Tracking

Subscribe to Tracking via RSS

The Dutch Data Protection Authority recently updated its cookie banner guidance. This comes after the agency, the Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens (or AP), promoted a goal earlier this year to monitor 500 websites a year to ensure their use of cookies complies with GDPR. The Dutch are not the only ones concerned about cookie banners. See, for example, activity from the UK that we wrote about last year. Of note, the Dutch authority stresses in its guide that even if a company uses third-party consent management platforms, the site operator is still responsible for compliance.Continue Reading Is Your Website’s Cookie Banner Up to Date? New Guidance from Dutch DPA

Companies are become increasingly concerned about being viewed as “selling” personal data. In the midst of these worries, California’s governor signed SB 361, which will change the California Delete Act starting January 1, 2026. The law applies to those who sell personal information about consumers with whom they do not have a direct relationship. For covered entities, the amendment will add to compliance complexities.Continue Reading California Continues to Expand Data Broker Requirements

Many courts have held that that information gathered by video-related pixels are not “personal” for purposes of the Video Privacy Protection Act. Nevertheless, plaintiff class action attorneys continue to file these VPPA actions in federal court.Continue Reading Behind the Pixel: Not Always Personal Information Under VPPA

Oregon will begin to regulate the use of minors’ information and sale of users’ location data (regardless of age) with an update to its Oregon Consumer Privacy Act. These revisions will go into effect January 1, 2026. As amended, those subject to the law will not be able to profile or serve targeted advertising to anyone under 16. This includes both those the company knows are under that age, as well as those that they should know are under that age. (Currently, restriction that applies to consumers that are at least thirteen but not older than fifteen without their consent.)Continue Reading Oregon’s Privacy Law Update Adds to Patchwork Approach to Minors and Location Data

The EDPB released guidance last month to help companies understand their obligations when using newer tracking tools. These include pixels, URL tracking, IP-tracking, and the like. First, some background: an EU law that predates GDPR (Directive 2002/58/EC or the Cookie Directive), impacted how companies could interact with users on their computers. That directive was updated in 2009 (Directive 2009/136/EC or the ePrivacy Directive). Under the ePrivacy Directive, among other things, companies cannot “store” or “access” someone’s “terminal equipment” without consent. (There are some exceptions to the consent requirement.) In this recent guidance, the EDPB provided direction on when and whether passive tracking technologies were storing or accessing information on a users’ computer (or other device) such that the ePrivacy Directive requirements would apply.Continue Reading EDPB Provides Insight for Use of Tracking Tools

New York Attorney General Letitia James recently released guidance for businesses and consumers about website tracking technologies. The consumer guide provided examples of common cookies, tracking technologies, and how consumers can manage both. The business guide lists steps the AG expects companies to take to avoid misleading or deceiving consumers in violation of New York’s deceptive trade practices law.Continue Reading NY AG Releases Website Privacy Guides for Businesses and Consumers

New York’s governor recently signed the Stop Addictive Feeds Exploitation (SAFE) for Kids Act. Although signed, the law will not be effective until after the New York Attorney General creates implementing regulations. The law is aimed at protecting children under 18 from social media companies’ “addictive feeds.” Addictive feeds are defined to include platforms and services that recommend content based on information from the user’s activity or device. Among other things, the law will:Continue Reading New York Law Seeks to Regulate Addictive Social Media Feeds

Much of the focus on US privacy has been US state laws, and the potential of a federal privacy law. This focus can lead one to forget, however, that US privacy and data security law follows a patchwork approach both at a state level and a federal level. “Comprehensive” privacy laws are thus only one piece of the puzzle. There are federal and state privacy and security laws that apply based on a company’s (1) industry (financial services, health care, telecommunications, gaming, etc.), (2) activity (making calls, sending emails, collecting information at point of purchase, etc.), and (3) the type of individual from whom information is being collected (children, students, employees, etc.). There have been developments this year in each of these areas.Continue Reading Mid-Year Recap: Think Beyond US State Laws!

The Biden Administration recently issued an Executive Order aimed at protecting American’s sensitive information and certain US Government data from threats posed by foreign actors. Of note is the Order’s focus on data brokers that may share data in bulk with foreign entities and/or individuals.Continue Reading New Program Under Biden Executive Order to Prevent Access to American’s Sensitive Personal Data by Foreign Actors

Florida recently passed a new law and Utah recently repealed and replaced its previously enjoined law with two new bills (available here and here), which regulate minors’ access to social media platforms. The laws highlight states’ continued efforts to protect minors in the social media realm.Continue Reading Mother May I? Florida and Utah Recently Passed Regulations for Minor Use of Social Media Platforms

Earlier this month the UK privacy office put a stop to several related entities’ use of facial recognition technologies and fingerprint monitors for their employees. The UK Information Commissioner’s Office found that the companies were using the tools to monitor attendance. However, the ICO felt that the companies could have used “less intrusive technologies” -like fobs or ID cards- to accomplish the same goals. In reaching its conclusion the ICO noted that employees were allegedly not given a meaningful choice, given the “imbalance of power” between the employer and the employee. And as such employees were made to feel, the ICO believed, that clocking in and out with facial recognition/fingerprint scanning was “a requirement in order to get paid.”Continue Reading ICO Has Concerns Over Facial Recognition Use