Organizations Are Seeing Double (And More) with Worldwide Privacy Laws
Organizations overall are still tackling the basics of privacy compliance, but U.S. entities appear likely to be juggling more privacy regulations at any given time than their EU counterparts.
November 27, 2019 at 09:30 AM
4 minute read
Last week, TrustArc released its 2019 Measuring Privacy Operations survey, which points to compliance only becoming a more challenging task for organizations across the globe to successfully implement into their operations.
The survey's 327 respondents hailed from the U.S., European Union and Canada while working in a variety of sectors that include legal, government, financial services, tech and telecommunications.
One major takeaway? Privacy has become something of a juggling act, with many respondents indicating they were complying with more than one of the many international laws in place along the lines of the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
For example, the largest number of EU respondents (45%) indicated they were complying with between two and five laws, while the same held true among the bulk U.S. participants (37%). By contrast, only 28% of EU based responses indicated that they were focused exclusively on a single law, while 9% of U.S. answers said the same.
"The number of laws that people were trying to comply with was surprisingly large, and I think is just painting the path to where it's going in the future, given that right now U.S. seems to be headed down the state-by-state path," said Chris Babel, CEO of TrustArc.
Per the survey, 15% of U.S. respondents are already complying with 50 or more privacy laws, which stands in stark contrast to the 2% of EU respondents who are attempting the same. If that number seems a little high, Babel pointed out that some U.S. companies have to think about the GDPR as well as the forthcoming California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and any other state laws on the books.
He also emphasized that American culture has traditionally been more litigious in nature, which could be impacting the direction of privacy strategies as well.
"U.S. businesses are trying to focus more broadly on a lot of these laws that effect them as where Europeans are focusing on the law that's closest to them," Babel said.
In terms of the gritty details of those compliance efforts, the survey suggests that many of the operational changes that entities are making are still centered around the basics. For example, respondents were asked to identify privacy operational changes made in the last 12-months, with the majority of both U.S. (77%) and EU and U.K. (85%) indicating that they had updated their website's privacy policy one or more times. Changes to a website's cookie policy was second-runner up among 44% of U.S. respondents and 56% of answers from the EU and U.K.
So why are organizations still working on privacy basics more than a year after the GDPR was enacted in May 2018? Babel thinks some entities are either realizing they didn't comply with a law properly in the first place, are responding to additional guidance that has emerged over time, or are still winding their way through their first go-around with GDPR or CCPA compatibility.
"Many people just start with the things that are visible to consumers because they figure that that's where a regulator might look first," Babel said.
Still, as organizations continue onward with their privacy compliance process, there could potentially be some unintended consequences for future e-discovery projects. For example, 36% of overall respondents said they had decreased data retention time over the last 12-months, while 42% said personal data was being deleted more frequently.
Babel alluded to a need for companies to juggle multiple perspectives on their data, from potential litigation to brand reputation or even breaches.
"To me it's another input in the equation of how you think about retention inside of an organization," Babel 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
© 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
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
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