On April 24, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it had finalized changes to its Health Breach Notification Rule - to address emerging technologies.

Specifically, the Rule was broadened to (1) apply to entities not currently subject to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, (2) clarify what a breach of security is, (3) expand notification methods, (4) impose additional requirements for the content of notifications, and (5) amend the timeframe for issuing required notifications to the FTC.

Businesses continue to be subjected to a steady stream of consumer class action lawsuits alleging improper collection or disclosure of information from their websites. A variety of laws and legal claims are used to support the suits. Some lawsuits assert violation of laws that are not particularly cutting edge, such as the Video Privacy Protection Act, or cite to non-disclosed use of more modern technology such as tracking pixels. In many of the lawsuits, both types of claims are asserted.  

Laura Balson in our Chicago office recently discussed an amendment to the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. At that time, the Illinois House and Senate had passed an amendment to Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, or “BIPA,” which was awaiting the signature of Gov, J.B. Pritzker (D). The amendment has now been signed and must be a consideration in BIPA litigation and in the use of biometric data.

Most significantly, the amendment specifies that an individual is limited to one recovery, even if there were multiple scans that violated the Act. This is good news for businesses.

Minnesota has become the 18th state to enact a comprehensive consumer privacy law. On May 24, Gov. Tim Walz (D) signed the Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act into law to provide privacy rights to Minnesotans and to impose new requirements on businesses and organizations handling personal data. For most covered entities, the law will go into effect on July 31, 2025.

Effective May 24, 2024, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) has introduced a new online PIPEDA breach reporting form for federal institutions and businesses subject to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA).

The past couple of years have seen a number of states enact comprehensive privacy laws. Thus far, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Utah, and Virginia have enacted state privacy laws. In July, we will see three new privacy laws take effect in Texas, Oregon, and Florida. A privacy law in Montana will become effective on October 1.

The State of Utah recently amended its general data breach notification statute to update the content that must be reported to the Utah Attorney General or the Utah Cyber Center. The amendments also clarify when notifications can be considered confidential or classified under the state’s public records law.

On April 17, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D) signed into law a bill that will extend privacy rights to individuals’ neural data. Although certain states have enacted privacy laws that include protection of sensitive and biometric data, Colorado’s law is the first that explicitly addresses neural data.

On April 6, the Maryland legislature passed the Maryland Online Data Privacy Act of 2024, sending the bill to the state’s governor for signing.  The bill comes on the heels of the Kentucky Consumer Data Protection Act, which was signed into law on April 4.  If the Act is signed into law, it will bring the number of states with comprehensive privacy laws to 16.

On March 20, the U.S. House of Representatives passed House Resolution 7520, the Protecting Americans’ Data from Foreign Adversaries Act of 2024, targeting companies that sell sensitive information to “foreign adversaries.”  H.R. 7520 comes on the heels of two other major developments. First, House Resolution 7521 would require TikTok to divest from its Chinese parent company. Second, President Biden’s Executive Order 14117, requires, among other things, that the Attorney General make rules restricting data brokers from selling bulk sensitive personal data to “countries of concern.” The two resolutions and the E.O. are part of a growing, bipartisan trend to restrict access to sensitive information by foreign adversaries.