Lock on Computer

Public companies may soon have another regulation to worry about when it comes to their cybersecurity regime.  Last week, citing the increase in cybersecurity incidents and the need for investors to be informed about cybersecurity risks in a timely matter, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposed amendments to its rules that demand more of registrants when it comes to cybersecurity disclosures.

Continue Reading SEC Proposes Mandatory Cybersecurity Disclosures

Lock on Computer

On February 9, 2022, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) issued proposed rules 206(4)-9 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (Advisers Act) and 38a-2 under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (Investment Company Act) (such rules collectively referred to as the ‘cybersecurity risk management rules’), to require investment advisers registered under the Advisers Act (advisers) and registered investment companies under the Investment Company Act (funds) to adopt and implement significant new written cybersecurity policies and procedures. At a high level, the proposed rules would require annual reviews, add new disclosure requirements, and add new SEC and investor reporting requirements, among other requirements.
Continue Reading SEC Proposes New Cybersecurity Rules for Investment Advisers and Investment Companies

FingerprintIn yet another blow to employers facing claims under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA” or the “Act”) (740 ILCS 14/1 et seq.), the Illinois Supreme Court held that the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act (“IWCA”) (820 ILCS 305/1 et seq.) does not preempt BIPA claims for statutory damages brought by employees.  The Court’s holding in McDonald v. Symphony Bronzeville Park, LLC, et al. awas not unexpected by most BIPA practitioners, and will likely trigger the resumption of many dozens of BIPA workplace lawsuits which were stayed while the Illinois justices considered the case.
Continue Reading Illinois Supreme Court Eliminates Another BIPA Defense

Phone and gavelThanks to the Supreme Court’s decision in Facebook v. Duguid, 141 S. Ct. 1163 (2021), 2021 will go down as one of the most significant years in the history of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (“TCPA”).  And while the second half of 2021 did not produce the fireworks that we saw earlier in the year, there are still some cases worthy of note as we enter the new year.  We summarize here developments since our last update, listed by issue category in alphabetical order.
Continue Reading TCPA Turnstile: 2021 came in like a lion, and went out more like a lamb for TCPA law (TCPA Case Update Vol. 16)

The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow last week to litigants—both criminal and civil—who have attempted to use the “exceeds authorized access” provision of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA” or “Act”), 18 U.S.C. § 1030, to hold former employees, competitors and others accountable for inappropriately utilizing electronic information.  In its 6-3 decision in Van Buren v. United States, the Court resolved a long-standing split on the scope of Section 1030(a)(2), providing a narrow answer to the question of whether an individual “exceeds authorized access” to electronic information in violation of the CFAA if he or she is authorized to access the information but does so for an improper purpose.  The holding will make it more difficult for prosecutors and civil litigants to wield the CFAA in some scenarios where data is misused, but not necessarily stolen.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Slashes CFAA Claims Involving Authorized Access for an Illicit Purpose

Welcome back to Vedder Price’s BIPA Bellwether series. As with our TCPA Turnstile, we intend for the BIPA Bellwether to serve as a periodic report on latest developments.

Last week, the Southern District of Illinois decided to dismiss the lawsuit in Barton v. Swan Surfaces LLC, No. 20-CV-499-SPM, 2021 WL 793983 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 2, 2021). In doing so, the Southern District joined the U.S. Northern District’s trend of finding claims brought under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), 740 ILCS 14 et seq., to be preempted by the federal Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 185, when interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement is required. This growing trend suggests that Illinois federal courts are beginning to rein in the cottage industry among class action attorneys that BIPA has sparked.

Continue Reading BIPA Bellwether: New U.S. Southern District of Illinois Decision Holds Labor Management Relations Act Preempts Employee BIPA Claims

Business man on laptopLast month, the California Attorney General approved the final set of regulations interpreting the requirements of the California Consumer Privacy Act (Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1798.100 et seq.) (the “CCPA”).

What does it include?

The final CCPA regulations include a number of points of clarification such as what it means to provide “notice at collection,” the methods to provide a consumer with access to a business’s privacy policy and what content is required to be disclosed in that privacy policy, and the methods by which a company must provide consumers with a right to opt out from the sale of their personal information.
Continue Reading What do the final CCPA regulations mean for you?

“Should we do a Zoom?” It has taken little more than a month for the Zoom video conference platform to take its place among the likes of Google, Kleenex and Xerox as brand names synonymous with the product or service being offered. But with that name recognition comes scrutiny, and Zoom is getting plenty. The privacy and security issues associated with Zoom have been well-documented. As a result, Zoom is now facing class action lawsuits from both shareholders and users. And the use of Zoom (and other platforms) can raise ethics issues for lawyers.

Continue Reading Zooming into New Privacy Issues

Match stick DeskJust when you thought it was safe to open your e-mail again without being inundated with updated privacy policies, here comes the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”).  The new law, which goes into effect on January 1, 2020, will expand the privacy rights of California residents and bring some of the EU’s widely discussed General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) to the United States.  There will be lots to talk about over the next year and a half as companies gear up for compliance, but here are some key features to be aware of:

Continue Reading California and GDPR “light”: A Match Made in Plaintiffs’ Lawyers’ Heaven?