Posts tagged pii

2011, Act, advertising, Behavioral, behavioral advertising, bill, Commercial, Commercial Privacy Bill of Rights Act of 2011, data, Data Privacy Law or Regulation, FTC, group, identifiable, InfoLawGroup, information, information law group, InformationLawGroup, Kerry, Law, Legislation, McCain, of, or, personally, personally identifiable information, pii, privacy, privacy bill of rights, privacy enforcement, privacy legislation, Regulation, rights, Senate

Kerry Releases Draft of "Privacy Bill of Rights"

By InfoLawGroup LLP on March 25, 2011

201 CMR 17-00, AES, anonymity, behavioral advertising, breach notification, California, cloud computing, contracts, DPA, Eavesdropping, encryption, EU Data Protection Directive, GLBA, HIPAA, HITECH, IAPP, Kearney, Massachusetts, personally identifiable information, pii, RFID, social networking, spam, SSN, TCPA, telemarketing, text messages, UK ICO, VPPA

Celebrating Data Privacy from A to Z

By InfoLawGroup LLP on January 28, 2010

In honor of Data Privacy Day and its spirit of education, I thought it might be appropriate (and fun) to celebrate some (but certainly not all) of the A, B, Cs of Data Privacy. Would love to see your contributions, too!

California, class action, invasion of privacy, personal identification information, pii, retailers, Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, Williams-Sonoma, zip codes

California Court Rejects Class Action Based on Data Collection for PII Aggregation Purposes

By InfoLawGroup LLP on October 28, 2009

On Friday, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, certified for publication its October 8 opinion in Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma, the most recent in a string of decisions regarding California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971, California Civil Code § 1747.08. On first glance, Pineda appears uneventful. The Court merely reiterated its December 2008 holding in Party City v. Superior Court, 169 Cal.App.4th 497 (2008), that zip codes are not personal identification information for purposes of the Act, right? Not so fast. In fact, the Pineda court added a couple of new wrinkles that are worth a second look. First, the court reaffirmed its Party City holding even though Pineda specifically alleged that Williams-Sonoma collected the zip code for the purpose of using it and the customer's name to obtain even MORE personal identification information, the customer's address, through the use of a "reverse search" database. Second, the court held that a retailer's use of a legally obtained zip code to acquire, view, print, distribute or use an address that is otherwise publicly available does not amount to an offensive intrusion of a consumer's privacy under California law.