Christopher Olsen

Subscribe to Christopher Olsen's Posts

On June 20, 2019, the UK’s Data Protection Authority (ICO) published a report on adtech and real-time bidding. The report highlights the main problems faced by the industry when applying the General Data Protection Regulation’s (GDPR’s) stringent requirements, and calls for further engagement on these issues by the different adtech players in the space.

Background

When the GDPR became effective on May 25, 2018, it imposed new and strict obligations on companies processing personal data. In the UK, the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations (PECR), which implements the EU e-Privacy Directive and will soon be replaced by the e-Privacy Regulation, complements the GDPR requirements. Both the GDPR and PECR govern how data is collected and further processed in the online advertising industry, including requiring notice and a legal basis for processing. The PECR specifically applies to the use of cookies and similar technologies and sets out the rules for consent to use these technologies.Continue Reading The ICO Publishes Its Stance on Adtech and Real-Time Bidding

On March 21, 2019, the Advocate General (AG) of the highest EU Court (the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)) issued an opinion (opinion) in the Planet49 case[1] on what constitutes valid consent for cookies under the Data Protection Directive, the GDPR, and the e-Privacy Directive.

In particular, the AG opines that: 1) a pre-ticked checkbox that users must untick to refuse consent does not constitute valid consent; 2) consent for cookies should not be bundled with other consents; and 3) users must be informed about the cookies’ lifespan and the third parties accessing the cookies. AG opinions are not binding on the CJEU, but are often influential. If the CJEU follows the AG Opinion, it will likely impact widely-adopted cookie consent practices in the EU and underlying business models that rely on such consent.
Continue Reading CJEU Advocate General Opinion Calls for Active and Separate Cookie Consents

On April 12, 2018, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that it was withdrawing its proposed August 2017 privacy and data security settlement with Uber Technologies and issuing a new and expanded proposed settlement.1 According to the FTC, the reason for this extraordinary step was to address additional allegations of misconduct by the ride-sharing company in connection with a data breach it suffered in 2016. The revised complaint includes new factual allegations regarding that breach,2 and the revised consent order includes significant new reporting obligations for the company regarding future breaches, new obligations for the order’s mandated privacy program, and additional reporting and recordkeeping obligations that will last for longer periods of time.3

Those that closely follow the FTC know that any modifications to consumer protection settlements after they have been proposed by the FTC are extremely rare, so it’s worth taking a closer look at what triggered this unusual action and the important new insight it provides into the FTC’s current thinking on what it considers unreasonable security practices. Additionally, the FTC’s revised complaint provides, for the first time, concrete guidance on what it considers “legitimate” uses of a bug bounty program.
Continue Reading What’s Old Is New Again: FTC Takes Rare Step of Withdrawing and Reissuing Expanded Data Security Settlement with Uber in Light of 2016 Data Breach

The expanding use of mobile technologies, cloud computing, and the Internet of Things has greatly increased the amount of available consumer data. The ability to efficiently process this information has the potential to provide countless consumer benefits. Nevertheless, companies must navigate an ever-expanding patchwork of domestic and foreign laws and uncertainty regarding the application of existing laws to new technologies. In addition, although regulators have commended the advancement and development of new consumer lending technologies, they also have warned that these new tools “carry the risk of disparate impact in credit outcomes and the potential for fair lending violations[.]” For companies under the authority of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the CFPB’s no-action letter (NAL) program offers a potential tool to help navigate these challenges. As described in the following article, however, the tool is not without risk for companies seeking regulatory guidance.
Continue Reading Starting Up the CFPB’s No-Action Letter Program

On October 3, 2017, the High Court of Ireland issued its decision in Data Protection Commissioner vs Facebook and Schrems concerning the validity of the EU Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs)—a mechanism used by a very…
Continue Reading European Court of Justice to Rule on Validity of Standard Contractual Clauses