Technology: Beware of the seller’s privacy policy when transferring personally identifiable information
There are many legal considerations for counsel to keep in mind when thinking about buying or selling the assets of a business that has an online presence, including subscriber lists, user profiles or other personally identifiable information (PII)
September 07, 2012 at 08:14 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
There are many legal considerations for counsel to keep in mind when thinking about buying or selling the assets of a business that has an online presence, including subscriber lists, user profiles or other personally identifiable information (PII). Most importantly, counsel must be aware of the seller's privacy policy, as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has strict regulations where PII is involved, including special considerations in cases of bankruptcy.
Seller's privacy policies and transferring PII
Personal information is generally collected from subscribers, customers and other individuals under the terms of privacy policies. These policies make certain promises about how the company will protect the information and to what extent it will share the information with others. Privacy policies govern the treatment of the information not only in the context of day-to-day operations but also in the context of a sale of the assets of the business. The FTC has taken the position that transferring PII in violation of an applicable privacy policy, even when the sale is part of a more comprehensive sale of the assets of a business, can constitute an unfair or deceptive trade practice under the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA). Such transfers may also violate applicable state consumer protection laws.
Of course, special rules apply when a transfer of PII occurs in the case of a bankruptcy. The U.S. Bankruptcy Code expressly limits a bankruptcy trustee's ability to transfer PII in a manner that is inconsistent with the debtor's privacy policy. Section 363(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that if a debtor discloses a privacy policy in connection with offering a product or service that prohibits the transfer of PII to unaffiliated persons, and if the privacy policy is in effect on the date the bankruptcy case commences, the bankruptcy trustee may not sell or lease the information unless one of the following conditions is met:
- The transaction is consistent with the privacy policy (e.g., there is a carve-out that allows the information to be sold)
- The court—following the appointment of a consumer privacy ombudsman, proper notice and a hearing—approves the transaction, finding that no showing was made that the transfer would violate applicable law.
The FTC requires compliance with a seller's privacy policy even when a prospective buyer will be using the information for the same purpose as the seller. In such transactions, the FTC will typically conclude that the transfer constitutes an unfair or deceptive trade practice under the FTCA. Accordingly, the bankruptcy court may stop the transfer, even if the prospective transferees represent to the court that they want possession of the data in order to resume operating the existing company. In the end, the FTC may only allow such a transfer of PII to a new owner if the new owner agrees to use the information only in accordance with the original privacy policy and consistent with the original purpose for which the information was provided.
Draft privacy policies with the future in mind
Counsel should always draft privacy policies with an eye toward the future. For many businesses, under current law, the most significant restrictions on their ability to transfer personal information collected from customers and subscribers are those contained in the privacy policy under which the information was collected. While collecting information under a restrictive privacy policy may make subscribers and customers feel more comfortable, it also makes it more difficult to sell the information and related parts of the business down the road. Unless there is a compelling reason to provide a more restrictive privacy policy, companies should collect PII should under a policy that allows transfers to third parties. Even when a more restrictive privacy policy is appropriate, the policy should expressly allow for the transfer of personal information in appropriate circumstances, such as in connection with the sale of other assets of the business or where the original privacy policy will govern the activities of the transferee.
Avoiding the pitfalls
In order to avoid costly legal challenges and to facilitate the transfer of business assets that include PII, businesses should pay careful attention to privacy policies. Ultimately, it pays to think ahead when drafting privacy policies and to be diligent when reviewing them for a proposed purchase or sale of assets that include personal information—particularly in the bankruptcy context.
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 AllFrom Reluctant Lawyer to Legal Trailblazer: Agiloft's GC on Redefining In-House Counsel With Innovation and Tech
7 minute readLegal Tech's Predictions for Legal Ops & In-House in 2025
Lawyers Drowning in Cases Are Embracing AI Fastest—and Say It's Yielding Better Outcomes for Clients
Trending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
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