Our latest briefing dives into the public launch of the NIST’s long-awaited AI Risk Management Framework, the EEOC’s new plan to tackle AI-based discrimination in recruitment and hiring, and the New York Department of Financial Services’ endeavor to better understand the potential benefits and risks of AI and machine learning in the life insurance industry.
Continue reading “Artificial Intelligence Briefing: NIST Releases AI Risk Management Framework and Playbook”
In this edition of Faegre Drinker’s State Attorneys General Update, we discuss:
Arizona AG Enters $85 Million Settlement With Google for Alleged Improper Use of Consumer Location Data
Google agreed to an $85 million settlement for alleged violations of Arizona’s Consumer Fraud Act. Specifically, the Arizona AG alleged that Google violated the Act by building “coercive design tactics used to manipulate users’ behavior,” known as “dark patterns,” into its Android phone software. In this instance, the AG alleged that Google created misleading settings, so even if a consumer turned off location tracking in the “Location History” menu, location data would still be tracked and used to sell advertisements through other settings — specifically, the “Web & App Activity” menu.
Continue reading “State AG Updates: Arizona, Texas, California, North Carolina, Washington, New York and an AG Coalition”
Our latest briefing explores the recent FTC commercial surveillance and data security forum (including discussion on widespread use of AI and algorithms in advertising), California’s inquiry into potentially discriminatory health care algorithms, and the recent California Department of Insurance workshop that could shape future rulemaking regarding the industry’s use of artificial intelligence, machine learning and algorithms.
Continue reading “Artificial Intelligence Briefing: FTC Holds Forum on Commercial Surveillance and Data Security”
A bipartisan group of legislators in Washington, D.C., recently released a discussion draft of a federal privacy bill — the American Data Privacy and Protection Act (ADPPA). This draft bill reaches compromise positions on two key issues that have been the largest obstacles to passing such legislation: state preemption and a private right of action. This discussion draft preempts most comprehensive state privacy laws and includes a narrow and limited private right of action. The compromises on these issues in the bill, however, are likely to draw criticism from both Democrats and Republicans, along with industry and privacy advocates.
Continue reading “Progress on Federal Privacy Legislation, but Still a Long Way to Go”
On April 26, 2021, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals decided the case of McMorris v. Carlos Lopez & Assocs., No. 19-4310, 2021 WL 1603808 (2d Cir. Apr. 26, 2021) and addressed one of the most critical issues in private data breach class actions – whether victims of a data breach can establish Article III standing by alleging they are at an increased risk of identity theft or fraud, even if their personal data has not yet been misused.
Although the district court’s ruling that plaintiffs did not establish standing was upheld, the Second Circuit found that victims of a data breach can establish standing based on a risk of future identity theft or fraud. The court also put forward a three-factor test to determine if standing exists when misuse of plaintiffs’ data has not yet occurred.
Continue reading “Second Circuit Addresses Critical Issue in Data Breach Class Actions: Article III Standing Based on Allegations of Future Misuse of Personal Data”
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (the “Court”) vacated a $4,348,000 civil monetary penalty (“CMP”) imposed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (“HHS-OCR”) in 2017 against the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center (“MD Anderson”) for alleged violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) Privacy Rule and HIPAA Security Rule. The Court held that OCR’s actions were “arbitrary, capricious, and otherwise unlawful” and remanded the case for further proceedings. While the case is not binding precedent outside the Fifth Circuit, MD Anderson is the first HIPAA Covered Entity to appeal its fine to a Circuit Court since the HIPAA Privacy Rule and the HIPAA Security Rule took effect. The ruling likely will motivate future HIPAA settlement negotiations with HHS-OCR and encourage HIPAA Covered Entities to appeal enforcement outcomes they consider unreasonable.
Continue reading “Fifth Circuit Decision Motivates Covered Entities to Appeal Unreasonable Enforcement Outcomes”