How Much Will the GDPR Change Consumer Technology?
The GDPR's rules may spur far reaching change in how technology products and services are offered.
December 27, 2017 at 03:09 PM
4 minute read
|
The EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) goes online in May 2018. And while it's an open question just how much impact the regulation will have on consumer technology, it's likely many will have to adapt to this new regulatory regime.
The GDPR has strict rules on how technology providers' services and products must handle the personal data of EU citizens, regardless of where they are located. For example, technology providers must respect a EU citizen's “right to be forgotten” by removing all their personal data upon request. What's more, organizations must inform EU citizens of how their personal data is captured, stored and used, and receive their clear and affirmative consent to retain or process the data.
Out of all the GDPR provisions, Roy Smith, CEO at PrivacyCheq told Legaltech News that the requirement for consent is perhaps the biggest compliance challenge for technology providers, such as social media companies, website publishers or app developers.
“Very few of the [tech companies] we talk to have really thought out the ramifications of affirmative consent,” he said, adding that just the amount of information organizations must provide users before they can consent can be daunting.
“Before you capture a person's email address, you have to show them a notice that says, 'Here's what we are going to do with the information we're requesting from you, here's how we keep it safe, here's what we'll do in case of breaches, here's where you can notify us if you want to see what we've captured, and make sure it's correct,” he added.
Speaking at the October 2017 ChIPs Women in Tech, Law and Policy Global Summit in Washington, D.C., Apple vice president and chief litigation counsel Noreen Krall noted that most organizations handling EU citizen data will need to implement some consent processes, given the GDPR's broad definition of personal information.
“It's far beyond your name, your Social Security, your bank account. It's your IP address or your device ID or a reference number to a customer or a complaint or question that you brought in. For any organization, beyond tech, it just covers just about anything,” she said.
Krall added that, because of its broad scope, the consent requirement will likely change the user experience of many technology products. “The customer experience is going to be potentially dramatically changed by these regulations. It's almost as if governments are dictating the enterprise design or system design or consumer experience.”
What's more, she sees the need to manage consent of EU citizens as placing “heavy, heavy processing obligations on companies.” Such a requirement may force tech providers to create or reconfigure back-end processes for their products in order to record and manage a potentially high number of consent requests.
“I think at the back-end, there will be a lot more infrastructure for businesses to put in place” said Rohan Massey, partner at Ropes and Gray's privacy and cybersecurity practice in Europe. He believes, however, that the changes tech providers need to make “ will be less dramatic than some people are expecting.”
“I don't think [the GDPR] will require much change to the front end [of tech products] for consumers,” Massey added.
Most tech providers likely move to comply with need for consent because of the steep fines they may face for noncompliance. But, while the GDPR rules might be a burden for some tech providers, they may be a boon for those who seek to capitalize on the rush towards compliance. Tech companies like TRUSTe and OneTrust, for instance, offer GDPR assessments tools to help organizations understand how compliant their product may or may not be. Meanwhile, companies like PrivacyCheq have similarly released tools that help developers create tech products that comply with GDPR rules from the start.
What's more, legal technology providers, like ZL Technologies and NetDocuments, are adding functionality to their platforms, which allows organizations to more easily understand if their data falls under the purview of the GDPR.
Still, many organizations and tech providers still face a demanding road ahead. With 2018 quickly approaching and the end goal in sight, it's now a question of how one gets there.
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 AllTrending Stories
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