Home - Blank Rome LLP

Register to receive insights and analyses on breaking news and trends across varying industries.
<a class="link-primary mt-4" href="/subscribe">Subscribe</a>

Philadelphia, PA

New York, NY

Wilmington, DE

Cincinnati, OH

Princeton, NJ

Los Angeles, CA

Houston, TX

Tampa, FL

Shanghai

South Florida

Pittsburgh, PA

Washington, D.C.

Chicago, IL

Orange County, CA

Dallas, TX

Boston, MA

Welcome to this month’s issue of The BR Privacy &amp; Security Download, the digital newsletter of Blank Rome’s Privacy, Security, &amp; Data Protection practice. We invite you to share this resource with your colleagues and visit Blank Rome’s Privacy, Security, &amp; Data Protection <a href="/services-and-industries/privacy-security-data-protection/" id="18538" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">webpage</a> for more information about our <a href="/services-and-industries/privacy-security-data-protection/#team" id="18538" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">team</a>.

core/paragraph

core/separator

core/heading

<a href="/news-and-events/healthcare-and-the-new-trump-administration-navigating-the-evolving-regulatory-landscape-client-advisory-strategies/" id="23273">Healthcare and the New Trump Administration: Navigating the Evolving Regulatory Landscape; Client Advisory Strategies</a>

Blank Rome partner <a href="/people/sharon-r-klein/" id="18955">Sharon R. Klein</a> served as faculty for the live 90-minute Strafford CLE webinar titled “Healthcare and the New Trump Administration: Navigating the Evolving Regulatory Landscape; Client Advisory Strategies,” which took place on Wednesday, February 5, 2025.

New York Legislature Passes Comprehensive Health Privacy Law: The New York state legislature passed&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S929">SB-929</a> (the “Bill”), providing for the protection of health information. The Bill broadly defines “regulated health information” as “any information that is reasonably linkable to an individual, or a device, and is collected or processed in connection with the physical or mental health of an individual.” Regulated health information includes location and payment information, as well as inferences derived from an individual’s physical or mental health. The term “individual” is not defined. Accordingly, the Bill contains no terms restricting its application to consumers acting in an individual or household context. The Bill would apply to regulated entities, which are entities that (1) are located in New York and control the processing of regulated health information, or (2) control the processing of regulated health information of New York residents or individuals physically present in New York. Among other things, the Bill would restrict regulated entities to processing regulated health information only with a valid authorization, or when strictly necessary for certain specified activities. The Bill also provides for individual rights and requires the implementation of reasonable administrative, physical, and technical safeguards to protect regulated health information. The Bill would take effect one year after being signed into law and currently awaits New York Governor Kathy Hochul’s signature.

New York Data Breach Notification Law Updated: Two bills,&nbsp;<a href="https://nyassembly.gov/leg/?default_fld=&amp;leg_video=&amp;bn=S02659&amp;term=2023&amp;Text=Y">SO2659</a> and&nbsp;<a href="https://nyassembly.gov/leg/?default_fld=%0D%0A&amp;leg_video=&amp;bn=S02376b&amp;term=2023&amp;Text=Y">SO2376</a>, that amended the state’s data breach notification law were signed into law by New York Governor Kathy Hochul. The bills change the timing requirement in which notice must be provided to New York residents, add data elements to the definition of “private information,” and adds the New York Department of Financial Services to the list of regulators that must be notified. Previously, New York’s data breach notification statute did not have a hard deadline within which notice must be provided. The amendments now require affected individuals to be notified no later than 30 days after discovery of the breach, except for delays arising from the legitimate needs of law enforcement. Additionally, as of March 25, 2025, “private information” subject to the law’s notification requirements will include medical information and health insurance information.

California AG Issues Legal Advisory on Application of California Law to AI: California’s Attorney General has&nbsp;<a href="https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/Final%20Legal%20Advisory%20-%20Application%20of%20Existing%20CA%20Laws%20to%20Artificial%20Intelligence%20in%20Healthcare.pdf">issued</a> legal advisories to clarify that existing state laws apply to AI development and use, emphasizing that California is not an AI “wild west.” These advisories cover consumer protection, civil rights, competition, data privacy, and election misinformation. AI systems, while beneficial, present risks such as bias, discrimination, and the spread of disinformation. Therefore, entities that develop or use AI must comply with all state, federal, and local laws. The advisories highlight key laws, including the Unfair Competition Law and the California Consumer Privacy Act. The advisories also highlight new laws effective on January 1, 2025, which include disclosure requirements for businesses, restrictions on the unauthorized use of likeness, and regulations for AI use in elections and healthcare. These advisories stress the importance of transparency and compliance to prevent harm from AI.

New Jersey AG Publishes Guidance on Algorithmic Discrimination:On January 9, 2025, New Jersey’s Attorney General and Division on Civil Rights&nbsp;<a href="https://www.njoag.gov/attorney-general-platkin-and-division-on-civil-rights-announce-new-guidance-on-algorithmic-discrimination-creation-of-civil-rights-innovation-lab/?mkt_tok=MTM4LUVaTS0wNDIAAAGX8FiLzdg4VhXpQctms-rRqjQY7tSYc5LNKC51xTVdi0P9SZw31BueUpRUVJliM7DFbJCmOaFuUClsmtaQfnUiMSJ9_vT7obvl8dpLTA9MMLkc">announced</a> a new civil rights and technology initiative to address the risks of discrimination and bias-based harassment in AI and other advanced technologies. The initiative includes the publication of a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nj.gov/oag/newsreleases25/2025-0108_DCR-Guidance-on-Algorithmic-Discrimination.pdf">Guidance Document</a>, which addresses the applicability of New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”) to automated decision-making tools and technologies. It focuses on the threats posed by automated decision-making technologies in the housing, employment, healthcare, and financial services contexts, emphasizing that the LAD applies to discrimination regardless of the technology at issue. Also included in the announcement is the launch of a new Civil Rights Innovation lab, which “will aim to leverage technology responsibly to advance [the Division’s] mission to prevent, address, and remedy discrimination.”&nbsp;The Lab will partner with experts and relevant industry stakeholders to identify and develop technology to enhance the Division’s enforcement, outreach, and public education work, and will develop protocols to facilitate the responsible deployment of AI and related decision-making technology. This initiative, along with the recently effective New Jersey Data Protection Act, shows a significantly increased focus from the New Jersey Attorney General on issues relating to data privacy and automated decision-making technologies.

New Jersey Publishes Comprehensive Privacy Law FAQs:&nbsp;The New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs Cyber Fraud Unit (“Division”) published <a href="https://www.njconsumeraffairs.gov/ocp/Pages/NJ-Data-Privacy-Law-FAQ.aspx">FAQs</a> that provide a general summary of the New Jersey Data Privacy Law (“NJDPL”), including its scope, key definitions, consumer rights, and enforcement. The NJDPL took effect on January 15, 2025, and the FAQs state that controllers subject to the NJDPL are expected to comply by such date. However, the FAQs also emphasize that until July 1, 2026, the Division will provide notice and a 30-day cure period for potential violations. The FAQs also suggest that the Division may adopt a stricter approach to minors’ privacy. While the text of the NJDPL requires consent for processing the personal data of consumers between the ages of 13 and 16 for purposes of targeted advertising, sale, and profiling, the FAQs state that when a controller knows or willfully disregards that a consumer is between the ages of 13 and 16, consent is required to process their personal data more generally.

CPPA Extends Formal Comment Period for Automated Decision-Making Technology Regulations:&nbsp;The California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA”)&nbsp;<a href="https://cppa.ca.gov/announcements/2025/20250116.html">extended</a> the public comment period for its proposed regulations on cybersecurity audits, risk assessments, automated decision-making technology (“ADMT”), and insurance companies under the California Privacy Rights Act. The public comment period opened on November 22, 2024, and was set to close on January 14, 2025. However, due to the wildfires in Southern California, the public comment period was extended to February 19, 2025. The CPPA will also be holding a public hearing on that date for interested parties to present oral and written statements or arguments regarding the proposed regulations.

Oregon DOJ Publishes Toolkit for Consumer Privacy Rights: The Oregon Department of Justice&nbsp;<a href="https://www.doj.state.or.us/media-home/news-media-releases/take-action-online-to-protect-your-privacy-rights/?mkt_tok=MTM4LUVaTS0wNDIAAAGYUk_-c3YHYEKW-5FYGrlHFjS-2uTFni632CIzYLaYKYgoaTrgVZ8zy0qOuwguFPVuDREpI7sFjfpkv94cfaNUWWhUEq_BotiqUa72MrO_wFCq">announced</a> the release of a new toolkit designed to help Oregonians protect their online information. The toolkit is designed to help families understand their rights under the Oregon Consumer Privacy Act. The Oregon DOJ reminded consumers how to submit complaints when businesses are not responsive to privacy rights requests. The Oregon DOJ also stated it has received 118 complaints since the Oregon Consumer Privacy Act took effect last July and had sent notices of violation to businesses that have been identified as non-compliant.

California, Colorado, and Connecticut AGs Remind Consumers of Opt-Out Rights: California Attorney General Rob Bonta published a&nbsp;<a href="https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/following-data-privacy-day-attorney-general-bonta-reminds-consumers-their-right?mkt_tok=MTM4LUVaTS0wNDIAAAGYV1iPRHkTef0C0Lc04L9g8TZwjZBVsIfKCICQn9_Svkt3xiqX2SNtFfLmvnVIUQnIhhrYa6o2TUu2FRToJaEXM0BzZCYJeMPbNgELfD5gushI">press release</a> reminding residents of their right to opt out of the sale and sharing of their personal information. The California Attorney General also cited the robust privacy protections of Colorado and Connecticut laws that provide for similar opt-out protections. The press release urged consumers to familiarize themselves with the Global Privacy Control (“GPC”), a browser setting or extension that automatically signals to businesses that they should not sell or share a consumer’s personal information, including for targeted advertising. The Attorney General also provided instructions for the use of the GPC and for exercising op-outs by visiting the websites of individual businesses.

FTC Finalizes Updates to COPPA Rule: The FTC&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/01/ftc-finalizes-changes-childrens-privacy-rule-limiting-companies-ability-monetize-kids-data">announced</a> the finalization of updates to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (the “Rule”). The updated Rule makes a number of changes, including requiring opt-in consent to engage in targeted advertising to children and to disclose children’s personal information to third parties. The Rule also adds biometric identifiers to the definition of personal information and prohibits operators from retaining children’s personal information for longer than necessary for the specific documented business purposes for which it was collected. Operators must maintain a written data retention policy that documents the business purpose for data retention and the retention period for data. The Commission voted 5-0 to adopt the Rule, but new FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson filed a separate statement describing “serious problems” with the rule. Ferguson specifically stated that it was unclear whether an entirely new consent would be required if an operator added a new third party with whom personal information would be shared, potentially creating a significant burden for businesses. The Rule will be effective 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register.

Trump Rescinds Biden’s Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence: President Donald Trump took&nbsp;<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/initial-rescissions-of-harmful-executive-orders-and-actions/">action</a> to rescind former President Biden’s Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence (“AI EO”). According to a Biden administration statement released in October, many action items from the AI EO have already been completed. Recommendations, reports, and opportunities for research that were completed prior to revocation of the AI EO may continue in place unless replaced by additional federal agency action. It remains unclear whether the Trump Administration will issue its own executive orders relating to AI.

U.S. Justice Department Issues Final Rule on Transfer of Sensitive Personal Data to Foreign Adversaries: The U.S. Justice Department&nbsp;<a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-issues-final-rule-addressing-threat-posed-foreign-adversaries-access?mkt_tok=MTM4LUVaTS0wNDIAAAGXxyZKpcy33Mzbe54aCUMsw_ASsWNuVMeCNFLxSO8eox-MLXdSDIHgXFukvhx6kCAz7vKwGBiof1x5A0VQal3jzcgTJEtMNK6AQ2qbBzahTL4G">issued</a> final regulations to implement a presidential Executive Order regarding access to bulk sensitive personal data of U.S. citizens by foreign adversaries. The regulations restrict transfers involving designated countries of concern – China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela. At a high level, transfers are restricted if they could result in bulk sensitive personal data access by a country of concern or a “covered person,” which is an entity that is majority-owned by a country of concern, organized under the laws of a country of concern, has its principle place of business in a country of concern, or is an individual whose primary residence is in a county of concern. Data covered by the regulation includes precise geolocation data, biometric identifiers, genetic data, health data, financial data, government-issued identification numbers, and certain other identifiers, including device or hardware-based identifiers, advertising identifiers, and demographic or contact data.

First Complaint Filed Under Protecting Americans’ Data from Foreign Adversaries Act: The Electronic Privacy Information Center (“EPIC”) and the Irish Counsel for Civil Liberties (“ICCL”) Enforce Unit filed the first-ever complaint under the Protecting Americans’ Data from Foreign Adversaries Act (“PADFAA”). PADFAA makes it unlawful for a data broker to sell, license, rent, trade, transfer, release, disclose, or otherwise make available specified personally identifiable sensitive data of individuals residing in the United States to North Korea, China, Russia, Iran, or an entity controlled by one of those countries. The complaint alleges that Google’s real-time bidding system data includes personally identifiable sensitive data, that Google executives were aware that data from its real-time bidding system may have been resold, and that Google’s public list of certified companies that receive real-time bidding bid request data include multiple companies based in foreign adversary countries.

FDA Issues Draft Guidance for AI-Enabled Device Software Functions: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) published its&nbsp;<a href="https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/artificial-intelligence-enabled-device-software-functions-lifecycle-management-and-marketing?mkt_tok=MTM4LUVaTS0wNDIAAAGX4Q9mYCDhlBkYbWpwPeiuZ_eGwrzhBdusVfmOZfAFbr9Hd5DRtuoopR1Vm_lLbeZ9kpkVLCHe_gClPGWVCJhDbqdFDv853hGRkbrTpUha1X4s">January 2025 Draft Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff</a> regarding AI-enabled device software functionality. The Draft provides recommendations regarding the contents of marketing submissions for AI-enabled medical devices, including documentation and information that will support the FDA’s evaluation of their safety and effectiveness. The Draft Guidance is designed to reflect a “comprehensive approach” to the management of devices through their total product life cycle and includes recommendations for the design, development, and implementation of AI-enabled devices. The FDA is accepting comments on the Draft Guidance, which may be&nbsp;<a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FDA-2024-D-4488/document">submitted online</a> until April 7, 2025.

Industry Coalition Pushes for Unified National Data Privacy Law: A coalition of over thirty industry groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, sent a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.uschamber.com/assets/documents/Coalition_PrivacyDay_SenateCommerceHouseEC_2025-01-28-143316_mbsb.pdf">letter</a> to Congress urging it to enact a comprehensive national data privacy law. The letter highlights the urgent need for a cohesive federal standard to replace the fragmented state laws that complicate compliance and stifle competition. The letter advocates for legislation based on principles to empower startups and small businesses by reducing costs and improving consumer access to services. The letter supports granting consumers the right to understand, correct, and delete their data, and to opt out of targeted advertising, while emphasizing transparency by requiring companies to disclose data practices and secure consent for processing sensitive information. It also focuses on the principles of limiting data collection to essential purposes and implementing robust security measures. While the principles aim to override strong state laws like that in California, the proposal notably excludes data broker regulation, a previous point of contention. The coalition cautions against legislation that could lead to frivolous litigation, advocating for balanced enforcement and collaborative compliance. By adhering to these principles, the industry groups seek to ensure legal certainty and promote responsible data use, benefiting both businesses and consumers.

Cyber Trust Mark Unveiled:The White House launched a labeling scheme for internet-of-things devices designed to inform consumers when devices meet certain government-determined cybersecurity standards. The program has been in development for several months and involves collaboration between the White House, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Federal Communications Commission. UL Solutions, a global safety and testing company headquartered in Illinois, has been selected as the lead administrator of the program along with 10 other firms as deputy administrators. With the main goal of helping consumers make more cyber-secure choices when purchasing products, the White House hopes to have products with the new cyber trust mark hit shelves before the end of 2025.

Texas Attorney General Sues Insurance Company for Unlawful Collection and Sharing of Driving Data: Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/press/Allstate%20and%20Arity%20Petition%20Filed.pdf">lawsuit</a> against Allstate and its data analytics subsidiary, Arity. The lawsuit alleges that Arity paid app developers to incorporate its software development kit that tracked location data from over 45 million consumers in the U.S. According to the lawsuit, Arity then shared that data with Allstate and other insurers, who would use the data to justify increasing car insurance premiums. The sale of precise geolocation data of Texans violated the Texas Data Privacy and Security Act (“TDPSA”) according to the Texas Attorney General. The TDPSA requires the companies to provide notice and obtain informed consent to use the sensitive data of Texas residents, which includes precise geolocation data. The Texas Attorney General sued General Motors in August of 2024, alleging similar practices relating to the collection and sale of driver data.&nbsp;

Eleventh Circuit Overturns FCC’s One-to-One Consent Rule, Upholds Broader Telemarketing Practices: In&nbsp;Insurance Marketing Coalition, Ltd. v. Federal Communications Commission, No. 24-10277, 2025 WL 289152 (11th Cir. Jan. 24, 2025),&nbsp;the Eleventh Circuit vacated the FCC’s one-to-one consent rule under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). The court found that the rule exceeded the FCC’s authority and conflicted with the statutory meaning of “prior express consent.” By requiring separate consent for each seller and topic-related call, the rule was deemed unnecessary. This decision allows businesses to continue using broader consent practices, maintaining shared consent agreements. The ruling emphasizes that consent should align with common-law principles rather than be restricted to a single entity. While the FCC’s next steps remain uncertain, the decision reduces compliance burdens and may challenge other TCPA regulations.

California Judge Blocks Enforcement of Social Media Addiction Law: The California Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act (the “Act”) has been temporarily blocked. The Act was set to take effect on January 1, 2025. The law aims to prevent social media platforms from using algorithms to provide addictive content to children. Judge Edward J. Davila initially declined to block key parts of the law but agreed to pause enforcement until February 1, 2025, to allow the Ninth Circuit to review the case. NetChoice, a tech trade group, is challenging the law on First Amendment grounds. NetChoice argues that restricting minors’ access to personalized feeds violates the First Amendment. The group has appealed to the Ninth Circuit and is seeking an injunction to prevent the law from taking effect. Judge Davila’s decision recognized the “novel, difficult, and important” constitutional issues presented by the case. The law includes provisions to restrict minors’ access to personalized feeds, limit their ability to view likes and other feedback, and restrict third-party interaction.

FTC Settles Enforcement Action Against General Motors for Sharing Geolocation and Driving Behavior Data Without Consent: The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”)&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/01/ftc-takes-action-against-general-motors-sharing-drivers-precise-location-driving-behavior-data">announced</a> a proposed order to settle FTC allegations against General Motors that it collected, used, and sold driver’s precise geolocation data and driving behavior information from millions of vehicles without adequately notifying consumers and obtaining their affirmative consent. The FTC specifically alleged General Motors used a misleading enrollment process to get consumers to sign up for its OnStar-connected vehicle service and Smart Driver feature without proper notice or consent during that process. The information was then sold to third parties, including consumer reporting agencies, according to the FTC. As part of the settlement, General Motors will be prohibited from disclosing driver data to consumer reporting agencies, required to allow consumers to obtain and delete their data, required to obtain consent prior to collection, and required to allow consumers to limit data collected from their vehicles.

FTC Releases Proposed Order Against GoDaddy for Alleged Data Security Failures:&nbsp;The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/01/ftc-takes-action-against-godaddy-alleged-lax-data-security-its-website-hosting-services">announced</a> it had reached a proposed settlement in its action against GoDaddy Inc. (“GoDaddy”) for failing to implement reasonable and appropriate security measures, which resulted in several major data breaches between 2019 and 2022. According to the FTC’s complaint, GoDaddy misled customers of its data security practices, through claims on its websites and in email and social media ads, and by representing it was in compliance with the EU-U.S. and Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield Frameworks. However, the FTC found that GoDaddy failed to inventory and manage assets and software updates, assess risks to its shared hosting services, adequately log and monitor security-related events, and segment its shared hosting from less secure environments. The FTC’s proposed order against GoDaddy prohibits GoDaddy from misleading its customers about its security practices and requires GoDaddy to implement a comprehensive information security program. GoDaddy must also hire a third-party assessor to conduct biennial reviews of its information security program.

CPPA Reaches Settlements with Additional Data Brokers: Following their&nbsp;<a href="https://www.blankrome.com/publications/br-privacy-security-download-november-2024">announcement</a>&nbsp;of a public investigative sweep of data broker registration compliance, the CPPA has settled with additional data brokers PayDae, Inc. d/b/a Infillion (“Infillion”), The Data Group, LLC (“The Data Group”), and Key Marketing Advantage, LLC (“KMA”) for failing to register as a data broker and pay an annual fee as required by California’s Delete Act. Infillion will pay $54,200 for failing to register between February 1, 2024, and November 4, 2024. The Data Group will pay $46,600 for failing to register between February 1, 2024, and September 20, 2024. KMA will pay $55,800 for failing to register between February 1, 2024, and November 5, 2024. In addition to the fines, the companies have agreed to injunctive terms. The Delete Act imposes fines of $200 per day for failing to register by the deadline.

Mortgage Company Fined by State Financial Regulators for Cybersecurity Breach: Bayview Asset Management LLC and three affiliates (collectively, “Bayview”) agreed to pay a $20 million fine and improve their cybersecurity programs to settle allegations from 53 state financial regulators. The Conference of State Bank Supervisors (“CSBS”) alleged that the mortgage companies had deficient cybersecurity practices and did not fully cooperate with regulators after a 2021 data breach. The data breach compromised data for 5.8 million customers. The coordinated enforcement action was led by financial regulators in California, Maryland, North Carolina, and Washington State. The regulators said the companies’ information technology and cybersecurity practices did not meet federal or state requirements. The firms also delayed the supervisory process by withholding requested information and providing redacted documents in the initial stages of a post-breach exam. The companies also agreed to undergo independent assessments and provide three years of additional reporting to the state regulators.

SEC Reaches Settlement over Misleading Cybersecurity Disclosures: The SEC&nbsp;<a href="https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26215">announced</a> it has settled charges with Ashford Inc., an asset management firm, over misleading disclosures related to a cybersecurity incident. This enforcement action stemmed from a ransomware attack in September 2023, compromising over 12 terabytes of sensitive hotel customer data, including driver’s licenses and credit card numbers. Despite the breach, Ashford falsely reported in its November 2023 filings that no customer information was exposed. The SEC alleged negligence in Ashford’s disclosures, citing violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Exchange Act of 1934. Without admitting or denying the allegations, Ashford agreed to a $115,231 penalty and an injunction. This case highlights the critical importance of accurate cybersecurity disclosures and demonstrates the SEC’s commitment to ensuring transparency and accountability in corporate reporting.

FTC Finalizes Data Breach-Related Settlement with Marriott: The FTC has finalized its order against Marriott International, Inc. (“Marriott”) and its subsidiary Starwood Hotels &amp; Resorts Worldwide LLC&nbsp;(“Starwood”). As previously&nbsp;<a href="https://www.blankrome.com/publications/br-privacy-security-download-november-2024">reported</a>, the FTC entered into a settlement with Marriott and Starwood for three data breaches the companies experienced between 2014 and 2020, which collectively impacted more than 344 million guest records.&nbsp;Under the finalized order, Marriott and Starwood are required to establish a comprehensive information security program, implement a policy to retain personal information only for as long as reasonably necessary, and establish a link on their website for U.S. customers to request deletion of their personal information&nbsp;associated with their email address or loyalty rewards account number.&nbsp;The order also requires Marriott to review loyalty rewards accounts&nbsp;upon&nbsp;customer&nbsp;request and restore stolen loyalty points. The companies are further prohibited&nbsp;from misrepresenting their information collection practices and data security measures.

New York Attorney General Settles with Auto Insurance Company over Data Breach:&nbsp;The New York Attorney General settled with automobile insurance company, Noblr, for a data breach the company experienced in January 2021. Noblr’s online insurance quoting tool exposed full, plaintext driver’s license numbers, including on the backend of its website and in PDFs generated when a purchase was made. The data breach impacted the personal information of more than 80,000 New Yorkers. The data breach was part of an industry-wide campaign to steal personal information (e.g., driver’s license numbers and dates of birth) from online automobile insurance quoting applications to be used to file fraudulent unemployment claims during the COVID-19 pandemic. As part of its settlement, Noblr must pay the New York Attorney General $500,000 in penalties and strengthen its data security measures such as by enhancing its web application defenses and maintaining a comprehensive information security program, data inventory, access controls (e.g., authentication procedures), and logging and monitoring systems.

FTC Alleges Video Game Maker Violated COPPA and Engaged in Deceptive Marketing Practices: The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/01/genshin-impact-game-developer-will-be-banned-selling-lootboxes-teens-under-16-without-parental">taken action</a> against Cognosphere Pte. Ltd and its subsidiary Cognosphere LLC, also known as HoYoverse, the developer of the game Genshin Impact (“HoYoverse”). The FTC alleges that HoYoverse violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA”) and engaged in deceptive marketing practices. Specifically, the company is accused of unfairly marketing loot boxes to children and misleading players about the odds of winning prizes and the true cost of in-game transactions. To settle these charges, HoYoverse will pay a $20 million fine and is prohibited from allowing children under 16 to make in-game purchases without parental consent. Additionally, the company must provide an option to purchase loot boxes directly with real money and disclose loot box odds and exchange rates. HoYoverse is also required to delete personal information collected from children under 13 without parental consent. The FTC’s actions aim to protect consumers, especially children and teens, from deceptive practices related to in-game purchases.

OCR Finalizes Several Settlements for HIPAA Violations:&nbsp;Prior to the inauguration of President Trump, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) brought enforcement actions against four entities, USR Holdings, LLC (“USR”), Elgon Information Systems (“Elgon”), Solara Medical Supplies, LLC (“Solara”) and Northeast Surgical Group, P.C. (“NESG”), for potential violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act’s (“HIPAA”) Security Rule due to the data breaches the entities experienced. USR reported that between August 23, 2018, and December 8, 2018, a database containing the electronic protected health information (“ePHI”) of 2,903 individuals was accessed by an unauthorized third party who was able to delete the ePHI in the database. Elgon and NESG each discovered a ransomware attack in March 2023, which affected the protected health information (“PHI”) of approximately&nbsp;31,248 individuals and 15,298 individuals, respectively. Solara experienced a phishing attack that allowed an unauthorized third party to gain access to eight of Solara’s employees’ email accounts between April and June 2019, resulting in the compromise of 114,007 individuals’ ePHI. As part of their settlements, each of the entities is required to pay a fine to OCR: USR $337,750, Elgon $80,000, Solara $3,000,000, and NESG $10,000. Additionally, each of the entities is required to implement certain data security measures such as conducting a risk analysis, implementing a risk management plan, maintaining written policies and procedures to comply with HIPAA, and distributing such policies or providing training on such policies to its workforce. &nbsp;

Virgina Attorney General Sues TikTok for Addictive Fees and Allowing Chinese Government to Access Data: Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares announced his office had filed a lawsuit against TikTok and ByteDance Ltd, the Chinese-based parent company of TikTok. The lawsuit alleges that TikTok was intentionally designed to be addictive for adolescent users and that the company deceived parents about TikTok content, including by claiming the app is appropriate for children over the age of 12 in violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act.&nbsp;

UK ICO Publishes Guidance on Pay or Consent Model: On January 23, the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) published its&nbsp;<a href="https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/online-tracking/consent-or-pay/">Guidance for Organizations Implementing or Considering Implementing Consent or Pay Models.&nbsp;</a>The guidance is designed to clarify how organizations can deploy ‘consent or pay’ models in a manner that gives users meaningful control over the privacy of their information while still supporting their economic viability. The guidance addresses the requirements of applicable UK laws, including PECR and the UK GDPR, and provides extensive guidance as to how appropriate fees may be calculated and how to address imbalances of power. The guidance includes a set of factors that organizations can use to assess their consent models and includes plans to further engage with online consent management platforms, which are typically used by businesses to manage the use of essential and non-essential online trackers. Businesses with operations in the UK should carefully review their current online tracker consent management tools in light of this new guidance.

EU Commission to Pay Damages for Sending IP Address to Meta: The European General Court has&nbsp;<a href="https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&amp;docid=294090&amp;pageIndex=0&amp;doclang=EN&amp;mode=lst&amp;dir=&amp;occ=first&amp;part=1&amp;cid=397223">ordered</a> the European Commission to pay a German citizen, Thomas Bindl, €400 in damages for unlawfully transferring his personal data to the U.S. This decision sets a new precedent regarding EU data protection litigation. The court found that the Commission breached data protection regulations by operating a website with a “sign in with Facebook” option. This resulted in Bindl’s IP address, along with other data, being transferred to Meta without ensuring adequate safeguards were in place. The transfer happened during the transition period between the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield and the EU-U.S. Data Protection Framework. The court determined that this left Bindl in a position of uncertainty about how his data was being processed. The ruling is significant because it recognizes “intrinsic harm” and may pave the way for large-scale collective redress actions.

European Data Protection Board Releases AI Bias Assessment and Data Subject Rights Tools: The European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) <a href="https://www.edpb.europa.eu/our-work-tools/our-documents/support-pool-experts-projects/ai-complex-algorithms-and-effective-data_en?mkt_tok=MTM4LUVaTS0wNDIAAAGYOJz-kvNfTiW3z3jv9AgVSsJGhnuDtKCA1-e64WtZJAawy2nJndwwJjjBrY0Pp0BBg9PpU9MNj7IcfjDFx67A4gOGhybzJRkAm6s_agm-ZcqD">released</a> two AI tools as part of the AI: Complex Algorithms and effective Data Protection Supervision Projects. The EDPB launched the project in the context of the Support Pool of Experts program at the request of the German Federal Data Protection Authority. The Support Pool of Experts program aims to help data protection authorities increase their enforcement capacity by developing common tools and giving them access to a wide pool of experts. The new documents address best practices for bias evaluation and the effective implementation of data subject rights, specifically the rights to rectification and erasure when AI systems have been developed with personal data.

European Data Protection Board Adopts New Guidelines on Pseudonymization: The EDPB released new&nbsp;<a href="https://www.edpb.europa.eu/system/files/2025-01/edpb_guidelines_202501_pseudonymisation_en.pdf">guidelines</a> on pseudonymization for public consultation (the “Guidelines”). Although pseudonymized data still constitutes personal data under the GDPR, pseudonymization can reduce the risks to the data subjects by preventing the attribution of personal data to natural persons in the course of the processing of the data, and in the event of unauthorized access or use. In certain circumstances, the risk reduction resulting from pseudonymization may enable controllers to rely on legitimate interests as the legal basis for processing personal data under the GDPR, provided they meet the other requirements, or help guarantee an essentially equivalent level of protection for data they intend to export. The Guidelines provide real-world examples illustrating the use of pseudonymization in various scenarios, such as internal analysis, external analysis, and research.

CJEU Issues Ruling on Excessive Data Subject Requests: On January 9, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) issued its&nbsp;<a href="https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&amp;docid=294111&amp;pageIndex=0&amp;doclang=EN&amp;mode=req&amp;dir=&amp;occ=first&amp;part=1&amp;cid=21901056">ruling</a> in the case Österreichische Datenschutzbehörde&nbsp;(C‑416/23). The primary question before the Court was when a European data protection authority may deny consumer requests due to their excessive nature. Rather than specifying an arbitrary numerical threshold of requests received, the CJEU found that authorities must consider the relevant facts to determine whether the individual submitting the request has “an abusive intention.” While the number of requests submitted may be a factor in determining this intention, it is not the only factor. Additionally, the CJEU emphasized that Data Protection Authorities should strongly consider charging a “reasonable fee” for handling requests they suspect may be excessive prior to simply denying them.

<a href="/news-and-events/cybersecurity-protecting-yourself-and-your-business/" id="23270">Cybersecurity: Protecting Yourself and Your Business</a>

Blank Rome associate <a href="/people/karen-h-shin/" id="18956">Karen H. Shin</a> will serve as a presenter for the City Bar Justice Center’s Neighborhood Entrepreneur Law Project’s (“NELP”) “Cybersecurity: Protecting Yourself and Your Business” presentation, being held virtually on Wednesday, February 12, 2025, from 4:00 to 5:30 p.m. EST. The program is presented in partnership with Brooklyn Public Library Business &amp; Career Center and Pace University Small Business Development Center.

<a href="/news-and-events/cybersecurity-in-the-marine-transportation-system-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-coast-guards-final-rule-2/" id="26060">Cybersecurity in the Marine Transportation System: What You Need to Know About the Coast Guard's Final Rule</a>

Blank Rome partner <a href="https://www.blankrome.com/people/dana-s-merkel">Dana S. Merkel</a> and associates <a href="/people/vanessa-c-didomenico/" id="18947">Vanessa C. DiDomenico</a> and <a href="/people/holli-b-packer/" id="18825">Holli B. Packer</a> authored this alert outlining the U.S. Coast Guard’s recently published final rule which seeks to minimize cybersecurity related transportation security incidents within the maritime transportation system.

<a href="/news-and-events/massachusetts-plaintiffs-pivot-to-save-health-site-privacy-suits/" id="19612">Massachusetts Plaintiffs Pivot to Save Health Site Privacy Suits</a>

Blank Rome partner <a href="/people/philip-n-yannella/" id="18776">Philip N. Yanella</a> was featured in this Bloomberg Law article discussing recent lawsuits over hospital and health-care system website technology.

<a href="/news-and-events/cyber-insights-2025-cybersecurity-regulatory-mayhem/" id="19618">Cyber Insights 2025: Cybersecurity Regulatory Mayhem</a>

Blank Rome partner <a href="/people/philip-n-yannella/" id="18776">Philip N. Yanella</a> was featured in this SecurityWeek article discussing how Cybersecurity laws may develop into 2025.

<a href="/news-and-events/state-and-federal-healthcare-cyber-regs-to-watch-in-2025/" id="19620">State and Federal Healthcare Cyber Regs to Watch in 2025</a>

Blank Rome partner <a href="/people/sharon-r-klein/" id="18955">Sharon R. Klein</a> was interviewed by Healthcare Info Security discussing the proposed update to the HIPAA Security Rule.

© 2025 Blank Rome LLP. All rights reserved. Please contact Blank Rome for permission to reprint. Notice: The purpose of this update is to identify select developments that may be of interest to readers. The information contained herein is abridged and summarized from various sources, the accuracy and completeness of which cannot be assured. This update should not be construed as legal advice or opinion, and is not a substitute for the advice of counsel.

The BR Privacy & Security Download: February 2025

Offices

Stay Connected

Slide Menu

Slide Search

The BR Privacy & Security Download: February 2025

Offices

Stay Connected