Facebook May Be the Target, But Now's the Time to Check All Privacy Policies
Facebook is facing scrutiny over alleged deals with Amazon, Microsoft and others that allowed companies to obtain users' data without their consent. It's a reminder to all in-house counsel: privacy policies need to be transparent.
March 15, 2019 at 01:00 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Corporate Counsel
Facebook is facing another investigation, reports revealed this week, this time allegedly over deals allowing other companies to access users' data without their consent.
According to reports from The New York Times, the social media platform allowed companies to access users' data regardless of their privacy settings. Facebook didn't outline its partnerships with Microsoft, Amazon or Apple in its privacy policy. The company did not immediately respond to request for comment.
Jim Halpert, a DLA Piper partner and co-chair of the firm's data protection, privacy and security practice, said Facebook's 2011 consent agreement with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission to reduce its data sharing makes the Menlo Park, California-based company a “unique target.”
While other companies may not face as much scrutiny, he said it's still a good idea for in-house counsel to check their privacy policies and ensure they include information about where data is shared, especially as the California Consumer Privacy Act's 2020 implementation approaches. U.S. companies processing European Union residents' data already must comply with the General Data Protection Regulation.
“You need to be transparent about it. But also, preparing for the [CCPA], it will be important to map and understand those information sharing arrangements,” he said. “Under GDPR, there are sharp restrictions on sharing EU subject data with third parties.”
Under some data protection laws, including GDPR, companies are also required to ensure third parties accessing user data are secure and compliant.
Sandra Jeskie, a partner at Duane Morris, said outside of the CCPA, the U.S. still doesn't have many laws limiting companies' ability to share user data or outlining requirements for privacy policies. But that is likely to change, she added, as federal legislators debate a national data protection law. Many states are in the process of creating their own legislation.
“People have seen GDPR, they're now seeing [CCPA], and of course there's been some very significant, high-profile data breaches of information,” Jeskie said. “Certainly, legislators are much more cognizant of the privacy protections, and I think we're starting to see a change in the U.S. consumer version of what information should be protected and not. We're seeing some momentum for a national privacy law.”
To comply with the CCPA and GDPR and keep consumer trust, companies should outline in detail their privacy practices. Jeskie and Halpert said some companies treat privacy policies more like a short media statement than a source of in-depth information for consumers.
As legislators and consumers grow more aware of potential cyber risks, it's important for companies to understand what user data they're collecting, why they're collecting it and how they're sharing and storing it, Jeskie said, so they're able to share that information with users.
She noted privacy policies may change over time as the company launches new products and features. Customers need to be notified when that happens.
“In the [CCPA], in the privacy policy itself it's required that you have to describe the process by which you're going to notify consumers, to the extent that they have material change to the privacy policy,” Jeskie said. “So if you're doing something that is different, sharing additional information … when you have those kinds of changes, you really need to make sure that you present that notification.”
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 AllTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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