The FTC recently settled with a surveillance app operator over allegations that the company facilitated the secret harvesting of personal information. According to the FTC, the main users of Support King, LLC’s “SpyFone” app were bad actors who used the tool to remotely monitor users’ physical and digital activities. The FTC dismissed the company’s argument that the users were employers and parents as a “pretext.” It felt neither group would want to use the product, which to install required minimizing the device’s security settings and potentially voiding the device warranty.

Continue Reading FTC Surveillance App Settlement Signals Concern Over Deceptive Tracking

Baltimore recently prohibited several uses of “face surveillance” technology.  Under the new law companies cannot use systems that identify or verify individuals based on their face.  The law also prohibits saving information gathered from these systems.  Getting an individual’s consent is not a way around the prohibition. Nor is promising not to connect information gathered with other personal information.

Continue Reading Baltimore Blows By Brother Burghs with Big Biometrics Ban

Companies are struggling to understand how to comply with rapidly changing and sometimes conflicting privacy obligations. For entities outside of the US seeking to do business in the States, approaching and understanding the patchwork of state and federal privacy laws can be daunting, especially since US privacy laws vary depending on the type of activities in which companies engage, the individuals from whom they gather or use information, and the industry in which the company operates. While there are some “general” privacy laws (notably in California and Virginia) those are the exception rather than the rule.

Continue Reading Tools for Understanding Global Privacy Obligations

Artificial intelligence continues to be a focus and concern for businesses, regulators, and lawmakers alike. As we recently wrote, there was much activity and focus on artificial intelligence and the impact on privacy laws. In addition to legal developments, there have been advancements in AI business technologies by major multinational technology firms, something focused on this post in our sister Intellectual Property Law Blog. There has been an arms race underway by the world’s leading economies to win the estimated $13 Trillion of GDP this field stands to award the winner.  In a recent podcast episode, partners Siraj Husain and Michael P.A. Cohen discuss these developments, risks, and solutions that businesses are experiencing.
Continue Reading What to Watch in Artificial Intelligence in 2021

The National Institute of Standards and Technology has issued a set of draft principles for “explainable” artificial intelligence and is accepting comments until October 15, 2020. The authors of the draft principles outline four ways that those who develop AI systems can ensure that consumers understand the decisions reached by AI systems. The four principles are:
Continue Reading NIST Seeking Comments on Draft AI Principles

The FTC recently issued comments on how companies can use artificial intelligence tools without engaging in deceptive or unfair trade practices or running afoul of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The FTC pointed to enforcement it has brought in this area, and recommended that companies keep in mind four key principles when using AI tools. While much of their advice draws on requirements for those that are subject to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), there are lessons that may be useful for many.
Continue Reading FTC Provides Direction on AI Technology

Following its 20th plenary session on April 7, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) selected geolocation and health data to focus on in its upcoming COVID-19 guidance. This follows in response to the EDPB’s earlier broad statement on the processing of personal data in the context of COVID-19.
Continue Reading EDPB Announces Scope of COVID-19 Guidance

The Online Interest Based-Advertising Accountability Program, which enforces privacy principles for digital advertising, recently announced its 100th action. In announcing this landmark, the Accountability Program looked back at the nature of the cases it has brought, noting that it has covered both desktop and mobile issues, and its focus has fallen into a few key categories. These include providing consumers with “enhanced notice” of behavioral advertising activities and ensuring that opt-out tools exist (and that they work!). The Accountability Program also took the opportunity to remind online advertisers about its OBA Self-Regulatory Principles, and the guidance for applying the principles in a mobile environment.
Continue Reading Interest-Based Advertising Enforcer Hits 100

A lawsuit against US Cold Storage under the Biometric Information Privacy Act was recently dismissed because, the court held, the violations of the law were merely technical. As a result, the plaintiff did not have sufficient standing. This decision echoes the other cases we have reported on recently.
Continue Reading No Federal Court Standing for BIPA Violation Without Injury