0
Data Security and Privacy Due DiligenceData Security and Privacy Must Play a Part in M&A Due Diligence

Data Security and Privacy Must Play a Part in M&A Due Diligence

In the past, acquiring companies engaged in M&A activity paid little attention to a target company’s data security & privacy (DSP) posture during due diligence. The acquiring companies learned that their failure to fully evaluate the target company’s DSP posture led to the target company inheriting more work than ever anticipated. These risks manifested in two costly areas: undisclosed cybersecurity incidents (which could lead to costly litigation and negative publicity), and poor cybersecurity and privacy infrastructure (which would delay integration).

These negatives are well documented. A 2019 Forescout report found that, “[j]ust under half (49%)” of the transactions analyzed “encountered unknown or undisclosed cybersecurity incidents, issues, or risks when integrating the acquired company’s information and technology that delayed the integration timeline.” Another well-known example was Verizon’s $350 million purchase price reduction of Yahoo!’s to cover costs of ongoing government investigations and private litigation for historic cybersecurity incidents that were not fully disclosed or evaluated in the due diligence phase.

Things have changed. Gartner reported that by 2022 sixty percent of organizations will consider a target company’s cybersecurity posture as a critical factor in their due diligence process. Acquiring companies have made DSP due diligence a priority because they understand the costly risks of inheriting a target company’s DSP liabilities.

Target companies must proactively address and disclose DSP risks to avoid renegotiation of the purchase price, delay the closing date, or at worst, the acquiring company backing out of the deal. M&A parties often retain sophisticated DSP attorneys to assist in all phases of the deal, including conducting DSP posture analyses, evaluating DSP-specific risks, and guiding the company through the diligence process.

This article addresses some of the key privacy and security issues, and strategies target companies should undertake to prepare for privacy reviews in due diligence.

 

Understand Data Privacy and Cybersecurity Obligations

The acquiring company’s goal during diligence is to understand whether the target company: (a) is in compliance with all applicable privacy and cybersecurity obligations, (b) has controls in place to avoid future regulatory or litigation exposure, and (c) has no undisclosed cybersecurity incidents that could lead to future exposure. Thus, the target company should be prepared to respond to diligence requests that focus on these key areas.

Context Matters. Cyber and privacy due diligence are heavily dependent on the target company’s profit model and industry because those factors heavily drive the evaluation of the transaction’s risk stemming from the target company’s cybersecurity posture. A purely regional business-to-business (B2B) company will generally have lower obligations than a company that handles personal health information (PHI), does significant business in California, or has international operations. A seller should focus on the following core area and consider whether it is in compliance with all standards-based on its position in that core area:

  • Profit-Model. Understand how the target company’s profit model subjects it to privacy and cybersecurity obligations. Consumer-facing companies are likely to have higher privacy obligations than those with an exclusively B2B model.  Additionally, companies who collect or trade consumer information will have higher privacy obligations, particularly when that information includes financial or health information.
  • Location. Understand the obligations imposed on the target company based on where it conducts business. Businesses in Europe or California may subject the business to specific obligations under the General Data Privacy Regulation (GRPR) or California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). Each has a specific requirement and harsh penalties for non-compliance. It is equally important to know if the target company is not subject to the CCPA and GRPR so that the target company does not unnecessarily expend resources to comply with those laws, and to adequately respond to misdirected diligence inquiries about GRPR and CCPA compliance.
    Cybersecurity incident notification laws also vary by state, so the company should understand could create obligations for historic cybersecurity incidents.
  • Industry. Understand whether the target company’s industry creates unique security obligations. Broadly, a company that operates in: (a) financial services, (b) healthcare, (c) government contracting, (c) consumer data collection, and (d) consumer credit card transactions. State laws may also impose industry-specific obligations.

Understand the impact of historic cybersecurity incidents. Any historic cybersecurity incidents will very likely be the subject of the acquiring company’s diligence inquiry. The target company should consider the root cause of the incident (i.e. system vulnerabilities or policy gaps).

 

Strategies to Maximize Price and Avoid Concerns During Diligence

Again, acquiring companies are evaluating potential transaction risk based on the target companies’ compliance obligations and cybersecurity risks. Strong documentation reflecting a target company’s understanding of its obligations and implementation of necessary policies and programs is a target company’s strongest asset in alleviating an acquiring company’s concerns (and in turn maximizing the purchase price).

Implement Privacy Policies. Implement compliance privacy policies to the extent necessary based on the target business’ profit model, location, and industry (as discussed above). If the target company determines its business does not require implementation of a specific policy, demand the rationale for that decision, and maintain a policy that requires a review of the target company’s privacy compliance requirements: (a) periodically, (b) based on material changes in the company’s business, and (c) based on material changes in the law.

Implement Data Governance Programs. Even if the target company has determined that specific privacy laws do not apply to the company, many acquiring companies will require that the target company understands the data it collects. Understanding the collected data allows the target company to show that: (a) it has analyzed potential risks of a cybersecurity incident, and (b) is well-positioned to comply with future privacy requirements following the acquisition (or based on future changes in the laws).

Implement Cybersecurity Policies. Maintain a cybersecurity and compliance infrastructure that require conducting penetration testing, vulnerability assessments, and corrective follow-up. An acquiring company is likely to be skeptical about a target company’s representations about a lack of prior incidents because a company that does not conduct regular testing and assessments may not even be aware of prior intrusions.

Analyze Contracts and Maintain Insurance. The target company should analyze vendor and customer contracts relating to indemnification for cyber or privacy incidents.  As the acquiring company may be inheriting these contracts, they will want to ensure that these contracts don’t create unnecessary risk. Maintaining cybersecurity insurance covering past incidents will further alleviate concerns.

Analyze Past Incidents. Analyze past incidents to determine what system vulnerabilities, policy or training gaps led to the incident, and document the steps taken to correct those issues.

Partner with Technologists Who Understand the Legal Requirements. There is no need to reinvent the wheel.  Work with experienced partners who can help assess the need for privacy and cybersecurity programs, and help you navigate due diligence requests from an acquiring company.  Beckage retains privacy attorneys and security professionals with a deep understanding of the technology in the law.

For more information on this topic, contact Beckage attorney Chirag H. Patel.

Subscribe to our newsletter.

*Attorney Advertising.  Prior results do not guarantee future outcomes.

0
Colorado Privacy ActThe Colorado Privacy Act: Explained

The Colorado Privacy Act: Explained

On July 8th, Colorado Governor Jared Polis signed Senate Bill 190, the Colorado Privacy Act (CPA), into law. The Act is the third comprehensive state privacy law in the United States, following California’s Consumer Privacy Act and Virginia’s Consumer Data Protection Act.

The CPA is applicable to businesses that collect and store data on more than 100,000 individuals or those earning revenue from the data of more than 25,000 consumers. The bill also includes various data subject rights, a broad opt-out consent model with a universal opt-out mechanism, a right to cure, and attorney general rulemaking and enforcement. It is set to go into effect on July 1, 2023.

The CPA carries specific rights for the consumer including:

  • Opt-out of processing of personal data.
  • Authorization of another person to act on behalf of the consumer to opt-out of the processing of personal data for purposes of targeted advertising or the sale of consumer data.
  • Confirm whether personal data is being processed and access that data in a portable and readily usable format.
  • Correct inaccurate personal data.
  • Delete personal data.
  • Obtain consent before collection of certain sensitive personal data (data that reveals race or ethnic origin, religious beliefs, a mental or physical health condition or diagnosis, sexual orientation or sex life, citizenship or citizenship status, or genetic or biometric data).

The right to opt-out model gives consumers a user-selected universal opt-out mechanism for executing their opt-out right, however, it applies to targeted advertising and the sale of information. Consumers cannot opt out of unnecessary and irrelevant collection of information.  Controllers must comply with the universal opt-out. Consumer requests must be verifiable, and a controller may deny the request if the request cannot be authenticated.

All consumers are provided the opportunity to appeal any denials of request. Under the act, all controllers are required to respond to a consumer’s request to exercise their rights within 45 days of receiving the request. The time period may be extended an additional 45 days with a notice of delay and reasons for the delay.

The controllers must receive a consumer’s consent before processing a consumer’s sensitive information. Consent must be a clear, affirmative act signifying a consumer’s freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous consent. Consent cannot be obtained by way of acceptance of general or broad terms of use. While the CPA requires consent to process “sensitive” personal data, the bill exempts protected health information and de-identified information under HIPAA, financial institutions and nonpublic personal information under the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act, information regulated by the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, and information regulated by the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act of 1994. The CPA also exempts information maintained for employment records purposes.

Under the CPA, controllers are also required to conduct and document data protection assessments of each of its processing activities that involves personal data acquired when conducting processing that presents a heightened risk of harm to a consumer.

Controllers must provide a privacy notice to the consumer including:

  • Categories of personal data collected, processed, and/or shared with third parties,
  • Purposes for processing such data,
  • Categories of third parties with whom the controller shares personal data,
  • How and where consumers may exercise their rights, and
  • Whether the controller sells personal data or processes personal data for targeted advertising.

Data security practices must be appropriate to the volume, scope, and nature of the personal data processes and nature of the business. While the CPA carries these consumer rights and provides for several controller obligations, it does not offer a private right of action.

The Attorney General has the capability to address outstanding compliance concerns and ambiguities ahead of the law’s effective date. The Attorney General and state district attorneys will enforce the CPA. Under the bill, there is a 60-day cure period to rectify non-compliance provided before the Attorney General or district attorney may take enforcement action. The cure period is only provided until January 1, 2025, and noncompliance can result in civil penalties of not more than $2,000 per violation, not to exceed $500,000 in total for any related series of violations. Again, consumers are not given the private right of action under the bill.

We anticipate more states will begin to enact legislation that will encourage the regulation of sensitive data processing and enhance consumer privacy rights. Beckage will continue to monitor any developments regarding the bill. Our team of highly skilled attorneys are especially equipped to help your business implement a proactive plan to help mitigate risk and remain compliant with emerging laws.

*Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. *

Subscribe to our Newsletter.

PrivacyVirginia, Oklahoma, and Florida Join Growing List of States With Proposed Privacy Legislation

Virginia, Oklahoma, and Florida Join Growing List of States With Proposed Privacy Legislation

Since California’s Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) was passed in 2018, Beckage has seen a slew of other states follow suit in proposing and enacting their own comprehensive data privacy bills. Most recently, lawmakers in Virginia, Oklahoma, and Florida have joined the growing list of states with proposed privacy bills. So far this year, New York, Washington, and Minnesota have also introduced legislation governing the ways companies collect, store, use, and share consumer data and we expect to see other laws emerging in the coming months with still no federal data privacy bill in sight.  

Working with experienced privacy counsel can help build out data privacy programs that stand the test of time and contemplate emerging legislation.   

Below is an overview of the Virginia and Oklahoma proposed bills, their requirements, and their potential impact on the data privacy landscape. 

Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act (SB 1392) 

The Virginia proposal is quickly moving through the Virginia state legislature and is likely to be the next comprehensive state data privacy law on the books. This bill passed the Virginia House of Delegates on January 29th by a wide margin and was unanimously approved in the Senate on February 3rd. Assuming Governor Northam signs it into law, the Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act is set to go into effect on January 1, 2023. 

Who Does It Apply To? 

Companies that conduct business in Virginia or “produce products or services that are targeted to” Virginians would have to comply with the Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act if they: 

  • Control or process the personal data of at least 100,000 Virginians; or 
  • Control or process the personal data of at least 25,000 Virginians and derive over 50% of their gross revenue from the sale of that data. 

The Legislation does provide exemptions for financial institutions governed by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, entities subject to HIPAA or HITECH, non-profits, and educational institutions. 

What Is Included? 

Included in this Bill are several requirements not covered under the CCPA or any other U.S. privacy law. One such obligation requires entities that control personal data to conduct protection assessments of any activities that use personal data for specific purposes, such as targeted advertising. These data protection assessments may be requested and evaluated by the attorney general to ensure compliance. 

This Act would afford Virginia consumers with several rights regarding their personal data, including the right to opt-out of the sale or use of their information for targeted advertising or profiling. It would also allow consumers to delete their data, move their data, correct inaccuracies in their data, and confirm if their data is being processed upon request.  

Notably missing is a private right of action through which consumers could seek damages for alleged violations. Instead, enforcement of the Act would be left exclusively to the attorney general, who may seek up to $7,500 per violation. 

Oklahoma Computer Data Privacy Act (HB 1602) 

Introduced on January 19, 2021 by Representatives Josh West (R) and Collin Walke (D), this Bill has bipartisan support in the Oklahoma House of Representatives. Its intended purpose is to give Oklahomans more online privacy by taking aim at tech companies. If passed, the Oklahoma Computer Data Privacy Act would go into effect on November 1, 2021. 

Who Does It Apply To? 

If passed, this act would apply to companies that operate in the state of Oklahoma and collect Oklahoman’s personal information or have information collected on their behalf, determine the purpose for and means of processing that information, and satisfy one of the following thresholds: 

  • Has an annual gross revenue exceeding $10 million; 
  • Buys, sells, receives, or shares for commercial purposes the personal information of 50,000 or more consumers, households, or devices annually; or 
  • Derives 25% or more of their annual revenue from the sale of personal data. 

What Is Included? 

Companies subject to this legislation would be required to disclose what personal information they hold on a consumer and allow for the deletion of that information upon the consumer’s request. This proposal also mandates consumers opt-in to providing their personal data, which differentiates it from most other state privacy laws, like the CCPA. The Oklahoma Computer Data Privacy Act also differs from the CCPA in its inclusion of a broad private right of action through which Oklahoma residents could seek damages up to $7,500 for violations. 

Florida House Bill 969 (HB 969) 

Introduced on February 15th by Representative Fiona McFarland (R), House Bill 969 would place several requirements on businesses that deal with Florida residents’ private information. If passed, it would go into effect on January 1, 2022. 

Who Does It Apply To? 

For-profit companies that do business in Florida and collect personal information about consumers, have personal information collected on their behalf, or determine the process and means of processing personal information will have to comply with this Bill’s requirements if they satisfy one of the following thresholds: 

  • Has an annual gross revenue exceeding $25 million; 
  • Buys, sells, receives, or shares for commercial purposes the personal information of 50,000 or more consumers, households, or devices annually; or 
  • Derives 50% or more of their annual revenue from the sale of personal data. 

What Is Included? 

HB 969 would require that applicable businesses notify consumers about their data collection and selling practices before or at the point of data collection. Under this Bill, consumers would also have the right to request their data be disclosed, corrected, or edited and the right to opt-out of having their personal information disclosed or sold to a third party. 

Applicable businesses would be required to implement reasonable security protocols to protect their consumer’s personal data. Also included is a private right of action through which a consumer “whose nonencrypted and nonredacted personal information or e-mail addresses are subject to unauthorized access” may seek damages for violations of the Bill. The Department of Legal Affairs would be authorized to bring other enforcement actions, up to $2,500 per unintentional violation and $7,500 per intentional violation. 

Potential Impact 

Currently, the data privacy landscape in the United States is a patchwork of enacted and proposed laws, all with their own requirements and consumer rights, creating a confusing web for companies operating in more than one jurisdiction. While advocates of these state privacy laws argue for the protection of consumers’ data in an increasingly digitally-driven world, opponents argue that the potential risk of operating within states who have enacted comprehensive privacy laws may deter businesses from expanding their operations there. 

A federal privacy law that could rectify the many differences between individual state laws would simplify this landscape, making it easier for companies to protect their consumers’ data and operate efficiently while complying with regulations.  

Beckage is closely monitoring these, and other emerging privacy laws. In the meantime, companies that collect personal data should start thinking about privacy compliance by conducting a baseline privacy assessment and starting to develop relevant policies and procedures. Beckage attorneys, who are also technologists and certified privacy professionals, are happy to help counsel your business on compliance with the CCPA, GDPR, and other pending and enacted privacy legislation.  We work with clients of all sizes to build out data privacy programs and address compliance matters.  

Subscribe to our newsletter. 

*Attorney advertising – prior results do not guarantee future outcomes. 

BiometricsBipartisan Group Proposes New York Biometric Policy

Bipartisan Group Proposes New York Biometric Policy


In January of 2021, a bipartisan group of New York State lawmakers proposed a comprehensive policy that places restrictions on the collection of biometric information by companies operating in the state. Assembly Bill 27, the Biometric Privacy Act, would allow for consumers to sue companies that improperly use or retain an individual’s biometric information. New York’s biometric act follows suit behind Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), the first and most robust state law that guards against the unlawful collection and storing of biometric information. Like BIPA, Assembly Bill 27 was created to place regulations on a company’s handling of biometric data, such as fingerprints, voiceprints, retina scans, and scans of the hand and face geometry. Assembly Bill 27, however, does not cover writing samples, written signatures, photographs, or physical descriptions.

What Is Included?

The Biometric Privacy Act requires businesses collecting biometric identifiers or information to develop a written policy establishing a retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying the biometric data. The destruction of the data must occur when the initial purpose for collecting the biometric data has been “satisfied,” or within three years of the individual’s last interaction with the company, whichever occurs first. This bill also includes a private right of action that would allow consumers to sue businesses for statutory damages up to $1000 for each negligent violation and $5,000 for each intentional or reckless violation.

Further, AB 27 requires companies to obtain written consent from individuals before collecting, purchasing, or obtaining biometric information and provide notification to those individuals about the specific purpose and length of time the data will collected, stored, and used. Companies are prohibited from selling, leasing, trading, and profiting from biometric information and strict restraints are placed on a business’s ability to disclose biometric information to a third party without consumer consent.

The Impact of Biometrics on Future Legislation

With the increased volume of biometric information being used by companies leveraging biometric-driven timekeeping systems and other technologies, the push for biometric privacy policies that govern the use of these technologies and promotes safeguards for employees is gaining momentum. Several states are also looking to amend their breach notification and security laws to include biometric identifiers. For example, New York State’s SHIELD Act, the breach notification law enacted in 2019, has already been expanded to include biometric data in its definition of private information.

At Beckage, we have a team of highly skilled lawyers that stay up to date on proposed and enacted legislation. With states looking to implement biometric privacy laws similar to BIPA, it is important to have legal tech counsel to address compliance with these emerging laws. Our team can help assist your company in assessing and mitigating risks associated with emerging technologies.

Subscribe to our newsletter.

*Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. *

Data Privacy DayBeckage Attorneys Make 2021 Data Security & Privacy Predictions in Observance of Data Privacy Day

Beckage Attorneys Make 2021 Data Security & Privacy Predictions in Observance of Data Privacy Day

Today is Data Privacy Day – an international event held annually on January 28th with the purpose of promoting privacy and data protection best practices for consumers and businesses. At Beckage, every day is Data Privacy Day – our team of lawyers and technologists works daily with clients on data security and privacy measures, from developing policies and procedures to comply with international and domestic privacy regimes to responding to headline-making data incidents and defending clients in data security and privacy class actions.

The legal landscape surrounding data security and privacy is constantly evolving to adapt to technological advancements and global privacy trends. In observance of this holiday, we asked some of our experienced team members what they expect to see in this space in 2021.


Litigation – Myriah V. Jaworski, Esq. CIPP/US, CIPP/E

My data privacy prediction for 2021 is also related to biometrics. This year we will see the continued rise of regulation over and litigation concerning the use of biometric information.

A few years after the Illinois State Legislature passed BIPA, the Biometric Information Privacy Act, we started to see a slew of class action lawsuits filed against businesses alleged to have violated BIPA’s written release requirement. BIPA class actions have ranged from headline-making cases against major tech companies, such has Facebook, to small and medium-sized businesses across numerous industries.

While biometric lawsuits were once viewed as a risk associated only with doing business in Illinois, other states, like Washington and Texas, have followed suit by passing their own laws mimicking BIPA and others are eyeing their own biometric privacy bills. Of note, a bill nearly identical to BIPA is pending in the New York State legislature, which, if passed, could have a much larger impact on businesses given that New York is one of the largest economies in the United States.

At the federal level, we have recently seen the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) enter the biometric conversation with its consent agreement with EverAlbum, Inc. This consent order may have set a nation-wide standard for businesses’ use and collection of biometric information, regardless of whether those businesses operate in states that have enacted or pending biometric privacy laws.

In short, in 2021 the risks and penalties associated with collecting and using biometric information are steep. Any business, regardless of location, that is engaging in biometric information collection should conduct a privacy audit, look at its written policies, and ensure that it has the requisite consents in mind. As a litigator, I always say “demonstrable compliance is the strongest legal defense,” and that is certainly true in the biometric privacy space.

Watch Myriah’s video prediction here.


Incident Response – Daniel P. Greene, Esq., CIPP/US, CIPP/E

At the heart of what we do as incident response privacy practitioners is data breach prevention.  My 2021 prediction for the privacy landscape is an expansion in the use of multi-factor authentication. This is great news for incident response because, often, multi-factor authentication is an important step in helping to avoid a data incident and protect the privacy of data.

Multi-factor authentication is when a user identifies themself through biometrics, like a facial or fingerprint scan, or though entering a code on a device to confirm access to sensitive spaces, like a bank account or work network. It helps in avoiding unauthorized access and we expect to see this technology used in new spaces in 2021, such as when using an ATM or checking out at a grocery store.

We also anticipate an expansion in the use of biometrics over device authentication. There have been numerous documented incidents where device authentication has backfired. A famous example occurred in 2019 when attackers were able to gain access to Twitter CEO Jeff Dorsey’s account using a SIM card swap scheme. Because biometric identifiers are much more difficult to change or duplicate, using a facial scan or fingerprint is a much more secure method of confirming a user’s identity. And while this brings up a host of other issues about safeguarding biometric information, I think we can expect to see it used a lot more soon.

Watch Dan’s video prediction here.


Government Investigations – Michael L. McCabe, Esq., CCEP

In 2021, I expect to see increased enforcement of privacy and data security laws and regulations at both the federal and state level. Considering new leadership in Washington D.C. and the looming impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, I predict not just an uptick in enforcement, but also a more muscular approach by regulators.  More enforcement actions are expected, a further reminder for companies to work with experienced tech privacy and security legal counsel to minimize legal and technical risk.

At the federal level, look for enhanced enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). On the state level, I anticipate a similar response by state attorneys general outside of Washington.   

In 2020, we saw a major uptick in cyber-attacks, due in part to companies having to quickly adopt policies for a distributed workforce.  There were also numerous COVID-related phishing attempts. These developments have resulted in a record number of data security incidents. Therefore, I expect the focus of these enforcement actions to be not just on privacy compliance, but also on effective data security and incident response.  

Watch Mike’s video prediction here.


Privacy Compliance – Kara L. Hilburger, Esq., CIPP-US

My prediction for the privacy compliance area in 2021 is the increased focus on consumer privacy rights. With California’s comprehensive privacy law, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), now one year old, there is increase awareness and attention to data subject rights.  With a myriad of other states entertaining statutes similar to the CCPA, I anticipate a host of plaintiff related lawsuits filed under these statutes’ privacy right of action provisions. The result is that business operating in this highly global, multi-jurisdictional environment will need to continue to work towards building out robust and scalable data security and privacy infrastructures that take into account not only the GDPR and CCPA but other emerging laws. For example, updating forward-facing website disclosure policies and user agreements will be paramount here to be sure they comply with the required disclosures.

Relatedly, my second prediction as that we will continue to see an uptick in litigation filed under the Americans with Disabilities Act and frankly no end is in sight.  Businesses are continuing to educate themselves on the legal standards necessary for building and maintaining an accessible website.  We also anticipate much in the way of legislation or increase DOJ involvement in this area under the new administration.

Watch Kara’s video prediction here.


Health Law – Allison K. Prout, Esq., Cert. AWS Cloud Practitioner

With so much of our everyday lives moving online in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, we have seen a large uptick in data breaches caused by third-party vendors and service providers. And when it comes to the healthcare industry, I anticipate a continued increase in incidents that originate with business associates and other vendors providing services to covered entities. 

 In fact, about 40% of HIPAA breaches involve or are caused by business associates. With a new administration that’s likely to favor regulatory action, we expect to see regulatory authorities continue to enforce actions against covered entities whose business associates or service providers experience breaches. 

So what does this mean for the industry?  We expect to see covered entities taking a much closer look at who they are working with—and whether those parties have robust security and privacy protocols. For this reason, business associates may need to prepare accordingly. Whether you are a covered entity or a business associate, now is the time to dust off vendor due diligence and monitoring policies and procedures. It’s also a good idea to take a closer look at those service agreements and business associate agreements to make sure your service providers are making the right security commitments—and assuming responsibility—when there’s a breach.

Watch Allie’s video prediction here.


Global Data Privacy – Jordan L. Fischer, Esq. CIPP/US, CIPP/E, CIPM

My first prediction for the global data privacy space in 2021 is the creation and evolution of additional data privacy regulations across the globe. The so-called “GDPR Effect” has been pushing data privacy trends across the globe, and we expect to this to continue as more regions and countries adopt legislation mimicking parts of the GDPR, putting their own unique twist on data privacy, or modernizing their existing data privacy regulations to make them more compatible with the GDPR and other global privacy regimes.

My second prediction is a major emphasis on cross-border data transfers. The 2020 Schrems II decision invalidated the EU-US Privacy Shield for sending data from Europe to the United States. This decision was focused on data transfers between the United States and the European Union, but it also highlights a challenge we are continuing to see in international law – while these privacy regulations see borders, the digital realm does not.  Thus, it is increasingly hard to segment data and maintain it within a specific region. This year, I anticipate a lot of tension between regions that approach privacy and security from various perspectives that don’t always align. This presents a challenge for businesses to continue to operate efficiently while minimizing risk and dealing with multiple global privacy and security regulations.

Regardless of the specific trends we expect to see this year, one thing is certain – the global data privacy landscape will continue to change rapidly, creating a fascinating environment for data privacy and security lawyers to practice in.  I am very excited to be a part of such a dynamic team that will continue to provide services to our clients in this space.

Watch Jordan’s video prediction here.


Key Takeaways

Today, as well as every other day of the year, we hope you take some time to reflect on data privacy and security and the ways you can better protect your personal or business’ private information. The Beckage team is passionate about to educating the masses on the importance of data security, the consumer privacy rights and the impact on businesses, and the steps you can take safeguard your information. We are committed to providing updates on relevant legislation, current threats, and proactive data security steps. Be sure to follow us on LinkedIn, read our blog, and subscribe to our newsletter to stay up to date on the latest in this ever-changing space. Happy Data Privacy Day!

*Attorney advertising – prior results do not guarantee future outcomes.

1 2 3 10