FTC Plan for Privacy and Data Security Enforcement Is Good News for GCs: Tech Attorney
A Federal Trade Commission staff comment released this week signifies that the commission intends to continue its enforcement role on privacy and data security issues. Victoria Redgrave, a founding partner and chair of the executive committee at the Redgrave law firm in Washington, D.C., believes that is a positive for in-house counsel.
November 21, 2018 at 11:52 AM
4 minute read
A Federal Trade Commission staff comment released this week signifies that the FTC intends to hold its ground as a present and future player on privacy and data security issues—and that's good news for in-house counsel, in the view of attorney Victoria Redgrave.
Redgrave, a former general counsel of Technology Concepts & Design Inc. and a former in-house litigation counsel at two other major companies, is a founding partner and chair of the executive committee at the Redgrave LLP law firm in Washington, D.C. The law firm focuses its practice on legal challenges related to law and technology, including e-discovery, information governance, data privacy and data security.
The FTC staff published its 21-page comment Monday after submitting it to the Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration, which is developing the Trump administration's approach to consumer privacy. Congress also is considering comprehensive national privacy legislation.
The FTC staff document offered comment on four key areas:
• Security: The FTC has a strong history of data security enforcement and renewed its call for comprehensive data security legislation.
• Transparency: The agency said it encourages a consumer-oriented approach that takes context, form, effectiveness and consumer demand into account.
• Control: The FTC encouraged “a balanced approach” that considers consumer preferences, the context of the choice (such as the type of data use and any associated risk), and the choice mechanism.
• Enforcement: The FTC said it will continue its vigorous enforcement on privacy and security.
Redgrave explained that the staff document does not officially represent the views of the commission, “but it's safe for readers to assume that [they] can take it as an authoritative statement about what the FTC does and how it approaches issues of privacy and data security.”
She said the “big take-away from this document” is that although all the commissioners are relatively new—four of them have held office for barely six months and the fifth for less than that—the agency's approach to these issues remains consistent.
“From the standpoint of in-house counsel, corporations want predictability and fairness from regulators to help guide decisions and actions, especially in rapidly evolving areas such as the intersection of innovative technologies and information governance,” she said.
The memo said the agency intends to continue actively enforcing Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act to pursue companies that engage in acts or business practices, including information practices that harm consumers. The document also said the FTC will keep studying the leading edge issues in the area, as shown by its ongoing Hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century, which continues through January 2019.
Redgrave said that's continued good news for companies because of “the FTC's unique mandate to perform a cost-benefit analysis before finding a practice unfair, its history of providing meaningful guidance to industry, and its traditional balancing of consumer privacy interests with business' need for flexibility.”
The FTC staff also repeated earlier calls for Congress to clarify the agency's authority, especially on corporate data breaches, an area where the agency would like to take the lead.
“Data security concerns are an important part of the privacy debate,” the document said, “and the FTC continues its longstanding call that Congress consider enacting legislation that clarifies the FTC's authority and the rules relating to data security and breach notification.”
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
© 2024 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 AllHealth Care Giants Sue FTC, Allege Lina Khan Using Loaded Process to Vilify Pharmacy Benefit Managers
3 minute readPorsche's Venture Capital Arm Adds General Counsel From Clifford Chance
How a 200,000-Worker Global Enterprise Took Down the Silos and Made ESG Its Mission
4 minute readCorporate Counsel's 2024 Award Winners Performed Legal Wizardry, Gave a Hand Up to Others
Trending Stories
- 1The Growing PFAS Morass: Why Insurance Should Cover These Products Liability Claims
- 2Dallas Jury Awards $98.65M in Botham Jean Killing by Dallas Officer
- 3In Talc Bankruptcy, Andy Birchfield Skipped His Deposition. Could He Face Sanctions?
- 4Pharmaceutical Patents: Benefits and Challenges
- 5Where Do Web-Tracking Class Actions Belong? 8th Circuit Weighs the Issue
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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