On June 24, 2022, China’s National Information Security Standardization Technical Committee (commonly referred to as “TC260”) finalized the Technical Guideline on Personal Information Cross-Border Transfer Certification (Final Cert Guideline). Although the Final Cert Guideline largely remains the same as the draft version released this past April, which is described in our prior blog post, China

Several modern state data privacy statutes refer to precise geolocation information as a “sensitive” category of personal information. What constitutes precise geolocation information differs slightly between and among states. The following table provides a side-by-side comparison of the how the states have defined the term.

Click here for a side-by-side comparison of the how the

The Boston Patent Law Association’s Computer Law Committee is hosting the webinar “U.S. and EU Data Privacy Compliance in the Healthcare Space” Wednesday, June 29 at 12 p.m. EST. Greenberg Traurig Shareholder Gretchen A. Ramos, co-chair of the firm’s Global Data, Privacy & Cybersecurity Practice, will be a panelist on the webinar,

Some privacy statutes explicitly reference “sensitive” or “special” categories of personal information. While such terms, when used, often include similar data types that are generally considered as raising greater privacy risks to data subjects if disclosed, the exact categories that fall under those rubrics differ between and among statutes. Furthermore, other privacy statutes do not

The term “targeted advertising” is defined relatively consistently between and among modern U.S. data privacy statutes with the noticeable exception of California which deviates somewhat in the California Privacy Rights Act’s (CPRA) definition of the similar term “cross-context behavioral advertising” by omitting any reference to tracking a person over time, or making predictions about a

On April 29, 2022, China’s National Information Security Standardization Technical Committee (commonly referred to as “TC260”) released a draft Technical Guideline on Personal Information Cross-Border Transfer Certifications (Cert Guideline). While the Cert Guideline is still in draft form and thus subject to change, it provides some clarification regarding the certification process for cross-border transfers of

Most modern U.S. data privacy statutes require companies to allow data subjects to opt out of having their personal information used for targeted advertising. As the following chart indicates, the term “targeted advertising” is defined consistently between and among most state statutes with the noticeable exception of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and its

Modern state privacy laws have attempted to carve out organizations that process de minimis amounts of personal information, or whose business activities do not monetize data. The specific thresholds used, however, differ between states. The following provides a comparison of the thresholds that each statute creates for organizations that are subject to regulatory compliance obligations:

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

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