Erasing a Commercial Relationship Won't Do the Same for Your Data
Despite privacy laws like the GDPR and the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, ending a commercial relationship doesn't mean that your data is no longer in play.
October 25, 2018 at 09:30 AM
3 minute read
Just because you've forgotten about a company doesn't mean that a company has forgotten about you—or your data.
While emerging laws such as the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 may be granting consumers more control over how their personal information is collected and used by businesses, those powers aren't automatically triggered by the termination of a subscription or service agreement.
According to Kirk Nahra, a partner specializing in privacy and information security litigation and counseling at Wiley Rein, privacy laws and the lifecycle of commercial relationships continue to run on parallel tracks.
“There's cancelling the subscription, which is a financial transaction. The data point is an entirely different point, and historically 100 percent of the time and currently still most of the time, cancelling a subscription says nothing about your data at all,” Nahra said.
Earlier this month, the struggling ticket service MoviePass sent an email to costumers whose subscriptions had been “suspended due to inaction.” The email said that those subscriptions would be restored unless the users “opted out.” Failing that, the credit card already on file with the account would be charged $9.95 a month.
MoviePass' approach isn't so dissimilar from the type of automatic renewal someone who subscribes to a magazine or a newspaper might encounter. If a customer who failed to heed the “opt out” email decided to pursue legal action, it wouldn't be on the basis of the credit card number or any other personal information kept on file after the subscription had lapsed.
“I think most of this stuff is not really a privacy issue. It's going to be a contract issue,” Nahra said.
Consumers can request that their commitment to an online publication or service be terminated, but the dilution of that relationship does not require the company to delete or cease sharing the information associated with that account to third parties.
In some cases, it's a practical consideration. Everybody who's ever cancelled a magazine subscription has probably received a postcard or two asking them to consider picking things up where they left off or jump immediately into a new commitment without the hassle of having to fill a new set of forms.
“They're not only going to try and get you back, but they are going to continue to try and sell your information to somebody else. … That's a reason why these new privacy-related laws are on top of whatever the commercial relationship is. [But] you can now ask, if the magazine company is in France, you can now ask them to remove your data,” Nahra said.
Subjects living under the EU's GDPR have the “Right to be Forgotten”—the ability to request that a company erase and cease dissemination of their personal data—but even that exists separately to the act of cancelling or opting out of a service. The same would apply to the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 when it goes into effect in January 2020.
“There may be conditions on it, but generally you can always stop the payment. That has nothing whatsoever on it's own to do with what happens to your data. There's no principal,” Nahra said.
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
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
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