Amazon, Microsoft Are Big, But Privacy Compliance Market Is Bigger
Tech giants such as Microsoft and Amazon are starting to bake more privacy features into their services, but while the already broad use of those products across corporate environments may give those companies an advantage, don't count on them dominating the compliance space.
March 11, 2020 at 11:30 AM
4 minute read
The vast repertoire of privacy issues facing law firms and other industries today has opened the door to a wide variety of compliance-centric business and product opportunities in the legal tech marketplace. It's a void that everyone from startups to law firm tech labs has rushed to fill, but could tech titans such as Microsoft and Amazon wind up being the Goliath to their David?
Case in point, speech-to-text service Amazon Transcribe rolled out a new feature last month that automatically hides personally identifiable information from call transcripts. A few weeks later, Microsoft announced its Data Protection/Privacy Mapping Project that shows how privacy laws around the world line up.
Those likely won't be the last steps that either company—or other large tech companies—take into the larger privacy world. Tomu Johnson, co-founder and CEO of Parsons Behle Lab, expects Amazon and Microsoft to continue looking for ways to emphasize privacy given how prevalent those concerns remain in the minds of consumers.
"We're likely going to see Microsoft and Amazon start competing for people by providing more privacy and security products. That's likely going to happen soon, if not already," Johnson said.
The same basic strategy will likely be deployed by other tech companies looking to assuage customers. Debbie Reynolds, founder of the data privacy-focused business Debbie Reynolds Consulting, expects other widely used corporate products such as Slack to continue baking in their own proactive privacy measures moving forward.
"Companies that build in functionality within existing tools that help me as a customer be able to pull out information on an individual person basis are probably going to get my money. They are going to get my business because this is my problem, and they are helping me solve a problem without having to go boil the ocean or pull in another tool to do that," Reynolds said.
For instance, a law firm already using various Microsoft products such as Office 365 may benefit from having privacy compliance tools or measures pre-incorporated into the software. Johnson at Parsons Behle Lab believes that the ubiquity of Amazon or Microsoft products across business environments and functions gives them a competitive advantage.
"I could foresee a situation where because you are using Microsoft and they secured your single sign-on and your access directory, it's very easy for them to also sync into all the different data bunkers that you have and then provide an assessment of which data privacy regulations apply to your workflows," Johnson said.
However, this doesn't necessarily mean that radical changes are ahead for smaller privacy-focused startups or companies in the legal tech space. While products belonging to large-scale tech companies may encompass much of the typical work environment, the issues and complications raised by various privacy laws around the globe—think the General Data Protection Regulation or California Consumer Protection Act—are widespread enough that no one solution may be able to address them all.
Chris Babel, CEO of the privacy compliance service TrustArc, believes that many users are taking a best-in-breed approach to their needs, meaning they select the tool that works best for a specific niche privacy need. In other words, there's room for many different providers at the table.
After all, even players the size of Amazon or Microsoft can't master every conceivable aspect of privacy compliance, and smaller companies looking to compete can always broaden their portfolio of solutions through partnerships. "Different people focus in different ways and bring different philosophies to the table, and so a lot of those solutions end up being great partnerships for small companies like us versus the Microsofts or Amazons of the world," 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
© 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 AllLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-68
- 2Friday Newspaper
- 3Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 4Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 5NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
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