TECHNOLOGY, OUTSOURCING, AND COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS
NEWS FOR LAWYERS AND SOURCING PROFESSIONALS

Cybersecurity continues to be an issue at the forefront of many of our contract negotiations. Though not typically included in the “data security” section of an agreement, the level and scope of cyberinsurance coverage often plays an important factor in the discussions between customer and vendor.

On this topic, Morgan Lewis partners Mark Krotoski and Jeffrey Raskin will present an upcoming webinar as part of our firm’s Cyber Insurance Webinar Series to discuss ongoing developments in the cyberinsurance space, with a focus on the critical factors your company can consider as part of its overall cybersecurity protection strategy. The one-hour webinar, Cyber Insurance: Is Your Company Covered?, will take place on Tuesday, September 17, at 2:00 pm ET.

The January 1, 2020, deadline to comply with the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) is fast approaching. Signed into law in the summer of 2018, the CCPA creates a variety of new consumer privacy rights and will require many companies to implement policies and procedures to manage and comply with new consumer-facing responsibilities. Catch up on the details of the CCPA in our previous post, this LawFlash, and the Morgan Lewis CCPA resource center.

An IAPP article by Annie Bai and Peter McLaughlin recently caught our attention, as it discusses the business risks of complying with the “verifiable consumer request” requirement under the CCPA. Under the CCPA, a California consumer may (1) request that a covered business provide access to the consumer’s personal information or (2) request that his or her personal information be deleted. Upon receiving such a request, the covered business must verify the identity of the requesting individual and respond. However, there is not much clarity in the CCPA regarding how a covered business must verify an individual’s identity.

In a recent Law360 article, Morgan Lewis lawyers Gregory Parks, Kristin Hadgis, and Terese Schireson discussed the recently passed bill in Nevada – Nevada Senate Bill 220 (SB 220) – that will require defined “operators” of websites or online services that are used for commercial purposes and collect personal data of Nevada consumers to comply with a consumer’s request not to sell personal information. SB 220 will be the first law of this scope in the United States that provides consumers with opt-out rights with respect to the sale of their data.

With SB 220 going into effect on October 1 of this year, it is time now for operators to implement measures to enable compliance with SB 220. The article offers helpful tips for compliance, including suggesting that affected operators establish designated addresses where consumers can submit requests.

The Q2 2019 issue of Morgan Lewis’s Life Sciences International Review was recently released. The review includes updates relevant to the life sciences industry from across the world, including the United States, Europe, and Asia. The topics range from intellectual property and data privacy to international trade and labor and employment. We found it to be an excellent read for anyone interested in keeping up with current trends in the life sciences sector.

Two of the topics that we found to be of particular interest were about data privacy in the European Union and foreign investments in the United States biotechnology industry. The review looks at the opinion adopted by the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) regarding the interplay between the General Data Protection Regulation and the forthcoming Clinical Trials Regulation. The review also discusses the increased activity by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) in scrutinizing life sciences transactions, which has led to several transactions being blocked or mitigated.

The Life Sciences International Review is a quarterly newsletter published by Morgan Lewis lawyers with important updates and insights for the life sciences sector. Be sure to look for the next publication coming in the fall!

Check out this recent LawFlash by Morgan Lewis partners Michael Pierides and Simon Lightman discussing the groundbreaking fines the United Kingdom’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) proposed against two global organizations pursuant to the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Under the GDPR, which seeks to promote transparent and responsible collection and maintenance of consumers’ personal information, applicable regulatory agencies can impose fines on organizations that do not comply with the strict GDPR standards.

Recently, the ICO issued fines to two companies following data breaches of their respective consumers in 2018. Under previous data protection laws, fines were limited to hundreds of thousands of dollars, but in the new era of the GDPR, the companies are facing fines of $227.5 million and $123.1 million, respectively. The issuance of these massive fines puts global companies on notice that the GDPR should be taken seriously, and that the ICO, in particular, will not hesitate to dispense unprecedented consequences for noncompliance.

Executive Order 13873 was issued on May 15 with the goal of “Securing the Information and Communications Technology and Services Supply Chain.” The order ultimately seeks to manage the national security risk that can exist in information and communications technology (ICT) transactions between those subject to US jurisdiction and those subject to the jurisdictions of foreign adversaries. The order defines “information and communications technology or services” as “any hardware, software, or other product or service primarily intended to fulfill or enable the function of information or data processing, storage, retrieval, or communication by electronic means, including transmission, storage, and display.” A “foreign adversary” is defined in the order as “any foreign government or foreign non-government person engaged in a long-term pattern or serious instances of conduct significantly adverse to the national security of the United States or security and safety of United States persons.”

Internet-connected devices contributing to the Internet of Things (IoT) are projected to exceed 50 billion devices by 2025, according to the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection in its June 2018 comments on the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s notice of public hearing and request for written comments on “The Internet of Things and Consumer Product Hazards.” Such widespread use of and access to these internet-connected devices—which can collect personal data from their users—has spurred legislative movement toward introducing security standards for IoT devices. These initial steps start with the US government’s use of IoT devices through the Senate’s third proposed bill on the subject, S.734. The bill, known as the Internet of Things Cybersecurity Improvement Act of 2019, aims to manage cybersecurity risks regarding secure development, identity management, patching, and configuration management of “covered devices.” Under the proposed bill, a “covered device” is one that can connect to the internet, has data processing capabilities, and “is not a general-purpose computing device.” The covered devices at the focus of this bill refer to devices “owned or controlled by” the federal government.

The European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) took effect in May 2018, requiring companies that handle or process EU residents’ personal information to conform to practices that seek to more fully protect consumer sensitive information. Companies that fall under this category, known as data controllers, must secure consumer consent or another legally acceptable method of gathering personal information, notify individuals of the personal information that is collected and how it will be used, and limit the collection and maintenance to necessary information for a limited period of time. The individuals whose personal information is gathered also have a right to access the information, limit its use, and withdraw their consent from data controllers for such use.

Even with the standard independent contractor provision in a Master Services Agreement, when employees of the contractor work at a client's site, there can be a heightened risk for joint employment liability, especially where such employees were hired by the contractor as part of an outsourcing arrangement. The US Department of Labor (DOL) recently issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to update its interpretation of the standard for establishing joint-employer liability under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The proposal is “designed to promote certainty for employers and employees, reduce litigation, promote greater uniformity among court decisions, and encourage innovation in the economy” by making clear employers’ and joint employers’ respective obligations to pay the appropriate employee wages and overtime for a workweek.

More than 1,000 Support Anti-Terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act (SAFETY Act) of 2,002 approvals have been granted by the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) since the act’s inception. Many professional sports teams in the National Football League, Major League Baseball, and National Basketball Association have had their venues certified under the SAFETY Act. For example, New Era Field for the Buffalo Bills became the 14th NFL stadium to receive a SAFETY Act certification in October 2018. However, professional sports leagues do not have a monopoly on large sporting events that garner huge crowds—some universities have football stadiums with capacity for more than 100,000 people.