The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as state procedural rules, permit parties to a lawsuit to conduct discovery, in search of information and documents that may be relevant to the litigation. Parties can issue requests for documents, information (called interrogatories), and admissions of fact to other parties to the lawsuit; parties may use

After Europe blazed the trail by passing the sweeping General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) in 2016, California followed closely in the footsteps of European efforts by passing the most comprehensive data privacy law in the United States, the California Consumer Privacy Act (the “CCPA”). Effective January 1, 2020, the CCPA provided a number of obligations

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
Background. Company A retains Company Z in Country Q to process personal data (e.g., collect personal data from data subjects). Company

Controller A (Non-EEA) → Processor Z (Non-EEA) → Sub-processor Y (EEA) → Controller A (Non-EEA) (same country)

Visual Description and Implications
  • Transfer 1: No mechanism needed.  Company A is not required under the GDPR to put safeguards in place to transfer information to a processor that is also located in Country Q.
  • Transfer 2: No

Modern state privacy laws mandate that agreements with service providers or processors contain specific contractual provisions to govern the parties’ relationship. Which provisions should be included in a vendor agreement, however, differ by state statute. In addition, some state privacy laws impose statutory obligations upon vendors that do not necessarily need to be memorialized in

No. A privacy framework describes a set of standards or concepts around which a company bases its privacy program. Typically, a privacy framework does not attempt to include all privacy-related requirements imposed by law or account for the privacy requirements of any particular legal system or regime. As a result, a company can utilize a

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

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