Corporate Privacy Budgets Unlikely to Ebb, but the Flow Might Be Redirected
Privacy budgets are unlikely to be hit too badly by a COVID-19 economy, but money could be redirected to help deal with new challenges around the security of remote working tech and employee medical information.
May 22, 2020 at 02:57 PM
4 minute read
Businesses and corporate legal departments may not have to dramatically inflate their privacy spend in order to account for the impact that COVID-19 has had on employee data, but chances are businesses won't be able to reallocate that money to help soften the blow of diminished revenues either.
Case in point, an FTI Consulting report published earlier this week indicated that 97% of the 500 U.S. business leaders surveyed would be increasing their spend on data privacy over the next 12 months, with an average budget increase of 50%. But how organizations may or may not have to adjust that spending to address privacy challenges emerging around remote working and employee health information is unclear.
Tomu Johnson, of counsel at Parsons Behle & Latimer, said he has noticed an uptick in privacy-related concerns over the last two weeks. Issues related to Zoom security were of particular concern early in the pandemic as businesses shifted in earnest toward remote working. But with remote technologies remaining firmly in place even as states begin to lift shutdown measures, privacy-related concerns are unlikely to recede any time soon.
"Overall, I think privacy remains one of the top issues for in-house counsel. Despite limited legal budget, it seems companies are carving out money to address privacy," Johnson said.
Issues underscoring the need for data privacy may become even more pronounced as companies begin implementing steps geared toward safely returning employees to the office. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, for example, issued updated guidance on pandemic preparedness in March, indicating that while a business may check an employee's temperature to determine if they have a fever, that information is subject to confidentiality requirements under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Compounding the tension around the way such information is handled may be other employees who feel they have a right to know if someone else from the office may be sick. Susanna McDonald, chief legal officer at the Association of Corporate Counsel, believes those concerns may play an element in some of the employee protection cases or suits arising from COVID-19.
For corporate legal departments and their companies, managing such risk could necessitate a tightrope walk between worker privacy and worker health. "It's a new game. That's kind of uncharted territory," McDonald said.
To help bridge the divide, she believes that companies may invest some of their privacy budget in technology-based solutions that can help to identify potentially ill employees and provide notifications to other workers without jeopardizing their identity. But if companies are spending money on tools like that one, will other aspects of privacy compliance take a hit in spending? McDonald speculated that some companies may opt to delay obtaining accreditations such as the EU's Binding Corporate Rules certification, which is among the highest global standards for data privacy compliance.
"There is nothing off the table at those companies looking at where they are going to be spending their money and what they are not going to be spending their money on," she said.
Those sorts of deliberations may hold especially true for new privacy regulations such as the California Consumer Protection Act (CCPA). Hilary Wandall, senior vice president of privacy intelligence and general counsel at TrustArc, said many of their clients are not changing their privacy spending and are continuing onward with projects as originally planned. However, since many businesses are still unsure what CCPA enforcement will look like when it begins in July, they may be hesitant to push too much money in the direction of compliance.
"There may be a little bit of a wait and see happening there," Wandall 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
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