Privacy Protection in the Age of Data Aggregation: SDNY Examines the Scope of 'Personal Information' Under the VPPA
This article discusses a recent case out of the Southern District of New York that involved application of a hastily-crafted statute (passed in 1988 to regulate video rental stores) to a TikTok competitor. The court's opinion on a motion to dismiss is an informative overview of privacy laws and the challenges they present to the modern legal system.
May 16, 2022 at 12:45 PM
10 minute read
PrivacyPrivacy regulation is hard. It involves making choices about the delicate balance between security and convenience that will be codified into law. But in the current technology and business environment there is no clear consensus about where those lines should be drawn, beyond obvious cases of misappropriation and abuse. What precisely constitutes personal information? What legal protections should be available to data collected from users, particularly abstracted or aggregated information? And in what contexts should those protections apply?
Informed people can disagree in good faith about these issues, and the stakes are high. The collection, use, and analysis of personal data is central to the business models of many services we rely on every day, including some of the most highly-valued companies in the world. Often those services are provided for free (or apparently free) because those companies are permitted to collect and commercialize our personal information in some form. Getting the balance wrong—especially in a legal or regulatory framework—comes with major implications.
And if this were not enough, any legal regime seeking to address privacy in the online world is faced a familiar problem: Technology moves fast, and the law generally has to play catch-up. In the privacy context, the creation of entirely new kinds of data, and the ability to collect and analyze that material on a massive scale, have created new issues for privacy regulation. Information that would once have been considered anonymous may be more appropriately regulated as personal information. For example, if Facebook records a user login in midtown Manhattan, that information may not seem especially "private." But aggregating that seemingly innocuous data-point with the vast trove of other "anonymous" information collected by Facebook may enable the creation of a profile that identifies the user with pinpoint accuracy and poses privacy concerns, especially when that profile is shared with third parties who could use it to identify specific users and their preferences.
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 AllIs Invasion of Privacy an Appropriate Analogue for Data Breach Cases?
8 minute readNew York Times, Athletic Media Hit With Data Privacy Class Action for Allegedly Sharing User Data
McDermott Adds Gibson Dunn Cyber and Privacy Co-Chair to White Collar Defense Practice
3 minute readTrending 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