Intel Releases Second Draft of Data Privacy Bill
Intel Corp. released a second version of its data privacy bill, named the Innovative and Ethical Data Use Act, on Monday after getting comments from industry experts on the first draft bill it released in November.
January 29, 2019 at 04:39 PM
3 minute read
Intel Corp. released a second version of its data privacy bill, named the Innovative and Ethical Data Use Act, on Monday after getting comments from industry experts on the first draft bill it released in November.
David Hoffman, associate general counsel and global privacy officer at Intel, said one of the biggest changes from the original draft bill to the newly released second draft of the company's data privacy bill was the definition of a “covered entity.”
“One of the biggest changes was the definition of 'covered entity' and trying to do a better job of carving out small and medium enterprise. So we changed that,” Hoffman said.
Hoffman also said the comments on the original draft bill led the Intel team to include a concept called “duty of care” in the second bill.
“Which is that we wanted to make clear that entities shouldn't be able to process personal data that is likely to result in significant physical injury or substantial financial loss,” Hoffman said.
One thing that didn't change from the original draft bill is that those found to have violated the law will face a $1 million fine and a prison term of up to 10 years.
Hoffman said he expected more comments on the original bill's accountability provision.
“The degree to which those accountability provisions would be flexible enough for different types of companies and across different industry sectors. I fully expected that because as we were having conversations in the development of GDPR that generally came up,” Hoffman said.
Hoffman said that many people he has spoken to have become used to the idea of having someone on staff monitor data use practices, so the accountability portion of the draft legislation did not need to change.
Further parts of this bill need to be considered, Hoffman said, including the idea of pre-emption.
“That's not the preemption of state laws that's most difficult but is the interaction with other federal laws like [Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act] and Gramm-Leach-Bliley work,” Hoffman said. “That may take people another few weeks to really be thinking through and having a real conversation about.”
The second draft of the privacy bill may not be the last. Hoffman said Intel is still encouraging people to read the second draft of the proposed bill and comment on it.
“We're hoping people comment and, depending on what those comments are, we'll do a third draft,” Hoffman said.
The bill Intel put forward is a draft bill, and the company is not seeking a sponsor for it to be introduced to be passed. Rather, its purpose is to spark discussion among the industry and lawmakers.
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 AllAd Agency Legal Chief Scores $12M Golden Parachute in $13B Sale to Rival
3 minute readFTC Sues PepsiCo for Alleged Price Break to Big-Box Retailer, Incurs Holyoak's Wrath
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Dismisses Defamation Suit by New York Philharmonic Oboist Accused of Sexual Misconduct
- 2California Court Denies Apple's Motion to Strike Allegations in Gender Bias Class Action
- 3US DOJ Threatens to Prosecute Local Officials Who Don't Aid Immigration Enforcement
- 4Kirkland Is Entering a New Market. Will Its Rates Get a Warm Welcome?
- 5African Law Firm Investigated Over ‘AI-Generated’ Case References
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