Social media sites are transforming not only the daily lives of consumers, but also how companies interact with consumers. Here at Morrison Foerster, across all of our practice groups, we are seeing complex, cutting-edge legal issues arising out of social media. As with the Internet boom during the mid-to-late 1990s, social media is generating new legal questions at a far faster pace than the law’s ability to provide answers to such questions. In an effort to stay on top of these emerging issues, and to keep our clients and friends informed of new developments, Morrison Foerster publishes this blog devoted to the law and business of social media.<h2>ABOUT MORRISON FOERSTER</h2>Morrison Foerster is a leading global law firm that transforms complexity into advantage for its clients. Our clients include some of the largest financial institutions, banks, consulting and accounting firms, and Fortune 100, technology, and life sciences companies. Highlighting the firm’s commitment to client service, leadership in market-changing deals and impact litigation, and values-based culture, Morrison Foerster has been repeatedly recognized as one of the top 10 firms on The American Lawyer’s A-List. Year after year, the firm receives significant recognition from Chambers and The Legal 500 across their various guides, including Global, USA, Asia‑Pacific, Europe, UK, Latin America, and FinTech Legal. Our lawyers passionately care about delivering legal excellence while living our values. Morrison Foerster has a long-standing commitment to creating a culture that respects and celebrates differences, while providing an inclusive environment. The firm has achieved Mansfield Certification Plus since 2018 as a result of successfully reaching at least 30 percent women, communities of color, and LGBTQ+ lawyer representation in a notable number of current leadership roles and committees. The firm also has a long history of commitment to the community and society through providing pro bono legal services, including litigating for civil rights and civil liberties, improving public education and fostering the wellbeing of children, advocating for veterans, promoting international human rights, enforcing the right to asylum, and safeguarding the environment.

Social

Search

sociallyaware-abajournalweb100-1

Aaron is the chair of the firm’s Technology Transactions Group and co-chair of the Interactive + Digital Media Group. He advises clients on a wide range of complex transactions involving intellectual property and technology, including structuring and negotiating strategic licensing, development, collaboration, procurement, and distribution deals.Aaron’s practice focuses on advising both established and emerging companies in a variety of data- and technology-intensive sectors, including software, SaaS, cloud-based technology, digital media (social media, AR/VR, gaming, streaming media, AdTech), AI, healthcare, consumer electronics, e-commerce, other online business models, and mobile applications. He also maintains an active practice counseling companies on branding and marketing, trademark licensing, and content-related transactions, as well as the intellectual property aspects of mergers, acquisitions, asset spin-offs, and private equity investments.He has represented clients such as Autodesk, Meta, OpenAI, Splunk, Konami, Kaiser Permanente, SoftBank, Visa, and Yahoo, among others.Aaron has been recognized by numerous publications for his work on market-defining technology transactions. He is currently ranked by Chambers USA for “Technology Transactions.”Aaron also serves as co-editor of Socially Aware, the firm’s award-winning newsletter and blog devoted to the law and business of social media, and regularly publishes on various IP and technology-related topics. Aaron is also a sought-after speaker on new and emerging areas of law, and is a frequent presenter and panelist at conferences and legal services programs. In addition to his active practice, Aaron regularly provides pro bono assistance to various nonprofit and charitable organizations such as Common Sense Media and the Starlight Children’s Foundation. He is a member of the board of directors of California Lawyers for the Arts.While in law school at the University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, Aaron served as executive editor of the California Law Review and was elected to the Order of the Coif. Following law school, Aaron served as law clerk to the Honorable William H. Orrick and the Honorable Martin J. Jenkins, both United States District Judges for the Northern District of California.

rubin_aaron_blog_150x150.png

rubin_aaron_common_640x280.jpg

rubin_aaron_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

rubin_aaron_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

rubin_aaron_social_600x600.jpg

Partner

Aaron is the chair of our Technology Transactions Group. He advises clients on a wide range of complex transactions involving intellectual property and technology, including structuring and negotiating strategic licensing, development, collaboration, procurement, and distribution deals. Aaron’s practice focuses on advising both established and emerging companies in a variety of data– and technology–intensive sectors, including software, SaaS, cloud computing, AR/VR, AI, gaming, healthcare, consumer electronics, social media, e–commerce, other online business models, and mobile applications. He also maintains an active practice counseling companies on the intellectual property aspects of mergers, acquisitions, asset spin–offs, and private equity investments.

Aaron P. Rubin

Lawrence Gallick is of counsel in the firm’s Austin office and a member of the Technology Transactions Group.Lawrence focuses his practice on technology transactions and licensing matters. His diverse experience includes advising on SaaS agreements, cross-licensing agreements, research and collaboration agreements, development agreements, and distribution agreements. He counsels a broad range of companies across the software, hardware, life sciences, biotech and FinTech spaces, as well as other entities including universities.He advises clients in connection with general corporate matters including contract negotiations, and leasing and technology placement agreements.Lawrence also serves as co-editor of <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/" target="_blank">Socially Aware</a>, the firm’s award-winning newsletter and blog devoted to the law and business of social media, and regularly publishes on various IP and technology-related topics.Prior to joining the firm, Lawrence was counsel at another major law firm. Before earning his law degree, Lawrence was a web consultant, project manager, and web developer in Portland, Oregon, where he managed and consulted on projects using industry methodologies and performed custom development and integration of content management systems.Lawrence was named a Super Lawyers “Rising Star” in 2015 and 2018–2022, and is licensed in both California and New York. Lawrence earned his J.D. from the University at Buffalo School of Law, where he was the electronic systems editor for the Buffalo Law Review and awarded the ABA-BNA Award for Excellence in the Study of Intellectual Property Law.

gallick_lawrence_blog_150x150.png

gallick_lawrence_common_640x280.jpg

gallick_lawrence_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

gallick_lawrence_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

gallick_lawrence_social_600x600.jpg

Of Counsel

Lawrence Gallick

Anthony Ramirez is a partner in the Technology Transactions Group in the New York office of Morrison Foerster.Anthony advises clients on general commercial and transactional matters. He regularly advises companies on the IP aspects of their M&A transactions. His clients include technology, digital media and content for television and music, financial services, and communications companies with diverse intellectual property assets and issues.His practice focuses on the legal aspects of developing, licensing, and commercializing technology and intellectual property, as well as negotiating general commercial contracts, including outsourcing transactions, as well as content and data licenses. He regularly assists clients with legal issues relating to licensing and commercialization of digital media and content, digital content that is distributed over the Internet or streamed, mobile applications and social media, as well as the licensing of recorded music for distribution via digital platforms. Anthony is also experienced with issues relating to open-source software, software development, artificial intelligence and machine learning, cloud-based technology, and protection of proprietary information.Anthony has extensive experience working on matters involving disruptive technologies, such as blockchain. He has helped fintech clients with general intellectual property issues in connection with terms of service for online financial products and services.Anthony is an integral part of the outside pro bono legal team for nonprofit organizations based in New York, including advising clients on legal issues regarding entertainment, social media, privacy rights, and the negotiation of outsourcing and service agreements. Anthony received his J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School in 2009. He received his B.S. from Cornell University in 2004.

ramirez_anthony_blog_150x150.png

ramirez_anthony_common_640x280.jpg

ramirez_anthony_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

ramirez_anthony_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

ramirez_anthony_social_600x600.jpg

Anthony Ramirez is a partner in the Technology Transactions Group in the New York office of Morrison Foerster. He advises clients on general commercial and transactional matters. His clients include technology, media, and communications companies with considerable intellectual property assets. His practice focuses on the legal aspects of licensing and commercializing technology and intellectual property, as well as negotiating general commercial contracts. He also regularly assists clients with legal issues relating to mobile applications and social media.

Anthony M. Ramirez

favicon.ico

favicon-16x16.png

favicon-32x32.png

apple-touch-icon.png

MoFo Favicons

Socially Aware is devoted to the law and business of social media, proactively addressing emerging issues and keeping our clients informed of new developments. We cover fields such as artificial intelligence, privacy and data security, Section 230, intellectual property, and much more.

Welcome to Socially Aware

240920-socially-aware-header.jpg

Welcome to Socially Aware

240920-socially-aware-header

Socially Aware is devoted to the law and business of social media, proactively addressing emerging issues and keeping our clients informed of new developments. We cover fields such as artificial intelligence, privacy and data security, Section 230, intellectual property, and much more.

News and Announcements

Blog - Terms of Use

Blog - Privacy Policy

Blog - Blog Disclaimer

Blog - Attorney Advertising

morrison-foerster-blog-logo.png

Provides a data-driven look at the Federal Circuit.

Federal Circuitry

Brings together legal insights and in-depth analyses on trends and complex issues shaping the global technology industry.

MoFo Tech

Mofo Tech

Equips our clients with the most up-to-date and relevant information on employment and labor law issues.

Employment Law Commentary

In-depth analysis of developments and trends impacting government contracting.

Government Contracts Insight

Government Contracts Insights

Provides insights and reports on the most current class actions lawsuits and product liability issues that affect consumer-facing companies.

Class Dismissed Blog

Class Dismissed

MoFo’s Socially Aware blog provides timely updates and analysis of the many complex and cutting-edge legal and business issues arising out of social media.

Socially Aware

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

Socially Aware Blog - RSS

Stay Connected

Never miss a post from Socially Aware. Enter your email below to stay up-to-date.

Subscribe

The Law and Business of Social Media

Morrison Foerster - Footer

Blogs -  Home Button

Home

Blog - Topics

Web Scraping

Advertising

Antitrust

Arbitration

Artificial Intelligence

Asia

Autonomous Vehicles

Bankruptcy

Big Data

Blockchain

Class Actions

Cloud Computing

Compliance

Contracts

COPPA

Copyright

Crowdsourcing

Cyberbullying

Cybersecurity

Data Security

Defamation

Digital Content

Disappearing Content

Discovery

DMCA

E-Commerce

E-Discovery

E-Personation

Electronic Contracts

Employment Law

Endorsement Guides

Ephemeral Messaging

Ethics

European Union

Event

Fair Use

FDA Regulations

Financial Institutions

First Amendment

Fraud

Free Speech

GDPR

Hacking

Influencer Marketing

Infographic

Internet of Things

Investment Management Law

JOBS Act

Labor Law

Litigation

Live streaming

Marketing

Mobile

Online Contracts

Online Endorsements

Online Promotions

Online Reviews

Patent

Privacy

Product Liability

Protected Speech

Right of Publicity

Right To Be Forgotten

Section 230 Safe Harbor

Securities Law

Social Media Policy

Statistics

Status Updates

Stored Communications Act

Supreme Court

Terms of Use

Trademark

UK High Court

User-Generated Content

Wearable Computers

Topics

Blog - Editors

Editors

Blog - About

About

Blog - Subscribe

More

Lawrence W. Gallick

2024 Recap: Ten Lords A-Leaping!

Social Links: If the Suit Fits

Social Links: Age Verification, X Appeal, and the Great White North

Social Links: Fake Reviews, Real Rulings, and an Epic Fail

Lawrence W. Gallick on Toth v. Everly Well, Inc.

LinkedIN

Last week, the Federal Trade Commission made clear that child-directed parts of an otherwise general audience service will subject the operator of the service to the <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/rules/rulemaking-regulatory-reform-proceedings/childrens-online-privacy-protection-rule" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act</a> (COPPA).Just six months after the FTC’s record-setting settlement against TikTok, the FTC <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/09/google-youtube-will-pay-record-170-million-alleged-violations?utm_source=govdelivery" target="_blank" rel="noopener">announced</a> a $170 million fine against Google and its subsidiary YouTube to settle allegations that YouTube had collected personal information from children without first obtaining parental consent, in violation of the FTC’s rule implementing COPPA. This $170 million fine—$136 million to the FTC and $34 million to the New York Attorney General, with whom the FTC brought the enforcement action—dwarfs the $5.7 million levied against TikTok earlier this year. It is by far the largest amount that the FTC has obtained in a COPPA case since Congress enacted the law in 1998. The settlement puts operators of general-audience websites on notice that they are not automatically excluded from COPPA’s coverage: they are required to comply with COPPA if particular parts of their websites or content (including content uploaded by others) are directed to children under age 13.BackgroundThe COPPA Rule requires operators of child-directed websites and online services to provide notice and obtain parental consent before collecting personal information from children under 13. The <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2013/07/revised-childrens-online-privacy-protection-rule-goes-effect" target="_blank" rel="noopener">COPPA Rule was amended in 2013</a> to, among other things, expand the definition of “personal information” to include persistent identifiers that collect information about a user’s online activity and use that information to serve targeted ads to the user.Allegations in the ComplaintAccording to the <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/youtube_complaint.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">complaint</a>, Google and YouTube allegedly used persistent identifiers, in the form of cookies and mobile-advertising identifiers, to collect personal information from, and track, viewers of child-directed YouTube channels across the internet without first notifying parents and obtaining their consent as required by COPPA. YouTube allegedly earned millions of dollars from using the information collected through these identifiers to deliver targeted ads to the viewers of child-directed channels and content.<ul><li>Marketing Statements</li></ul>While YouTube claimed to be a general-audience website, the FTC alleged that YouTube knew that its platform had numerous child-directed channels. The complaint cites several presentations to popular children’s brands in which YouTube marketed itself as a top destination for kids. For example, a YouTube presentation to the toymaker <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/google-ftc/googles-youtube-to-pay-170-million-penalty-for-collecting-data-on-kids-idUSL2N25V0CT?feedType=RSS&feedName=companyNews" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Mattel stated</a> that “YouTube is today’s leader in reaching children age 6-11 against top TV channels,” and a presentation to Hasbro touted that “YouTube was unanimously voted as the favorite website for kids 2-12” and was the “#1 website regularly visited by kids.” At the same time, and notwithstanding these representations to toy companies, YouTube allegedly took the position that it did not need to comply with COPPA. For example, the complaint alleged that a YouTube employee wrote to an advertising company that YouTube did not have users under the age of 13 on the platform and that, as a general-audience platform, YouTube did not need to comply with COPPA.<ul><li>Actual Knowledge</li></ul>The complaint further alleged that YouTube had actual knowledge that it collected personal information from children, based on YouTube’s content-rating system and the “YouTube Kids” app. First, YouTube had a practice of rating all channels and videos uploaded to its platform with ratings of, among others, Y (generally intended for ages 0-7), G (intended for any age), and PG (generally intended for ages 10+); however, from an information collection and behavioral advertising perspective, YouTube allegedly did not treat Y-rated channels or videos any differently than it did other content on YouTube. Specifically, YouTube allowed channel owners to monetize Y-rated content and earn revenue from targeted advertising on Y-rated videos.Second, the “YouTube Kids” app, aimed at children 2-12, generally drew from YouTube content rated Y or G on an automated basis. YouTube employees also manually reviewed content to appear on the home screen of YouTube Kids. Despite YouTube’s identification of content for YouTube Kids, the same content remained on the normal YouTube platform and used persistent identifiers for targeted advertising. In contrast, when the videos were viewed on YouTube Kids, persistent identifiers were not used. The complaint alleged that this disparity in treatment of the same child-directed content evinced YouTube’s knowledge that personal information was collected from children on its general-audience platform.<ul><li>Operator of a Child-Directed Online Service</li></ul>The complaint listed myriad examples of YouTube channels that were allegedly “directed to children” under the COPPA Rule, to show that YouTube was an operator of a child-directed online service and therefore subject to COPPA.Assessing several channels against the COPPA Rule’s factors for determining whether a site is “child-directed” (i.e., subject matter, visual content, language, use of animated characters, or child-oriented activities and incentives), the FTC alleged that “numerous channels on YouTube have content directed to children under the age of 13.” Over five pages, the complaint went on to describe several child-directed channels, including, for example, Mattel’s channels (e.g., Barbie, Hot Wheels), CookieSwirlC (a popular children’s unboxing channel), and Little Baby Bum (a popular channel showing videos of well-known nursery rhymes).Relief Imposed by the OrderIn addition to the monetary penalty, <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/172_3083_youtube_coppa_consent_order.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the settlement</a> requires Google and YouTube to develop, implement, and maintain a system that permits channel owners to identify child-directed content so that YouTube can ensure that it is complying with COPPA. YouTube must also notify channel owners that their child-directed content may be subject to the COPPA Rule’s obligations and provide annual training about COPPA compliance to employees who interface with YouTube channel owners. The settlement also requires YouTube to comply with the COPPA Rule by, for example, providing notice of its information practices and obtaining verifiable parental consent. In addition, the settlement imposes reporting and recordkeeping obligations.The FTC voted 3-2 to authorize the stipulated consent decree. Notably, the two dissenting Commissioners dissented on the grounds that the settlement did not sufficiently punish Google and YouTube, arguing that the FTC should have sought even greater injunctive and monetary relief. Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/public-statements/2019/09/statement-commissioner-rebecca-kelly-slaughter-regarding-youtube" target="_blank" rel="noopener">advocated the imposition of a technological backstop on Google’s and YouTube’s policing of YouTube’s channels and content</a>, and Commissioner Rohit Chopra <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/public-statements/2019/09/statement-commissioner-rohit-chopra-regarding-youtube" target="_blank" rel="noopener">criticized the settlement amount and injunctive remedies as “not even significant enough to make Google issue a warning to its investors</a>.”TakeawayWith this record-breaking settlement following so close on the heels of the <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/09/google-youtube-will-pay-record-170-million-alleged-violations?utm_source=govdelivery" target="_blank" rel="noopener">previous record-breaking settlement</a>, federal and state regulators are showing a willingness to more aggressively pursue COPPA violations. In fact, the split vote for this consent decree suggests that certain regulators prefer an even more aggressive approach than has been seen to date. In conjunction with the FTC’s early review of the COPPA Rule, in which the FTC has solicited comments on how to encourage general-audience sites to proactively protect children’s privacy, it seems that regulators are increasingly focused on protecting children’s privacy in a world where the distinction between “child-directed” and “general-audience” is blurred.As children’s use of technology keeps pace with technological advancements, companies operating online should be mindful of what content is posted on their sites and regularly evaluate their obligations, if any, under COPPA: They are required to comply with COPPA if particular parts of their websites or content (including content uploaded by others) are directed to children under age 13.

oneill_julie_blog_150x150.png

oneill_julie_common_640x280.jpg

oneill_julie_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

oneill_julie_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

oneill_julie_social_600x600.jpg

Clients seek out Julie because of her practical advice on cutting-edge issues at the intersection of privacy and consumer protection laws. She provides clients with practical solutions to compliance c

Julie O'Neill

Clients seek out Julie because of her practical advice on cutting-edge issues at the intersection of privacy and consumer protection laws. She provides clients with practical solutions to compliance challenges around a wide variety of both online and offline privacy issues, including tracking, interest-based advertising, geo-targeting and other mobile tracking, personalization, and cross-device tracking. Recognized in The Legal 500 US 2014, 2016, 2019, and 2020 and Chambers USA 2021 for her exceptional legal work, her clients praise her saying, “She is really good at giving practical, targeted advice and taking stock of what the risk profile of the client is, so that the advice is holistic.” (Chambers USA 2021).

09_11_gettyimages-1170685347_600px-01-300x168.jpg

The Company Who Cried “General Audience”: Google and YouTube to Pay $170 Million for Alleged COPPA Violations

It’s 10 p.m. Do You Know What Your Third-Party Integrations Are Doing?

Last week, the Federal Trade Commission made clear that child-directed parts of an otherwise general audience service will subject the operator of the service t

The Company Who Cried “General Audience”: Google and YouTube to Pay $170 Million for Alleged COPPA Violations

Advancements in technology appear to have spurred the Federal Trade Commission to initiate a review of its rule promulgated pursuant to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (the “COPPA Rule” or “Rule”) four years ahead of schedule. Last week, the FTC published a Federal Register <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-07-25/pdf/2019-15754.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">notice</a> seeking comments on the Rule. Although the FTC typically reviews a rule only once every 10 years and the last COPPA Rule review ended in 2013, the Commission unanimously voted 5-0 to seek comments ahead of its next scheduled review. The Commission cited the education technology sector, voice-enabled connected devices, and general audience platforms hosting third-party, child-directed content as developments warranting reexamination of the Rule at this time.BackgroundThe COPPA Rule, which first went into effect in 2000, generally requires operators of online services to obtain verifiable parental consent before collecting personal information from children under the age of 13.  In 2013, the FTC amended the COPPA Rule to address changes in the way children use and access the internet, including through the increased use of mobile devices and social networking.  Its amendments included the expansion of the definition of “personal information” to include persistent identifiers that track online activity, geolocation information, photos, videos, and audio recordings. The new review could result in similarly significant amendments.Questions for Public CommentIn addition to standard questions about the effectiveness of the COPPA Rule and whether it should be retained, eliminated, or modified, the FTC is seeking comment on all major provisions of the Rule, including its definitions, notice and parental consent requirements, exceptions, and security requirements.The Federal Register notice poses 29 wide-ranging questions for public comment, including:<ul><li>Should general audience platforms that have large numbers of child users be subject to the COPPA Rule?  In other words, should the COPPA Rule be amended to address online services that do not meet the current definition of “web site or online service directed to children” but that have large numbers of child users?</li><li>Should the COPPA Rule be modified to encourage general audience platforms to identify and police child-directed content uploaded by third parties? For example, should such platforms be able to rebut the presumption that all users interacting with child-directed content are children, thereby allowing them to collect personal information from users who are 13 or older?</li><li>Should the COPPA Rule expressly address behavioral targeting, profiling, and advertising? Information processing to support the internal operations of an online service is exempt from the Rule’s parental consent obligation. Should “support for internal operations” be modified to (1) expressly exclude practices such as behavioral targeting and profiling or (2) add certain permitted activities, such as advertising attribution?</li><li>Should the definition of “personal information” be expanded? Presumably to keep pace with the rise of “big data” and the collection of biometric information, the Commission asks whether the definition should be expanded to include personal information that is inferred about, but not directly collected from, children and biometric information (e.g., fingerprints, retinal patterns).</li><li>Should the COPPA Rule be more specific about the appropriate methods for determining the age of users? In other words, would additional guidance regarding age screening result in stronger protections for children’s privacy?</li><li>Should methods of obtaining verifiable parental consent be added to or removed from the Rule?</li><li>Should there be additional exceptions to prior parental consent? The FTC is particularly interested in comments on exceptions for (1) the use of education technology, where the school provides consent for the collection of personal information from children, and (2) the collection of audio files containing a child’s voice as a replacement for text, where the audio files are promptly deleted.</li><li>Should the Rule include more specific information security requirements, such as requiring encryption of certain personal information?</li><li>What are the implications for COPPA enforcement raised by technologies such as interactive television, interactive gaming, or other similar interactive media?</li></ul>The FTC’s questions evince awareness of technological developments since the FTC’s last review in 2013 and reflect a concern for how to apply COPPA protections when children under 13 are increasingly agile with technology and may visit websites and online services that are targeted to a general audience. The questions further evidence the Commission’s exploration of how to employ modern technological capabilities in COPPA compliance, including through up‑to-date solutions for age screening and information security. Ultimately, the FTC’s notice shows the FTC’s continued commitment to children’s privacy matters, suggesting more frequent review of the COPPA Rule if necessary to keep pace with technological advances and potentially increased activity in this sphere.How to Submit a CommentComments can be submitted on or before October 23, 2019. Comments may be submitted online at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">https://www.regulations.gov</a> or sent by mail to the address listed in the Federal Register notice.The FTC will hold a <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events-calendar/future-coppa-rule-ftc-workshop" target="_blank" rel="noopener">public workshop</a> on October 7, 2019, to examine the COPPA Rule.The FTC’s press release announcing the request for public comment is available <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/07/ftc-seeks-comments-childrens-online-privacy-protection-act-rule?utm_source=govdelivery" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a>.

gettyimages-858373428-197x300.jpg

Back to School Early: FTC Seeks Comments to COPPA Rule Ahead of Schedule

Back to School Early: FTC Seeks Comments to COPPA Rule Ahead of Schedule

Advancements in technology appear to have spurred the Federal Trade Commission to initiate a review of its rule promulgated pursuant to the Children’s Online Pr

The French data protection authority, the CNIL, continues to fine organizations for failing to adopt what the CNIL considers to be fundamental data security measures. In May 2019, the CNIL imposed a EUR 400,000 fine on a French real estate company for failing to have basic authentication measures on a server and for retaining information too long. This is the second fine by the CNIL under the EU General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 (GDPR) after the one against Google. The decision is among many pre-GDPR fines imposed by the CNIL for failing to meet security standards, and shows that data security continues to be a high enforcement priority for the CNIL.BackgroundFrench real estate company Sergic operated a website where individuals could upload information about themselves for their property rental applications. Responding to a complaint by an applicant, the CNIL investigated Sergic in September 2018, as it appeared that applicants’ documents were freely accessible without authentication (by modifying a value in the website URL). The CNIL confirmed the vulnerability and found that almost 300,000 documents were accessible in a master file containing information such as individuals’ government issued IDs, Social Security numbers, marriage and death certificates, divorce judgments, and tax, bank and rental statements. The CNIL also discovered that Sergic had been informed of the vulnerability back in March 2018 but did not fix it until September 2018. FindingsAs a result, the CNIL held that Sergic had failed to ensure:<ul class="li-margin"><li>Data security: According to the CNIL, a vulnerability (lack of authentication) is an essential requirement to significantly reduce the risk of a data breach occurring, and is one of the most widespread problems; the CNIL has already issued several public fines for cases with similar facts (see this page of the CNIL’s website, for example). This vulnerability does not require any particular computing mastery to exploit – only changing a value in the website URL. The infringement was aggravated by the sensitive nature of the data and by Sergic’s lack of diligence in remedying the security failure (i.e., it took six months to remedy).  The fact that no individual was harmed, did not change the result of the CNIL’s decision.</li><li>Storage limitation: The CNIL also held that, if the processing purposes had been reached, personal data would either have to be deleted or archived (i.e., moved to another logically separated section of the active database or to an archiving database); but Sergic did not purge the applicants’ documents.</li></ul>As a result, the CNIL imposed a EUR 400,000 fine. Unfortunately, the CNIL (again) did not explain how it determined the actual fine amount, other than stating that the fine was justified and proportionate. It is interesting to note that it appears that the CNIL’s rapporteur initially requested a EUR 900,000 fine. Why (and how) the CNIL ultimately reduced the fine to less than half of that amount is not indicated.<div class="container-fluid main"><div class="row body"><div class="body-container "><div class="col-md-8 col-md-push-2 col-sm-12 col-xs-12"><div>Below are a few good practices to consider, given the GDPR and CNIL enforcement activity.Security and retention good practices in FranceSecurity<ul class="li-margin"><li>Check the CNIL’s guide on data security, available in French and English.</li><li>Check the CNIL’s guidance on password hygiene, available in French and in English.</li><li>Check other security guides, such as those produced by the French National Authority for the Security of Information Systems, available in French.</li><li>Check security guidance issued in other countries (e.g., the U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s guide for business and security guides from the Australian, Spanish, and U.K. data protection/cybersecurity authorities).</li><li>Don’t reinvent the wheel – leverage your security program across the many areas where the GDPR applies (e.g., data protection impact assessments, privacy by design, record keeping, data breaches, transfers, audits, and processor/processing agreements). Consider also how to repurpose security practices flowing from legislation from other sectors and regions.</li><li>Be prepared (e.g. with the right people, resources, and response plans), responsive, and don’t work in silos – this is especially true when a data breach occurs. Consistent, efficient, and swift communication and action, internally and externally, are key.</li></ul>Storage limitationCheck legal statutes of limitation, as well as regulatory guidance. For example, CNIL guidance on specific topics (e.g., biometric access controls, HR management, and customer relationship management) may contain explanations of retention periods.</div></div></div></div></div>

van-der-wolk_alex_blog_150x150.png

van-der-wolk_alex_common_640x280.jpg

van-der-wolk_alex_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

van-der-wolk_alex_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

van-der-wolk_alex_social_600x600.jpg

Managing Partner, Brussels

Alex van der Wolk, co-chair of Morrison Foerster’s preeminent Global Privacy & Data Security practice and managing partner of the firm’s Brussels office, employs his nearly 20 years of experience to advise global companies on their most complex data strategies and compliance programs governing all aspects of information management. 

With more than a decade of experience, Mr. van der Wolk helps clients develop privacy strategies for digital transformations, industrial IoT, telematics, Big Data, commercial and marketing programs, a

Alex van der Wolk

Alex van der Wolk, co-chair of Morrison Foerster’s preeminent Global Privacy & Data Security practice and managing partner of the firm’s Brussels office, employs his nearly 20 years of experience to advise global companies on their most complex data strategies and compliance programs governing all aspects of information management.

07_10_blog_computerscreen_600px-300x189.jpg

The CNIL Strikes Again – Mind Your Security

The CNIL Strikes Again – Mind Your Security

The French data protection authority, the CNIL, continues to fine organizations for failing to adopt what the CNIL considers to be fundamental data security mea

<a href="http://gothamist.com/2019/02/28/revenge_porn_ny_law.php" target="_blank" rel="noopener">New York is now one</a> of the <a href="https://www.cybercivilrights.org/revenge-porn-laws/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">43 states where “revenge porn,”</a> the posting of explicit photographs or videos to the Internet without the subject’s consent, is punishable by law. See how far the states have come – find out how many had criminalized revenge porn as of 2014, <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/2014/01/29/keeping-privates-private-the-legal-landscape-of-revenge-porn/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">when Socially Aware first covered the issue</a>.YouTube announced that it will not allow channels that promote anti-vaccination videos to run advertisements because such videos violate the platform’s policy, which, among other things, disallows the monetization of “dangerous content.” Many of the companies whose ads appeared alongside anti-vaccination content say they were not aware it was happening. <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/carolineodonovan/youtube-just-demonetized-anti-vax-channels" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Find out how that could be possible</a>.Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) has introduced<a href="https://www.kennedy.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/9/f/9ff92982-1a58-4cf5-9bda-8530e5078224/2D6F1D231B87F5B281A01893CEAA75DF.sil19328-own-your-own-data-.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> a bill that would give Internet users considerably more control over their personal data</a> by mandating that social media companies inform registrants—in simple, easy-to-understand terms—that they are entering into an agreement licensing their personal data to the company. Coined the Own Your Own Data Act, the legislation would also require social media platforms to make it easy for their registrants to cancel the licensing agreement and obtain the collected data and any analysis of it.Another privacy bill, this one proposed by Senators Ed Markey (D-MA) and Josh Hawley (R-MO), would amend the <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/2019/03/08/thank-you-next-enforcement-music-video-app-violates-coppa-will-pay-5-7-million/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act</a> (COPPA) to completely prohibit the running of targeted advertisements on websites targeted to children. Find out <a href="https://www.engadget.com/2019/03/12/senate-markey-hawley-children-privacy-bill/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">how else the bill would amend COPPA, and how long companies would have to comply</a> with the amendment if it became law.The debate over <a href="https://www.postandcourier.com/opinion/courts-right-to-side-with-free-speech/article_4d227fa0-45d6-11e9-9b21-cf4244cb43d3.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">whether politicians have a right to block people on social media</a> rages on.The United States isn’t the only country whose <a href="https://www.economist.com/the-americas/2019/03/16/jair-bolsonaro-brazils-president-is-a-master-of-social-media" target="_blank" rel="noopener">president favors social media</a> as a vehicle for sharing his views.A <a href="https://abovethelaw.com/2019/03/twitterlaw/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">#TwitterLaw symposium</a> is being held at the University of Idaho College of Law next month. Road trip, anyone?Even the <a href="https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebrity/latest/a26621439/royal-family-social-media-guidelines/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">British Royal Family has to contend with social media trolls</a>.

YouTube disallows ads on anti-vax content; privacy bills aim to extend children’s protections from Internet harm, secure users’ control over data

New York is now one of the 43 states where “revenge porn,” the posting of explicit photographs or videos to the Internet without the subject’s consent, is punis

YouTube disallows ads on anti-vax content; privacy bills aim to extend children’s protections from Internet harm, secure users’ control over data