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

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

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,

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)→Controller (non-EEA)
  • The EDPB has taken the position that a data subject “cannot be considered a controller or processor,”1 and, as a result,