Signs Point to Evolution in U.S. Consumers' Online Privacy Attitudes
Consumers have the power to opt out of certain data uses but many may not be taking the time to engage. But there are signs such disengagement is changing in the U.S.
November 29, 2018 at 09:30 AM
4 minute read
If you ventured down the rabbit hole of Cyber Monday sales earlier this week, chances are you were too busy keeping an eagle-eye out for free shipping or great deals to notice any text that might have flashed across the screen concerning the use your personal data.
Bargain-induced blindness is not an unheard of phenomenon—but placing too much faith in the average person's engagement, understanding or even awareness of opting in or out of certain data handling processes could be knocking the balance between consumer and business interests somewhat off kilter.
“There are lots of people in the U.S., as we start thinking about a national law, who think that there need to be some ground rules set for companies that are not dependent on a customer agreeing or not agreeing,” said Kirk Nahra, a partner specializing in privacy and information security at Wiley Rein.
Many of the laws surrounding privacy in the U.S. require companies to inform consumers about how their personal data will be used, the rationale being that the average person can then decide how they wish to proceed.
Rules that hinge on a consumer's ability to “opt in” or “opt out” of a specific data use are kind of like voting—that voice doesn't matter much if they don't show up to the polls. Nahra pointed to U.S. financial services laws that provide banks with ample flexibility as long as they provide consumers with the chance to opt out.
“Most consumers don't opt out so that means the bank can do whatever they want. A law written a different way that says the bank can only do A, B and C unless the consumer opts in would dramatically alter the balance there,” Nahra said.
How much people are actually engaging, or care about their privacy in general, is open to debate. The results of a 2018 global consumer trust report released by the Mobile Ecosystem Forum, a global trade body seeking to advance a sustainable mobile ecosystem, might indicate that attitudes are beginning to shift further in the direction of awareness.
According to the report, 68 percent of respondents think that it's important to know how their personal data is being used and 97 percent believe that they have legal rights around their personal data—but do not have clarity on what those rights constitute. Insights were compiled from smartphone users surveyed from 10 different markets around the world.
Jordan Louise Fischer, a co-founder managing partner at XPAN Law Group, thinks people in the United States generally place a greater emphasis on how data is being secured rather than privacy or all of the information that they give away for free.
“In Europe that's very different. They are very aware of their privacy rights; they're more privacy-oriented period. There's a huge cultural difference in that,” Fischer said.
Privacy is even listed in the second title of the European Union's Charter of Fundamental Rights, and that seriousness is reflected in the body's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which Nahra characterized as taking an altered approach to balancing consumer and business interests.
“GDPR puts some controls on companies whether the consumer has any idea of what's going on or not, and then on top of that creates some ability for consumer control,” Nahra said.
A similar cultural shift in the U.S. could take a lot longer, but the seeds could already be there. Senator Ron Wyden recently released a draft of a Consumer Protection Act that among other things would institute a Do Not Track list that would prohibit companies from sharing the data of the included consumers or using it to present targeted advertising.
Rebecca Rakoski, Fischer's co-founder and a managing partner at XPAN, isn't sure that pieces of legislation like that would have been introduced five years ago.
“I think that's why you're seeing the federal government at least try and do something here, because there is a sense that people at least want to start to protect certain information,” Rakoski 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
- 1DOJ Asks 5th Circuit to Publish Opinion Upholding Gun Ban for Felon
- 2GEO Group Sued Over 2 Wrongful Deaths
- 3Revenue Up at Homegrown Texas Firms Through Q3, Though Demand Slipped Slightly
- 4Warner Bros. Accused of Misleading Investors on NBA Talks
- 5FTC Settles With Security Firm Over AI Claims Under Agency's Compliance Program
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