislation on data security and privacy.
“The collection of personal information is a growing concern. The US needs a privacy law that both protects consumer privacy and creates a framework in which important new industries can prosper,” David Hoffman, Intel's associate general counsel and global privacy officer of the Santa Clara-based company said in the news release announcing the proposal. “Our model bill is designed to spur discussion that helps inspire meaningful privacy legislation.”
The bill proposed by the technology company would allow the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to impose fines on noncompliant entities up to $1 million in criminal fines and would not allow someone to be imprisoned for more than 10 years. As far as civil penalties are concerned, there would be a cap of $1 billion for companies found to not be in compliance. The proposal indicates that those companies that would be affected by the bill, those that collect the information of over 5,000 people, should not process information that is not relevant to the company's specific purpose.
Unlike a data protection bill recently introduced by U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, the Intel proposal would cover most companies. Wyden's bill, the Consumer Data Protection Act of 2018, would only cover companies with $1 billion in revenue per year or those that collect the personal information of 50 million people or more. Both bills call for prison terms of executives of companies that fail to comply with the regulatory standards the FTC would set out in the event the bills are passed.
Currently, a patchwork of state and federal sector-specific laws govern data protection in the U.S. Demand for federal regulation in the U.S. has been increasing following the European Union's enactment of the General Data Protection Regulation.
Susanna McDonald, the chief legal officer of the Association of Corporate Counsel, said Friday that she did not have any opinions on the specifics of the Intel proposal. She did, however, say that 69 percent of ACC members would favor some form of federal, uniform regulations around cybersecurity. McDonald said, however, the ACC would want any kind of legislation to not be unduly burdensome to smaller companies.
“Our counsel would be interested in legislation that clear, actionable and not unduly burdensome,” McDonald said. “What would work for Intel may not work for everyone.”
Bart Lazar, a partner at Seyfarth Shaw in Chicago, said he would like to see something in the bill address what happens in the event of a data breach, which it does not. However, overall, he said it appears to be a solid outline with a few unknowns.
“The devil is going to be in the details,” Lazar said. “The burden would be on the FTC [if this were adopted and passed] to adopt regulations, and we don't know what those would be.”
One of the parts of the proposed bill Lazar questioned was the idea that executive officers of companies must certify to the FTC that they will do a compliance check on all of their third-party vendors every year.
“Does that mean that every company with a Facebook account has to do a privacy assessment?” Lazar questioned. “What would be good enough for an officer of a company to put themselves on the line when maybe they have 10,000 service providers?”
The proposed bill also includes a “safe harbor” clause which indicates that companies will not be subject to penalties as long as a corporate officer certifies in writing to the FTC that is has “conducted a thorough review of compliance with this Act.”
Intel is currently accepting feedback on the proposed bill on its website.
Read More: U.S. Senator Proposes Data Protection Bill
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFTC Sues PepsiCo for Alleged Price Break to Big-Box Retailer, Incurs Holyoak's Wrath
5 minute readWells Fargo and Bank of America Agree to Pay Combined $60 Million to Settle SEC Probe
‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Paul Hastings, Recruiting From Davis Polk, Continues Finance Practice Build
- 2Chancery: Common Stock Worthless in 'Jacobson v. Akademos' and Transaction Was Entirely Fair
- 3'We Neither Like Nor Dislike the Fifth Circuit'
- 4Local Boutique Expands Significantly, Hiring Litigator Who Won $63M Verdict Against City of Miami Commissioner
- 5Senior Associates' Billing Rates See The Biggest Jump
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250