Brexit is likely to cause years of future uncertainty around data protection, including the legal mechanisms for data transfer to countries outside of the United Kingdom (“U.K.”). In the short term, there will be little to no impact on existing data transfer solutions implemented by companies that rely on the U.K. as an entry point into the European Union (“EU”). In the mid-term, with the scheduled implementation of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield (“Privacy Shield”) in 2016 and the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) in 2018, the U.K. will either continue to be subject to EU laws by extending its membership in the European Economic Area (“EEA”) or it will create its own national data protection legislation. Although companies may have to rethink data transfer agreements, this will be part of a long term process as the future of U.K. data protection continues to unfold.
On 18 May, 2016, China’s media regulator, the State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television (“SAPPRFT“), issued a decision (the Decision on the Amendment of Certain Rules (“Decision“)) amending five of its rules. This was part of a broader government-wide effort to reform and simplify China’s complex and sprawling system of administrative approvals across all fields. As one of the most heavily regulated and restricted sectors to foreign investment, any changes in this area, however small, are likely to be closely followed by media industry players looking for an opportunity to enter the market.
The Data Protection Directive and the Regulation both impose restrictions on the transfer of personal data by EU based businesses (whether those businesses are data controllers or data processors) to destinations outside the EEA.
From the first month of district court decisions issued since the United States Supreme Court decided Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, No. 13-1339, 2016 WL 2842447, *3 (U.S. May 16, 2016), it appears the needle on Article III standing has moved slightly, but so far only slightly, in favor of the defense. Spokeo held that (i) in order to establish Article III standing, a plaintiff must allege an injury-in-fact that is both “concrete and particularized,” and (ii) the plaintiff cannot “automatically satisf[y] the injury-in-fact requirement whenever a statute grants a person a statutory right and purports to authorize that person to sue to vindicate that right.” Courts have begun to give that requirement teeth, dismissing claims where a defendant may have violated a statute’s technical requirements, but where the plaintiff suffered no adverse consequence as a result. At the same time, however, courts have recognized Spokeo’s other holding that a “concrete” injury is not necessarily synonymous with a “tangible” injury, and that the “risk of real harm” counts as such an injury (even when such harm has not materialized). Dismissals on Spokeo grounds, therefore, have been sparse.
EAS participants must register and complete Form One pronto; FCC also seeks comment on new approach to the EAS Handbook
Attention, all you EAS participants.
A California appellate court recently affirmed a lower court’s decision to require Yelp to remove three defamatory reviews.
The Federal Communications Commission (“Commission” or “FCC”) is looking to jump start the initial steps of the Executive Branch process of reviewing certain applications, including Section 214 and submarine cable-related applications.
On June 27, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court, without comment, denied Sequenom’s petition for certiorari, leaving in place the Court’s previous rulings prohibiting the patenting of laws of nature and natural phenomenon.
German media house Axel Springer has won a first significant victory in the adblocking battle that has been keeping the digital advertising industry on its toes for over a year now.
Imagine for a moment you’re back in the year 1963…the time of Mad Men, the beginning of Beatlemania, the year of the “I Have a Dream” speech. Who’s the most trusted man in America?