InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
New Hampshire enacts SB 255, a comprehensive consumer privacy bill
Recently, the Governor of New Hampshire signed SB 255 (the “Act”) making New Hampshire the 14th state to enact a comprehensive consumer privacy bill. The Act will apply to entities that engage in commercial activities within New Hampshire or target New Hampshire consumers for their products or services and that during a one-year period either: (i) control or process data of 35,000 New Hampshire consumers (except solely for purposes of completing a payment transaction); or (ii) control or process data of 10,000 New Hampshire consumers and derive more than 25 percent of their revenue from selling the data. Exemptions include entities or data subject to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act’s Title V, non-profit organizations, and higher education institutions. The legislation will also exempt specific types of data, such as health information that is protected under HIPAA or data subject to the FCRA. The definition of consumer is limited to an individual residing in New Hampshire and excludes both employee and business-to-business (B2B) data.
The Act will define new terms, such as "sensitive data” which could mean “personal data that includes data revealing racial or ethnic origin, religious beliefs, mental or physical health condition or diagnosis, sex life, sexual orientation or citizenship or immigration status.” “Sensitive data” also includes genetic or biometric information, data on children, and precise location details. New Hampshire will now mandate that companies obtain explicit consent from consumers before processing sensitive data.
The Act also granted consumers the following rights: the right to know, the right to correct, the right to delete, the right to opt out of the processing of their personal data for targeted advertising, sales, or profiling of the consumer in furtherance of solely automated decisions that produce legal effects or other effects of similar significance, and the right to data portability. Consumers will also be protected against discrimination for exercising any of the above rights.
The Act contained controller responsibilities, including:
- Limiting the collection of personal data to what is adequate, relevant and reasonably necessary;
- not processing personal data for purposes that are neither reasonably necessary to, nor compatible with, the disclosed purposes that were disclosed to the consumer, unless the controller obtains the consumer's consent;
- Establishing, implementing and maintaining reasonable administrative, technical and physical data security practices to protect the confidentiality, integrity and accessibility of personal data;
- Not processing sensitive data concerning a consumer without obtaining the consumer's consent, or, in the case of the processing of sensitive data concerning a known child, without processing such data in accordance with COPPA;
- Providing an effective mechanism for a consumer to revoke the consumer's consent that is at least as easy as the mechanism by which the consumer provided the consumer's consent and, upon revocation of such consent, ceasing to process the data as soon as practicable, but not later than 15 days after the receipt of such request; and
- Not processing the personal data of a consumer for purposes of targeted advertising, or selling the consumer's personal data without the consumer's consent, under circumstances where a controller has actual knowledge, and willfully disregards, that the consumer is at least 13 years of age but younger than 16 years of age.
The controller also must provide a privacy notice meeting the standards set forth by the Secretary of State. Controllers must conduct data protection assessments for each processing activity that presents a heightened risk of harm to a consumer, including: (i) the processing of personal data for the purpose of targeted advertising; (ii) the sale of personal data; (iii) the processing of sensitive data; and (iv) the processing of personal data for profiling, where profiling presents a reasonably foreseeable risk of unfair or deceptive treatment of consumers, unlawful disparate impact, or undue intrusion upon solitude or seclusion.
The attorney general has exclusive authority to enforce the Act. Between January 1, 2025, and December 31, 2025, the attorney general is required to provide notice of an alleged violation and an accompanying 60-day cure period before commencing an enforcement action. Beginning January 1, 2026, the attorney general has the discretion to provide an opportunity to cure but is not required to provide such an opportunity. The Act does not include a private right of action. The Act will take effect on January 1, 2025.
Utah enshrines two acts to create cybersecurity notification guidelines
On March 19, Utah enacted SB 98 which amended the state’s online data security and privacy requirements. SB 98 will include new protocols that individuals and governmental entities must follow under its data breach reporting requirements. SB 98 will require individuals and governmental entities to provide specific information about the breach, including, among other things: (i) when the data breach occurred; (ii) when the data breach was discovered; (iii) the total number of individuals affected by the breach, with a separate count for Utah residents; (iv) the type of personal data involved; (v) a brief description of the data breach; and only for government entities (vi) the path of means by which access was granted to the system if known; (vii) the individual or entity who perpetrated the breach if known; and (viii) the actions taken by the governmental entity to mitigate the effects of the breach. Additionally, the Cyber Center will be tasked with assisting the governmental entity in responding to breaches. This assistance may include: (a) conducting or participating in an internal investigation; (b) assisting law enforcement with their investigation if necessary; (c) determining the scope of the data breach; (d) helping the entity to restore the integrity of the compromised system; and (e) providing any other necessary support in response to the breach.
On that same day, the governor also signed into law HB 491 which enacted the Government Data Privacy Act. Similarly, the bill will describe the duties of state government agencies related to personal data privacy, including breach notification requirements, limits on data collection and use, and the ability to correct and access personal data. On structure, the bill created the Utah Privacy Governing Board to recommend changes in the state privacy policy, established the Office of Data Privacy to coordinate implementation of privacy protections, and named the Personal Privacy Oversight Commission to the Utah Privacy Commission and amended the commission’s duties. Both SB 98 and HB 491 will go into effect on May 1.
EU Parliament becomes first to enact binding law on artificial intelligence
On March 13, the European Parliament of the European Union voted into law the world’s first binding law on artificial intelligence (AI) titled “Laying Down Harmonised Rules on Artificial Intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act)” to put forth a flexible coordinated approach regarding the “human and ethical” implications of AI. The stated objectives of this new regulation comprise ensuring that AI systems are safe and respecting the existing laws that protect the fundamental rights of citizens. Further, the act will aim to make sure AI investments are legally sound, enforce AI laws effectively, and develop a single market for AI applications. The European Parliament stated its legal basis for this law is through Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
Following 89 preambles, the law’s Title I sets forth general subject matters: the law will set “harmonised rules” for the market as it will implement more AI systems; it prohibited certain AI systems; created specific requirements for “high-risk” AI systems; created transparency rules regarding emotion-recognition or biometric systems; and created rules on marketing surveillance. Title II prohibited AI practices and Title III covered “high-risk” AI systems. Prohibited AI systems include distorting someone’s behavior or vulnerabilities, evaluating trustworthiness with possibly a social score, or using “real-time” remote biometric identification systems for law enforcement (unless searching for either victims of a crime or missing children, among others). Title III on “high-risk” AI systems defined “high-risk” systems as those that pose fundamental risks to the rights of individuals, specifically to the health and safety of a citizen, among others.
New Hampshire enshrines a new consumer privacy law
On March 6, the Governor of New Hampshire, Chris Sununu, signed into law a sweeping consumer privacy bill. Under the act, consumers will have the right to confirm if a controller (an individual who controls personal data) is processing their personal data, a right to access that data, as well as correct inaccuracies, obtain a copy, delete, and opt-out of the processing of the data for targeted advertising purposes. The act also imposed limits on collectors, including that a controller shall (i) limit the collection of data to only what is adequate, relevant, and reasonably necessary for the intended purpose; (ii) establish and maintain administrative security practices to protect the confidentiality of consumer personal data; (iii) not process sensitive data without obtaining the consumer’s consent or, if the data concerns a known child, process the data in accordance with COPPA; (iv) provide an easy means for consumers to revoke consent; and (v) not process personal data for targeted advertising purposes without consumer consent. The bill further outlined a processor’s responsibilities and required controllers to conduct a data protection assessment for each action that may present a risk of harm to a consumer. The act will go into effect on January 1, 2025.
House Committee report finds broad financial surveillance by federal government using financial institutions data following January 6th events
On March 5, the Committee on the Judiciary and its Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government released an interim staff report on how federal law enforcement agencies, in the wake of the events of January 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol, engaged in financial surveillance by encouraging financial institutions to provide data on private transactions of consumers without a nexus to criminal conduct. The report indicated the consumers particularly targeted were those who tend to hold “conservative viewpoints.” The report cited several whistleblower testimonies and provided email transcripts of the government agents’ requests. One institution allegedly acted “voluntarily and without legal process” and provided the FBI with a dataset of names of those who used that institution’s credit or debit card in the Washington, D.C. region between January 5 and January 7, 2021, but also included those who had ever used that institution’s debit or credit card to purchase a firearm. The report suggested that citizens who did nothing other than go “shopping or exerciz[e] their Second Amendment rights” were placed under a type of financial surveillance between their financial institution and the government, making specific mention of right-leaning individuals now at risk.
The report provided context with the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978, Section 314(a) of the USA Patriot Act, and the Bank Secrecy Act in mind. While these federal acts were created to protect citizens, the report alleged they “have failed to adequately protect American’s financial information.” The report was particularly critical of the federal government using “informal meetings and backchannel discussions” with financial institutions to devise the best methods for getting Americans’ private financial information, including using merchant category codes and politicized “search terms,” and the federal government disseminating “political materials” to such institutions that were allegedly “hostile” to conservative viewpoints and “treated lawful transactions as suspicious.”
NIST releases cybersecurity framework 2.0 with tailored guidance
On February 26, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) finalized its Cybersecurity Framework (CSF), a document on guidance for reducing cybersecurity risk. After releasing the draft proposal last August for Cybersecurity Framework Version 2.0 which was updated to help organizations understand and reduce cybersecurity risks (covered by InfoBytes here), and considering public comments, NIST “expanded the CSF’s core guidance and developed related resources to provide different audiences with tailored pathways into the CSF and make the framework easier to put into action.”
According to NIST’s press release, the revised framework acknowledges that organizations will approach the CSF with different requirements and levels of proficiency in cybersecurity tool implementation. Novice users would benefit from the experiences of others and choose relevant implementation examples and quick-start guides tailored for specific user categories, including small businesses, enterprise risk managers, and organizations focused on securing supply chains. “NIST plans to continue enhancing its resources and making the CSF an even more helpful resource to a broader set of users… and feedback from the community will be crucial.”
FCC partners with two U.K. regulators in combating privacy issues and protecting consumer data
Recently, the FCC announced (here and here) that it has partnered with two U.K. communications regulatory agencies to address issues regarding privacy and data protection in telecommunications. The FCC announced two separate statements because the two U.K. regulators perform different duties: the first announcement is with the U.K. Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), which regulates data protection and information rights; the second is with the U.K.’s Office of Communications (OFCOM) which regulates telecommunications. Both announcements highlighted a strengthening of resources and networks to protect consumers on an international scale, given the large amounts of data shared via international telecom carriers.
The FCC’s announcement with ICO explained that the partnership would be focused on combatting robocall and robotext efforts, as well as finding means to better protect consumer privacy and data concerns. In the FCC’s announcement with the OFCOM, the U.S. regulator announced a new collaboration to combat illegal robocalls and robotexts given the two countries’ shared interest in investigating networking abuses. The FCC elaborated on its desire to bolster requirements for gateway providers: this is the “on-ramp” for international internet traffic into U.S. networks.
White House orders DOJ and CFPB to better protect citizens’ sensitive personal data
On March 1, the White House released Executive Order 14117 (E.O.) titled “Preventing Access to Americans’ Bulk Sensitive Personal Data and United States Government-Related Data by Countries of Concern” to issue safeguards against Americans’ private information. The E.O. was preceded by the White House’s Fact Sheet which included provisions to protect Americans’ data on their genomic and biometric information, personal health, geolocation, finances, among others. The E.O. shared how this data can be used by nefarious actors such as foreign intelligence services or companies and could enable privacy violations. Under the E.O., President Biden ordered several agencies to act but primarily called on the DOJ. The president directed the DOJ to issue regulations on protecting Americans’ data from being exploited by certain countries. The White House also directed the DOJ to issue regulations to protect government-related data, specifically citing protections for geolocation information and information about military members. Lastly, the DOJ was directed to work with DHS to prevent certain countries’ access to citizens’ data through commercial means and the CFPB was encouraged to “[take] steps, consistent with CFPB’s existing legal authorities, to protect Americans from data brokers that are illegally assembling and selling extremely sensitive data, including that of U.S. military personnel.”
A few days before, the DOJ released its fact sheet detailing its proposals to implement the White House’s E.O., focusing on national security risks and data security. The fact sheet highlighted that our current laws leave open lawful access to vast amounts of Americans’ sensitive personal data that may be purchased and accessed through commercial relationships. In response to the E.O., the DOJ plans to release future regulations “addressing transactions that involve [Americans’] bulk sensitive data” that pose a risk of access by countries of concern. The countries of concern include China (including Hong Kong and Macau), Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela. The DOJ will also release its Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) to provide details of the proposal(s) and to solicit comments.
FCC’s Rosenworcel relaunches Consumer Advisory Committee; focuses on AI consumer issues
On February 20, the Chairwoman of the FCC, Jessica Rosenworcel, announced that the FCC will relaunch the Consumer Advisory Committee (CAC). The CAC will focus on how emerging artificial intelligence (AI) technologies implicate consumers’ privacies and protections, such as how the FCC can better protect consumers against “unwanted and illegal” calls, among other things. The CAC is a committee with 28 members comprising companies, non-profit entities, trade organizations, and individuals; a full list of members is found here. The first meeting is on April 4, at 10:30 a.m., Eastern Time, and will be open to the public via a live broadcast.
California Attorney General settles with food delivery company for allegedly violating two state privacy acts
On February 21, the California State Attorney General Office announced its complaint against a food delivery company for allegedly violating the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) and the California Online Privacy Protection Act of 2003 (CalOPPA) for failing to provide consumers notice or an opportunity to opt-out of the sale.
The CCPA requires businesses that sell personal information to make specific disclosures and give consumers the right to opt out of the sale. Under the CCPA, a company must disclose a privacy policy and post an “easy-to-find ‘Do Not Sell My Personal Information’ link.” The California AG alleged that the company provided neither notice. The AG also alleged that the company violated CalOPPA by not making required privacy policy disclosures. The company’s existing disclosures indicated that the company could only use customer data to present someone with advertisements, but not give that information to other businesses to use.
The proposed stipulated judgment, if approved by a court, will require the company to pay a $375,000 civil money penalty, and to (i) comply with CCPA and CalOPPA requirements; (ii) review contracts with vendors to evaluate how the company is sharing personal information; and (iii) provide annual reports to the AG on potential sales or sharing personal information.