For Companies, Automating Privacy Compliance Is Easier Said Than Done
TrustArc released a new survey revealing that organizations are still struggling to understand the myriad of regulations on the privacy landscape. Automating such tasks as data subject access requests may also not be totally reliable to help organizations with these regulations.
June 16, 2020 at 12:00 PM
4 minute read
Organizations are still struggling to acclimate to an ever-broadening landscape of privacy laws and regulatory guidance, and not all automation tools may be in the best position to help them just yet. This may be especially true when it comes to tracking the flow of sensitive data within an organization or parsing the nuances of various global privacy laws.
Compliance technology company TrustArc released its new Global Benchmarks Survey on Tuesday, which collects responses from a list of 1,503 participants that includes executives, managers and privacy team personnel. Respondents were asked to identify what areas, if any, were solutions deficient in meeting their privacy needs. "Automating processes" was named by 19% of respondents, placing it at the top of a list that included "ease of administration" (18%), and "tracking how personal data is being processed" (18%).
Hilary Wandall, senior vice president of privacy intelligence and general counsel at TrustArc, said part of the issue may be the complexities of various privacy laws such as the General Data Protection Regulation or the California Consumer Privacy Act. For example, response timelines, exclusions and scope of a data subject access request stemming from France may look completely different for a similar action coming out of California.
"Even if you can automate the workflows themselves, actually understanding the different requirements that can apply and being able to automate that, that's what's harder for an organization," Wandall said.
But to be sure, organizations are definitely using tech of some sort to help facilitate their privacy compliance efforts. Respondents were asked what primary solution they used to manage their privacy program. Overall, among those who responded in the U.S., Europe and U.K., internally developed systems were identified most frequently by 19%, followed by spreadsheets, email or word processing software at 17%.
Old habits die hard, and Wandall noted that this could be another factor hampering the overall use of automated privacy solutions. "Part of what makes it hard is that people are so used to doing things on paper and on spreadsheets," she said.
Survey respondents also appeared to be in some disagreement when it came to the overall effectiveness of technology at satisfying various privacy-related needs. For instance, 93% indicated that risk management was among their top three privacy challenges. However, only 31% of respondents said technology was "very effective" at integrating and aligning with broader risk management initiatives, while 41% said it was "somewhat effective" and 20% were neutral.
It could be that much like data subject access requests, successfully evaluating the risk presented by a piece of data relies greatly on the location of the consumer in question. The EU, for instance, has its own rigorous evaluation standards under the GDPR. Wandall said that the regulation mandates that organizations look at whether the collection and processing of data creates a high risk to the rights or freedoms of an individual, which could trigger a data collection impact assessment.
But while organizations have likely been grappling with the GDPR since it was enacted in May 2018, it would appear that businesses are still wrapping their heads around the CCPA. Only 47% of U.S. respondents and 31% of European respondents indicated that they were "very likely" to be compliant with the new privacy regulation, which took effect in January.
Wandall suggested that at this early stage of the CCPA's life span, businesses may be willing to take the financial risk of a regulatory compliance action as they wait to see how the law is enforced, much like they did with the GDPR.
"A lot of organizations did the minimum of what was necessary to show externally that they have the ability to comply," 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 AllAvantia CEO Discusses Blurring Lines Between Law Firm, Software Provider and ALSP
8 minute readAI Gives Legal Departments New Leverage to Demand Speed, Efficiency From Law Firms
3 minute readIn-House Gurus Say Inattention to Human Side of Tech Adoption Can Derail Best-Laid Plans
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
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