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
© 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 AllLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 15th Circuit Considers Challenge to Louisiana's Ten Commandments Law
- 2Crocs Accused of Padding Revenue With Channel-Stuffing HEYDUDE Shoes
- 3E-discovery Practitioners Are Racing to Adapt to Social Media’s Evolving Landscape
- 4The Law Firm Disrupted: For Office Policies, Big Law Has Its Ear to the Market, Not to Trump
- 5FTC Finalizes Child Online Privacy Rule Updates, But Ferguson Eyes Further Changes
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