Intel Publishes Own Proposed Bill on Federal Data Privacy
David Hoffman, Intel's associate general counsel and global privacy officer of the Santa Clara-based company said, 'Our model bill is designed to spur discussion that helps inspire meaningful privacy legislation.'
November 12, 2018 at 01:00 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Corporate Counsel
Intel Corp. released a proposal for a federal bill on data privacy last week that it hopes will spur discussion on collection, use and sharing of consumers' personal information in the U.S. and lead to more uniform legislation on data security and privacy.
“The collection of personal information is a growing concern. The US needs a privacy law that both protects consumer privacy and creates a framework in which important new industries can prosper,” David Hoffman, Intel's associate general counsel and global privacy officer of the Santa Clara-based company said in the news release announcing the proposal. “Our model bill is designed to spur discussion that helps inspire meaningful privacy legislation.”
The bill proposed by the technology company would allow the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to impose fines on noncompliant entities up to $1 million in criminal fines and would not allow someone to be imprisoned for more than 10 years. As far as civil penalties are concerned, there would be a cap of $1 billion for companies found to not be in compliance. The proposal indicates that those companies that would be affected by the bill, those that collect the information of over 5,000 people, should not process information that is not relevant to the company's specific purpose.
Unlike a data protection bill recently introduced by U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, the Intel proposal would cover most companies. Wyden's bill, the Consumer Data Protection Act of 2018, would only cover companies with $1 billion in revenue per year or those that collect the personal information of 50 million people or more. Both bills call for prison terms of executives of companies that fail to comply with the regulatory standards the FTC would set out in the event the bills are passed.
Currently, a patchwork of state and federal sector-specific laws govern data protection in the U.S. Demand for federal regulation in the U.S. has been increasing following the European Union's enactment of the General Data Protection Regulation.
Susanna McDonald, the chief legal officer of the Association of Corporate Counsel, said Friday that she did not have any opinions on the specifics of the Intel proposal. She did, however, say that 69 percent of ACC members would favor some form of federal, uniform regulations around cybersecurity. McDonald said, however, the ACC would want any kind of legislation to not be unduly burdensome to smaller companies.
“Our counsel would be interested in legislation that clear, actionable and not unduly burdensome,” McDonald said. “What would work for Intel may not work for everyone.”
Bart Lazar, a partner at Seyfarth Shaw in Chicago, said he would like to see something in the bill address what happens in the event of a data breach, which it does not. However, overall, he said it appears to be a solid outline with a few unknowns.
“The devil is going to be in the details,” Lazar said. “The burden would be on the FTC [if this were adopted and passed] to adopt regulations, and we don't know what those would be.”
One of the parts of the proposed bill Lazar questioned was the idea that executive officers of companies must certify to the FTC that they will do a compliance check on all of their third-party vendors every year.
“Does that mean that every company with a Facebook account has to do a privacy assessment?” Lazar questioned. “What would be good enough for an officer of a company to put themselves on the line when maybe they have 10,000 service providers?”
The proposed bill also includes a “safe harbor” clause which indicates that companies will not be subject to penalties as long as a corporate officer certifies in writing to the FTC that is has “conducted a thorough review of compliance with this Act.”
Intel is currently accepting feedback on the proposed bill on its website.
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
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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