Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
More Regulation, Stronger Investigations and Home Tech Devices Concerns to Come in 2020, New Gibson Dunn Report Warns
On Data Privacy Day last month, Gibson Dunn released the eighth edition of its United States Cybersecurity and Data Privacy Outlook and Review. The report details trends that the privacy industry saw in 2019 from a legislative, regulatory and judicial perspective.
One of the biggest trends from 2019 was the increased significance and complexity of privacy-related regulatory investigations, according to the report's co-author Alexander Southwell, former cybercrime prosecutor and chair of Gibson Dunn's U.S. Privacy, Cybersecurity and Consumer Protection Practice Group. "The scope and breadth of investigations and the magnitude of resolutions, both in the U.S. and the EU, signals how important privacy issues have become to regulators and how significant those regulatory investigations can become to companies," he says. For example, in March of 2019, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued orders to seven U.S. Internet broadband providers and related entities seeking information about how they collect, retain, use, and disclose information about consumers and their devices. And early this year, the FTC announced that it has strengthened its data security orders, making them more specific, increasing third-party assessor accountability, and elevate data security considerations to the C-suite and Board level.
The report also cites several specific enforcement actions the FTC took in 2019 related to data privacy and security, including a settlement in December with the former CEO of Cambridge Analytica.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.