Prior to the unique data security and privacy challenges unexpectedly presented as a result of a mass movement to remote working earlier this year, the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”) was one of the most highly anticipated regulation organizations were (or, should have been) preparing to comply with. Despite industry pressure to delay enforcement of the CCPA so organizations could continue to focus on mitigating further disruptions and damage to their operations caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the California Attorney General has maintained his commitment to begin enforcement of the CCPA on July 1, 2020.
In preparation for the enforcement date, Burns & Levinson will be doing a series detailing some of the highlights of the CCPA, which technically went into effect on January 1, 2020. If the CCPA applies to your organization and you had not previously taken steps to bring your organization into compliance with Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), you may have significant work to do in order to bring your organization into compliance with the CCPA. If your organization has previously engaged in GDPR compliance, you may still have work to do. While there is some overlap between the regulatory and statutory requirements of … Keep reading
Under the GDPR, data controllers are tasked with communicating to data subjects how their data is processed in a way that is both concise and transparent. From a consumer-protection perspective, this is undoubtedly one of the regulation’s more commendable requirements; as many who have drafted website privacy policies understand, there is often tension between the twin goals of concision and transparency. Providing fully transparent disclosure about data-processing activities, while keeping such disclosures brief and easily readable, can be a tricky balance to strike.
One question the GDPR may prompt is whether it makes sense for an organization to maintain separate residency-dependent privacy policies, or a single, all-encompassing policy. There are pros and cons to each, and what works best for a particular organization will often depend on the operational impact of each, as well as the usability of each by the relevant data subjects.
The Multiple Privacy Policies Approach
Organizations that treat data-subject information differently depending on its origination point, or that opt not to extend the enhanced protections offered under the GDPR to non-European data subjects, may prefer to maintain separate residency-dependent privacy policies.
In this instance, the benefit is that each policy can be tailored, … Keep reading
Some Legal Issues to Consider When Migrating to Become a Service Provider
Although everyone’s into blockchain and the Internet of Things, believe it or not, there are still plenty of traditional software developers out there, and some of them still distribute physical software under traditional licenses to end users. Many of these vendors are in the midst of migrating their business models to distribution of their software as a service (SaaS), or via related models (platform or infrastructure as a service [PaaS and IaaS], among others). For vendors moving in that direction, there is a tendency to try to shortcut changes to standard license agreements by merely amending existing license terms to refer to SaaS environments. However, that attempt to “make do” with a software license when vendors move to the cloud can lead to potentially significant legal problems down the road.
License or Not?
Commentators on the legal consequences of SaaS distribution of software are quick to point out that a license grant to software provided over the web is probably ill-advised (although that analysis may be over-simplified). Technically, because the software is not installed locally, and users are merely accessing it in the cloud or at a … Keep reading
As the effective date of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) draws near, companies that collect, process, and use data relating to EU citizens need to be thinking proactively about issues they will face under the new directive. This post summarizes the discrete issue of how companies should start to manage data mining and data usage activities. Stay tuned as we continue to keep you updated in this space.
As most are probably by now aware, the GDPR seeks to regulate the use and disclosure of the personal data of all individuals within the 28 EU member states. Though passed into law in May 2016, it does not become enforceable until May 25, 2018. Unlike most privacy regulations in the U.S., the EU defines the term “personal data” broadly—it includes “any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (the ‘data subject’).” This means that even the most basic contact information, such as business card details or simply a name and email address, falls under the GDPR’s protections. Public sources of information, such as a residential phone listing, are not exempted from the GDPR’s restrictions.
To legally handle EU personal information harvested from third-party sources after May 25, … Keep reading
With only 100 days to go until the General Data Protection Regulation becomes enforceable on May 25, it is increasingly imperative for organizations that process information relating to an identified/identifiable European person to have a firm grasp on what the regulation entails, as well as any associated impacts on business that can be reasonably expected. Here are seven key questions to ask yourself, your team, or your project manager, to gauge how prepared your organization is to meet the requirements under the GDPR.
Has our data been inventoried and mapped, such that we have a complete understanding of our data flow?
An essential prerequisite to developing a GDPR compliance plan is to have a detailed understanding of the lifecycle of the personal data processed by the organization. It is impractical to implement a reasonable GDPR compliance plan if the organization does not thoroughly understand the personal information it processes, how it was collected, where it is stored, and where and to whom it is transferred. The GDPR identifies specific categories of information that it expects organizations to keep records on, with respect to data processing.
When personal information about people is collected indirectly from third-party sources (e.g., public databases,
… Keep reading
Question: What do Sean Combs, J.K. Rowling, LeBron James, Lionel Messi, and Mark Wahlberg have in common? Two things, actually. First, they are all listed on the Forbes 2017 Celebrity 100 List; second, they all have gone to the trouble of registering their personal names as trademarks with the U.S Trademark Office. Indeed, of the first 20 celebrities on this “A” list, 19 have sought registration of their names as trademarks.
Trademark Protections For Personal Names
Under Federal law, everyone is entitled to seek protection of his or her name as a brand. The Lanham Act expressly provides that:
No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it … consists of or comprises a name, portrait, or signature identifying a particular living individual except by his written consent.
As indicated by the language of the statute, in addition to names, likenesses (portraits) and signatures of individuals are entitled to trademark registration. Several well-known entertainers have taken advantage of this right, including Meryl Streep, Robert De Niro, and Anthony Hopkins … Keep reading
Does this look familiar?
Recently, Privacy Shield participants started receiving these troubling alerts, purportedly from the International Trade Administration, warning that the recipient organization owes a new fee, and threatening to cancel that participant’s Privacy Shield certification if payment is not remitted by February 16, 2018. These alerts have all the classic markings of a phishing scam—appearing very official but containing a generic salutation, demanding payment for some otherwise unheard of fee, threatening dire consequences for failure to remit payment—so some of these alerts have undoubtedly gone ignored.
Unfortunately, this is not another blog post about a new fraud alert. Rather, this post is an alert that, if you participate in the Privacy Shield program, you may need to take action before February 16, 2018, to maintain your certification.
Alternative Dispute Resolution Under Privacy Shield Prior to September 13, 2017
The EU-U.S. Privacy Shield is a self-certification program run through the Department of Commerce that provides a safe harbor for U.S. companies that process or transfer heavily regulated personal data of EU citizens in the U.S. Because the U.S. has comparatively lax laws on privacy and data security, to comply with EU regulations, its businesses must voluntarily agree to … Keep reading
Part of the fun of trademark practice is its unique overlap with literature, art, science, culture, and psychology. Words and symbols are used as trademarks to identify sources of commercial goods; convey messages to consumers that go beyond their pure literal meaning; and, through a curious alchemy of psychology, repetition, aesthetic attraction, and cultural filtering, somehow evoke brand loyalty, leading consumers to open their wallets. Subtle, but powerful messaging animates buyer behavior.
However, if psychology and/or science were the sole driver of branding campaigns, a lot more marketers would stop trying to find the next catchy phrase or word—”Covfefe,” “Google,” “Yelp“—and instead focus on what subliminal force is most likely to create the strongest bond between the consumer and the manufacturer. Despite smell and sound being the more profound links to human feelings and motivations, marketers rarely do more than play at the edges of these forces—by using a jingle occasionally, for example.
Psychoacoustics and the Associations Created by Sound
We’ve all experienced the sensation of hearing a piece of music, or even a familiar sound, and having it transport us back in time to some experience from our youth. When it happens, … Keep reading
The venue of a lawsuit can be a crucial, even dispositive, decision in managing the strategy of a successful outcome in an IP dispute. Defending a lawsuit on your home turf is often easier than in a distant state – defendants may be more inclined to settle lawsuits that are brought in inconvenient or hostile jurisdictions far from home. Moreover, venue can affect the adjudication of the merits of the dispute, since the various tests for infringement, and even the availability of injunctive relief, can vary by circuit. Accordingly, litigants will often try to tilt the possibility of success by considering all these variables before choosing where to file a case. However, recent developments in venue and jurisdictional law may impact a litigant’s ability to access favorable venues.
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC radically changed the law regarding venue of patent lawsuits. Until July 2017, about 40% of patent cases were brought in the Eastern District of Texas. In Heartland, the Supreme Court ruled that defendants in patent cases could be sued only where they are incorporated, or where they have a regular or established place of business. … Keep reading