New Study Reveals Privacy Compliance Education Gap
Almost half of the respondents ranked building a privacy program as a top priority, yet nearly 60% rated their company's privacy knowledge as being "moderate to very low."
July 17, 2019 at 04:28 PM
4 minute read
Major data breaches and privacy snafus occurring on a regular basis have made it obvious that having a robust privacy compliance program should be a prime concern for businesses. But a new report suggests that companies still have a long way to go when it comes to being privacy savvy.
Toronto-based privacy compliance software company Nymity Inc. surveyed more than 100 privacy professionals, most of whom are either in-house counsel or privacy officers and are working in the U.S., for its Privacy Pulse study.
Almost half of the respondents ranked building a privacy program as a top priority, and more than 70% said privacy has become an integral part of the overall strategy and planning for their firms.
And yet nearly 60% of the respondents rated their company's privacy knowledge as being “moderate to very low.”
“This may seem surprising as one would expect that privacy programs would have been built in the run-up to the GDPR,” the study states, referring to the EU's General Data Protection Regulation.
“This could indicate that companies have been treating compliance as a tactical 'check list' item and are now struggling with how to handle privacy laws that just keep coming—particularly in the U.S. with the CCPA (California Consumer Privacy Act), Nevada, Texas, and numerous other states tabling legislation,” the report adds.
Teresa Troester-Falk, chief global privacy strategist at Nymity, wrote in an email that, until recently, “privacy was generally seen as a compliance matter that rested within legal or compliance departments and not a matter of broad concern for the business.
“This is beginning to change as privacy matters are front and center in the headlines and more and more corporate boards are learning that noncompliance with privacy laws is a matter of corporate liability, thus tasking the business with more responsibility,” she added.
The majority of respondents said they wanted to spend more time on privacy education, which makes sense. But nearly 70% said their privacy compliance time was being dominated by documenting policies and procedures and working on data inventory.
The study also revealed that many businesses might have difficulties with regulatory reporting. More than 75% of respondents said it would take them two or more days to report issues to regulators if required to do so.
“The vast majority of companies have approached privacy laws as a matter of strict compliance vs. accountability,” Troester-Falk noted. “That is, the focus of privacy 'work' has been on adherence to legal requirements, not to demonstrating compliance or reporting on it.”
But she added that “demonstrating compliance is now a legal obligation under [GDPR] and we will see more laws including this, and correspondingly there are more internal functions being created around reporting and more demand for reporting tools.”
Other findings from the report include:
- More than 80% of respondents indicated they were reporting on privacy matters and compliance status at regular intervals to their boards, and more than 40% were reporting quarterly.
- 71% believed that privacy will become increasingly integrated or embedded into business operations.
- 35% ranked continued CCPA compliance activities as a top priority, compared with 26% who were more concerned about continued GDPR compliance.
Read More:
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 AllNLRB Bans 'Captive Audience' Meetings, Yanking Away Platform Employers Used to Combat Unionizing
Judge Rejects Meta’s Plea to Send FTC Antitrust Suit to Trash Heap
Republican Who Might Become FTC's Next Chair Blasts Democratic Commissioners' 'All Mergers Are Bad' Mindset
7 minute readCSX Joins Rest of Big Four Railroad Companies in Installing New Generation of Legal Leadership
Trending Stories
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
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