Regulatory: In-house counsel must become actively involved in privacy matters
Long gone are the days when privacy and data security issues were the responsibility of an organizations information technology department.
February 13, 2013 at 06:53 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
This article is the first in a series of three to discuss the importance of, and recent developments affecting, privacy and data security, and the issues corporate counsel need to consider in these areas.
Long gone are the days when privacy and data security issues were the responsibility of an organization's information technology department. In fact, many companies now have internal working groups and task forces to tackle these issues. These groups include representatives from IT, human resources, finance, marketing, sales and, of course, legal. While all participants play an important role in these initiatives, it is often the lawyer's role to keep abreast of, and counsel clients on, the laws and developments affecting these areas. Even seasoned privacy lawyers that have mastered the laws applicable to their specific industries need to follow developments in these areas, as technology continues to change and data collection, use and storage capabilities, such as the cloud, evolve.
Privacy is not a unidimensional discipline. In fact, it is quite multidimensional, nuanced, highly regulated, and at times difficult to master. While there are several state and federal laws that govern the collection, use and protection of consumer and employee information, some areas remain unregulated, such as lead generation and data brokers. Further, as technology continues to develop at a breakneck pace, laws quickly become outdated and fall behind, leaving an unwelcome void for employers, consumers, legislators and regulators. The only group that appears to benefit from these unintended consequences is the class action bar, which seeks to exploit ambiguities in how decades-old laws might apply to today's technology in hopes of exacting high-dollar settlements.
In-house counsel responsible for particular areas of law, such as labor and employment, or that work in regulated industries, such as the financial and health sectors, are well versed in the particular laws governing their business. However, they must keep abreast of privacy developments beyond their defined walls in order to best serve their clients' needs. Most privacy developments are not occurring within existing regulatory regimes but, rather, in the vacuum that is created by developing technologies and consumer behavior, most notably in the social media arena.
At the forefront of privacy regulation in these areas is the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). While the FTC has limited statutory jurisdiction over particular areas of privacy, such as the recently revised Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, it uses its more general authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act to pursue investigations of deceptive and unfair acts and practices. The FTC has primarily used this authority to investigate companies that have engaged in activity contrary to their stated privacy policy (a deceptive act), but has also pursued companies for failing to establish appropriate and meaningful safeguards for consumer information. Further, as social media sites search for new ways to monetize the massive amounts of information and images so willingly shared by consumers, the challenges faced by in-house counsel in balancing aggressive client business needs with legal risks becomes somewhat daunting.
In addition to the FTC, state regulators have begun to enter the fray. Most notably, California Attorney General Kamala Harris made news in early 2012 when she announced that her office had reached agreements with the major mobile platforms to force app developers to create and make privacy policies accessible to consumers prior to download, in order to comply with the state's Online Privacy Protection Act. Later in the year, her office sued Delta Airlines for failing to comply with this law, announcing the establishment of a Privacy Enforcement and Protection Unit, and issuing a report on mobile privacy titled “Privacy On the Go: Recommendations for the Mobile Ecosystem.”
Earlier this year, Maryland Attorney General (and NAAG President) Douglas Gansler also announced the formation of an Internet Privacy Unit. Interestingly, and somewhat concerning, was a statement in the press release introducing this unit, noting that one of its goals will be to “examine weaknesses in online privacy policies.” No additional information was provided, and since virtually all privacy cases brought by regulators to date have involved some type of misrepresentation, privacy practitioners will anxiously await the meaning of a “privacy policy weakness.”
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 AllWhat to Know About the New 'Overlapping Directorship' Antitrust Development
4 minute readTurning Over Legal Tedium to AI Requires Lots of Unglamorous Work on Front End
6 minute readKhan Defends FTC Tenure, Does Not Address Post-Inauguration Plans
Best Practices for Adopting and Adapting to AI: Mitigating Risk in Light of Increasing Regulatory and Shareholder Scrutiny
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Meta Hires Litigation Strategy Chief, Tapping King & Spalding Partner Who Was Senior DOJ Official in First Trump Term
- 2Courts Beginning to Set Standards for Evidence Relying upon Artificial Intelligence
- 3First-Degree Murder Charge May Not Fit Mangione Case
- 4Legal Tech's Predictions for Legal Ops & In-House in 2025
- 5SDNY US Attorney Damian Williams Lands at Paul Weiss
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