Skip to content
Photo of David A. Zetoony

David Zetoony, Co-Chair of the firm's U.S. Data, Privacy and Cybersecurity Practice, focuses on helping businesses navigate data privacy and cyber security laws from a practical standpoint. David has helped hundreds of companies establish and maintain ongoing privacy and security programs, and he has defended corporate privacy and security practices in investigations initiated by the Federal Trade Commission, and other data privacy and security regulatory agencies around the world, as well as in class action litigation.

David receives regular recognitions from clients and peers for his knowledge and experience in the fields of data privacy and security. The National Law Journal named him a “Cybersecurity and Data Privacy Trailblazer,” JD Supra recognized him four times as one of the most widely read names when it comes to data privacy, cyber security, or the collection and use of data, and Lexology identified him six times as the top “legal influencer” in the area of technology, media, and telecommunications in the United States, the European Union, and in the context of cross-border transfers of information. He is the author of the American Bar Associations primary publication on the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and is writing the American Bar Associations primary publication on the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA).

All modern privacy statutes regulate when personal information can be shared with third parties, whether those third parties are service providers, vendors, contractors, or business partners. Most modern privacy statutes recognize, however, that privacy risks are reduced when the third party is related to the organization from which the data originates. As the following chart

The terms “deidentified” and “deidentification” are commonly used in modern privacy statutes and are functionally exempt from most privacy and security-related requirements. As indicated in the chart below, differences exist between how the term was defined in the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and how it was defined in later state privacy statutes that are

Some organizations are confused as to the impact that pseudonymization has (or does not have) on a privacy compliance program. That confusion largely stems from ambiguity concerning how the term fits into the larger scheme of modern data privacy statutes. For example, aside from the definition, the CCPA only refers to “pseudonymized” on one occasion

The terms “pseudonymize” and “pseudonymization” are commonly referenced in the data privacy community, but their origins and meaning are not widely understood among American attorneys.  Most American dictionaries do not recognize either term.[1] While they derive from the root word “pseudonym” – which is defined as a “name that someone uses instead of his

The term “sale” is defined slightly differently between and among modern U.S. data privacy statutes with some statutes defining the term as including exchanges of personal information in return for valuable consideration, and others defining the terms as including only exchanges of personal information in return for monetary consideration. As the following chart indicates, state

Modern data privacy statutes create special rules for activities that involve “selling.” Among other things, most modern U.S. data privacy statutes require companies to allow data subjects to opt out of having their personal information sold. As the following chart indicates, the term “sale” is defined slightly different between and among state statutes, with some

It depends on the purpose for which a transfer impact assessment (TIA) is created. It is unlikely that the attorney-client privilege would apply to a TIA that is created, and used, to satisfy the requirements of the Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs).

The attorney-client privilege in the United States refers to a judicially recognized ability for

The term “Transfer Impact Assessment” or “TIA” is relatively new to the world of data privacy. Indeed, according to one widely used legal database the term was not referenced within any academic journals or secondary sources until 2021.[1] The term has come to refer to a written analysis, conducted by a controller or a

The following is part of Greenberg Traurig’s ongoing series analyzing cross-border data transfers in light of the new Standard Contractual Clauses approved by the European Commission in June 2021.

Visual Description and Implications
  • The EDPB has taken the position that a data subject “cannot be considered a controller or processor,”[1] and, as a result,

The following is part of Greenberg Traurig’s ongoing series analyzing cross-border data transfers in light of the new Standard Contractual Clauses approved by the European Commission in June 2021.

Visual Description and Implications
Transfers from a European Data Subject: Data Subject→Controller (US)→Processor (US)
  • The EDPB has taken the position that a data subject “cannot be considered a controller or processor,”1 and, as a result,