Category: USA

Could Children’s Use of Social Media be Banned in the UK?

Some argue that the primary goal of social media is no longer genuine connection, but the maximisation of user engagement for commercial gain. Platforms generate vast revenues by delivering highly targeted, personalised advertising, incentivising designs that keep users scrolling for longer. With the rise of AI, this content stream has become even more relentless, often amplified by manipulative or overly flattering language that encourages continuous interaction. 

Unsurprisingly, many parents are concerned about their children’s use of social media. Endless scrolling and exposure to videos featuring mindless pranks or viral challenges can have negative effects on both mental and physical health. Increasingly, attention is turning to the platforms themselves: critics suggest that their design may not only encourage excessive use, but also contribute to addiction, anxiety and other forms of harm. 

The US Court Case  

On 25th March 2026, a jury in Los Angeles delivered a damning verdict on two of the world’s most popular social media platforms. It ruled that Instagram and You Tube were deliberately designed to be addictive and consequently their parent companies have been negligent in failing to safeguard their child users. Meta and Google, owners of Instagram and YouTube, must now pay $6m (£4.5m) in damages to “Kaley”, the young woman who was the plaintiff (claimant) in this case. Her lawyers argued that the design of Instagram and YouTube caused her to be addicted to the social media platforms. This addiction impacted her mental health during childhood leaving her with body dysmorphia, depression and suicidal thoughts.  

The judgement has sent shockwaves through tech companies worldwide, not just in Silicon Valley. One tech company insider, who asked not to be identified, told the BBC, “we’re having a moment”. Even the Royal Family chimed in. In a statement, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex said: “This verdict is a reckoning. For too long, families have paid the price for platforms built with total disregard for the children they reach.”   

Both companies vigorously defended the claim and intend to appeal the judgement. Meta maintains that a single platform cannot be solely responsible for a user’s mental health crisis. Google, meanwhile, argues that YouTube is not a social network. 

English Law 

Could such a claim succeed in this country? The tort of negligence provides the best hope for claimants who allege harm from social media use subject to the elements of the tort (duty of care, breach, causation and foreseeability) being satisfied. There is growing recognition in UK law that online platforms may owe a duty of care to users, particularly if the users are children. And the harms of over use of social media  are well documented. However causation is likely to be the most difficult hurdle for claimants in the UK. To succeed, a claimant must prove that a platform’s design caused or materially contributed to the harm they suffered through their use of social media. This is a difficult hurdle when it comes to social media. Psychological harm rarely has a single identifiable cause. Social media companies are likely to argue that their platforms are only one of the many factors which can contribute to an individual’s mental health; alongside family environment, school experiences, pre-existing vulnerabilities and offline relationships to name a few.  

Could social media platforms be treated as “defective products” under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (CPA)  which carries strict liability for harm? Products, under the CPA, are traditionally understood as tangible goods, not the likes of YouTube and Instagram. It is arguable though that social media platforms are not just intermediaries but “manufacturers” of digital environments, making them liable for defects in algorithms or addictive design. The Law Commission is currently reviewing the CPA to determine if it is fit for the digital age, with a focus on artificial intelligence, software and online platforms. The review, which began in September 2025, may lead to expanded liability for online platforms and software providers. 

It is worth noting that the US case was decided by a jury. In the UK civil cases, particularly those involving negligence, are decided by judges. Juries may be influenced by emotional arguments, whereas judges are trained to apply the law strictly and are less susceptible to being swayed by emotion at the expense of legal principles. 

Despite the issues around causation, a legal action in negligence is probably the best option for aggrieved social media users in the UK; although the lack of Legal Aid and the UK courts restrictive approach to class actions mean a test case would require significant upfront funding. Perhaps insurers, emboldened by the US Judgement, may now be more willing to cover the costs of such a test case.  

Regulating Social Media 

Unlike the US, the UK has moved toward statutory regulation rather than litigation as the primary means of controlling social media harms. 

Since the passage of the Online Safety Act in 2023 (OSA), social media companies and search engines have a duty to ensure their services aren’t used for illegal activity or to promote illegal content, with particular protections for children. The communications regulator, Ofcom, has been tasked with implementing the OSA and can fine infringing companies of up to £18 million, or 10% of their global revenue (whichever is greater). Last month, it published guidance on how platforms must protect children. Furthermore, since platforms are processing users’ personal data, they have to comply with the UK GDPR. The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, which mainly came into force in February, explicitly requires those who provide an online service that is likely to be used by children, to take their needs into account when deciding how to use their personal data.   

Even before the US judgement, many countries had been considering whether, to regulate social media further and/or ban children from using it. Australia has banned it and others, like France and Denmark, have introduced or are planning to introduce tighter rules. 

The UK government is currently carrying out a consultation to consider whether additional measures are required to keep children safe in the online world. This includes setting a minimum age for children to access social media, restricting risky functionalities and design features that encourage excessive use, such as infinite scrolling and autoplay, whether the digital age of consent should be raised, whether the guidance on the use of mobile phones in schools should be put on a statutory footing and better support for parents, including clearer guidance and simpler parental controls. The consultation ends on 26th May, and the government will respond before the end of July. Alongside the consultation, the government is running a pilot scheme which will see 300 teenagers have their social media apps disabled entirely, blocked overnight or capped to one hour’s use – with some also seeing no such changes at all – in order to compare their experiences. Children and parents involved in the pilot will be interviewed before and after to assess its impact. 

Meanwhile, on 27th March 2026, the government published national guidance that urges parents to strictly limit screen exposure in early years over health and development risks. The new recommendations advise that there should be no screen exposure for children under two except for shared activities. For those aged two to five, usage should be capped at one hour per day, with additional guidance to avoid screens at mealtimes and before bed. 

Parliament is also debating the use of social media platforms by children but remains divided on what action to take. In March, during a debate on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, the House of Lords supported a proposal to ban under-16s in the UK from social media platforms. It is the second time peers have defeated the government over the proposal. There is now a standoff between the Commons and the Lords. Whatever happens the verdict in the California court has signalled a rising public expectation for more aggressive regulation of social media platforms. 

Listen to the Guardians of Data Podcast for the latest news and views on data protection, cyber security, AI and freedom of information.   

This and other developments relating to children’s data will be covered forthcoming workshop, Working with Children’s Data.

All Go for UK to US Data Transfers 

On 10th July 2023, the European Commission adopted its adequacy decision under Article 45 of GDPR for the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (DPF).
It concluded that the United States ensures an adequate level of protection, comparable to that of the European Union, for personal data transferred from the EU to US companies under the new framework. It means that personal data can flow safely from the EU to US companies participating in the Framework, without having to put in place additional data protection safeguards under the GDPR. 

The question then is, “What about transfers from the UK to the US which were not covered by the above?” The Data Protection (Adequacy) (United States of America) Regulations 2023 (SI 2023/1028) will come into force on 12th October 2023. The effect of the Regulations will be that, as of 12th October 2023, a transfer of personal data from the UK to an entity in the USA which has self-certified to the Trans-Atlantic EU-US Data Privacy Framework and its UK extension and which will abide by the EU-US Data Privacy Framework Principles, will be deemed to offer an adequate level of protection for personal data and shall be lawful in accordance with Article 45(1) UK GDPR.  

Currently, data transfers from the UK to the US under the UK GDPR must either be based on a safeguard, such as standard contractual clauses or binding corporate rules, or fall within the scope of a derogation under Article 49 UK GDPR. 

UK Data Controllers need to update privacy policies and document their own processing activities as necessary to reflect any changes in how they transfer personal data to the US. 

The new US – EU Data Privacy Framework will be discussed in detail on our forthcoming International Transfers workshop. 

New GDPR Adequacy Decision for the EU-US Data Privacy Framework 

On 10th July 2023, the European Commission adopted its adequacy decision under Article 45 of GDPR for the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (DPF). Thus, ends years of uncertainty and legal risk for European organisations wishing to transfer personal data to the US. In May, Meta Ireland (the owner of Facebook) was the subject of the largest ever GDPR fine of €1.2bn (£1bn) when Ireland’s Data Protection Commission ruled that its US data transfers were not GDPR compliant.  The new adequacy decision concludes that the United States ensures an adequate level of protection, comparable to that of the European Union, for personal data transferred from the EU to US companies under the new framework. Personal data can now flow safely from the EU to US companies participating in the Framework, without having to put in place additional data protection safeguards under the GDPR. 

The Journey to Adequacy 

In July 2020, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in “Schrems II”, ruled that organisations that transfer personal data to the USA can no longer rely on the Privacy Shield Framework as a legal transfer tool as it failed to protect the rights of EU data subjects when their data was accessed by U.S. public authorities. In particular, the ECJ found that US surveillance programs are not limited to what is strictly necessary and proportionate as required by EU law and hence do not meet the requirements of Article 52 of the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights. Secondly, with regard to U.S. surveillance, EU data subjects lack actionable judicial redress and, therefore, do not have a right to an effective remedy in the USA, as required by Article 47 of the EU Charter. The ECJ stated that organisations transferring personal data to the USA can still use the Article 49 GDPR derogations or standard contractual clauses (SCCs). If using the latter, whether for transfers to the USA or other countries, the ECJ placed the onus on the data exporter to make a complex assessment about the recipient country’s data protection legislation (a Transfer Impact Assessment or TIA), and to put in place “additional measures” to those included in the SCCs. Since the Schrems ruling, replacing the Privacy Shield has been a priority for EU and US officials. In March 2022, it was announced that a new  Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework had been agreed in principle. The US President signed an executive order in October, giving effect to the US commitments in the framework, and paving the way for the European Commission to publish a draft ‘adequacy decision’ on 14th December 2022. 


The Changes

The EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (DPF) introduces new binding safeguards to address all the concerns raised by the European Court of Justice in Schrems. This includes limiting access to EU data by US intelligence services to what is necessary and proportionate, and establishing a Data Protection Review Court (DPRC), to which EU individuals will have access. The new framework introduces significant improvements compared to the mechanism that existed under the Privacy Shield. For example, if the DPRC finds that data was collected in violation of the new safeguards, it will be able to order the deletion of the data. The new safeguards in the area of government access to data will complement the obligations that US companies importing data from the EU will have to subscribe to. EU individuals will also benefit from several redress avenues in case their data is wrongly handled by US companies. This includes free of charge independent dispute resolution mechanisms and an arbitration panel. 


The Mechanics 

Just like the old Privacy Shield, US companies can self-certify their participation in the DPF by committing to comply with a detailed set of privacy obligations. These could include privacy principles such as purpose limitation, data minimisation and data retention, as well as specific obligations concerning data security and the sharing of data with third parties. The DPF will be administered by the US Department of Commerce, which will process applications for certification and monitor whether participating companies continue to meet the certification requirements. Compliance will be enforced by the US Federal Trade Commission. Many US companies remain self-certified to Privacy Shield standards. Consequently, it is no going to be a difficult task for them to transition to the DPF. As far as EU organisations go all they need to do now, before making a transfer of personal data to the US, is check that the organisation receiving their personal data is certified under the DPF. More information including the self-certification process is expected to be posted on the U.S. Department of Commerce’s new Data Privacy Framework website. 

Impact on Other Data Transfer Tools  

The safeguards that have been put in place by the US Government in the area of national security (including the redress mechanism) apply to all data transfers under the GDPR to companies in the US, regardless of the transfer mechanism used. These safeguards therefore also facilitate the use of other transfer tools, such as standard contractual clauses and binding corporate rules. This means that, when conducting a transfer impact assessment, a data controller can refer to the DPF adequacy decision as a conclusive finding by the European Commission that the 2 big protections introduced in the USA by the related Executive Order are applicable to transfers under your SCCs and provide suitable restrictions on government surveillance plus suitable redress for EEA data subjects. This makes any needed transfer impact assessment for the USA very straightforward. 
It is important to note that this adequacy decision only covers transfers of personal data from the EU to the US. The UK Government is also working on an adequacy finding for the US and this decision should expedite the process. 

The new US – EU Data Privacy Framework will be discussed in detail on our forthcoming International Transfers workshop.

US Data Transfers and Privacy Shield 2.0 

On 14th December 2022, the European Commission published a draft ‘adequacy decision’, under Article 47 of the GDPR, endorsing a new legal framework for transferring personal data from the EU to the USA. Subject to approval by other EU institutions, the decision paves the way for “Privacy Shield 2.0” to be in effect by Spring 2023.

The Background

In July 2020, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in “Schrems II”, ruled that organisations that transfer personal data to the USA can no longer rely on the Privacy Shield Framework as a legal transfer tool as it failed to protect the rights of EU data subjects when their data was accessed by U.S. public authorities. In particular, the ECJ found that US surveillance programs are not limited to what is strictly necessary and proportionate as required by EU law and hence do not meet the requirements of Article 52 of the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights. Secondly, with regard to U.S. surveillance, EU data subjects lack actionable judicial redress and, therefore, do not have a right to an effective remedy in the USA, as required by Article 47 of the EU Charter.

The ECJ stated that organisations transferring personal data to the USA can still use the Article 49 GDPR derogations or standard contractual clauses (SCCs). If using the latter, whether for transfers to the USA or other countries, the ECJ placed the onus on the data exporter to make a complex assessment  about the recipient country’s data protection legislation (a Transfer Impact Assessment or TIA), and to put in place “additional measures” to those included in the SCCs. 

Despite the Schrems II judgment, many organisations have continued to transfer personal data to the USA hoping that regulators will wait for a new Transatlantic data deal before enforcing the judgement.  Whilst the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) seems to have adopted a “wait and see” approach, other regulators have now started to take action. In February 2022, the French Data Protection Regulator, CNIL, ruled that the use of Google Analytics was a breach of GDPR due to the data being transferred to the USA without appropriate safeguards. This followed a similar decision by the Austrian Data Protection Authority in January. 

The Road to Adequacy

Since the Schrems ruling, replacing the Privacy Shield has been a priority for EU and US officials. In March 2022, it was announced that a new Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework had been agreed in principle. In October, the US President signed an executive order giving effect to the US commitments in the framework. These include commitments to limit US authorities’ access to data exported from the EU to what is necessary and proportionate under surveillance legislation, to provide data subjects with rights of redress relating to how their data is handled under the framework regardless of their nationality, and to establish a Data Protection Review Court for determining the outcome of complaints.

Schrems III?

The privacy campaign group, noyb, of which Max Schrems is Honorary Chairman, is not impressed by the draft adequacy decision. It said in a statement:

“…the changes in US law seem rather minimal. Certain amendments, such as the introduction of the proportionality principle or the establishment of a Court, sound promising – but on closer examination, it becomes obvious that the Executive Order oversells and underperforms when it comes to the protection of non-US persons. It seems obvious that any EU “adequacy decision” that is based on Executive Order 14086 will likely not satisfy the CJEU. This would mean that the third deal between the US Government and the European Commission may fail.”

Max Schrems said: 

“… As the draft decision is based on the known Executive Order, I can’t see how this would survive a challenge before the Court of Justice. It seems that the European Commission just issues similar decisions over and over again – in flagrant breach of our fundamental rights.”

The draft adequacy decision will now be reviewed by the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) and the European Member States. From the above statements it seems that if Privacy Shield 2.0 is finalised, a legal challenge against it is inevitable.

UK to US Data Transfers 

Personal data transfers are also a live issue for most UK Data Controllers including public authorities. Whether using an online meeting app, cloud storage solution or a simple text messaging service, all often involve a transfer of personal data to the US. At present use of such services usually involves a complicated TRA and execution of standard contractual clauses. A new UK international data transfer agreement (IDTA) came into force on 21st March 2022 but it still requires a TRA as well as supplementary measures where privacy risks are identified. 

Good news may be round the corner for UK data exporters. The UK Government is also in the process of making an adequacy decision for the US. We suspect it will strike a similar deal once the EU/US one is finalised.

This and other GDPR developments will be discussed in detail on our forthcoming GDPR Update workshop. 

Our next online GDPR Practitioner Certificate course, starting on 10th January, is fully booked. We have places on the course starting on 19th January. 

New US-EU Data Transfer Announcement: Time to celebrate?

On 25th March 2022, the European Commission and the United States announced that they have agreed in principle on a new Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework. The final agreement will replace the Privacy Shield Framework as a mechanism for lawfully transferring personal data from the EEA to the US in compliance with Article 44 of the GDPR. As for UK/US data transfers and compliance with the UK GDPR is concerned, it is expected that the UK Government will strike a similar deal once the EU/US one is finalised.

The need for a “Privacy Shield 2.0” arose two years ago, following the judgment of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in “Schrems II” which stated that organisations that transfer personal data to the US can no longer rely on the Privacy Shield Framework as a legal transfer tool. They must consider using the Article 49 derogations or standard contractual clauses (SCCs). If using the latter, whether for transfers to the USA or other countries, the ECJ placed the onus on the data exporters to make a complex assessment  about the recipient country’s data protection legislation (a Transfer Impact Assessment or TIA), and to put in place “additional measures” to those included in the SCCs. The problem with the US is that it has stringent surveillance laws which give law enforcement agencies access to personal data without adequate safeguards (according to the ECJ in Schrems).

Despite the Schrems II judgment, many organisations have continued to transfer personal data to the US hoping that regulators will wait for a new deal before enforcing Article 44.  Whilst the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) seems to still have a “wait and see” approach, others have started to enforce. In February 2022, the French Data Protection Regulator, CNIL, ruled that use of Google Analytics was a breach of GDPR due to the data being transferred to the US without appropriate safeguards. This followed a similar decision by Austrian Data Protection Authority in January. 

Personal data transfers are also a live issue for most UK Data Controllers including public authorities. Whether using an online meeting app, cloud storage solution or a simple text messaging service, which one does not involve a transfer of personal data to the US? At present use of such services usually involves a complicated TRA and execution of standard contractual clauses. In the UK, a new international data transfer agreement (IDTA) came into force on 21st March 2022 but it still requires a TRA as well as supplementary measures where privacy risks are identified. 

Has the Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework saved DPOs hours of work? But before you break open the bubbly, it is important to understand that this is just an agreement in principle. The parties will now need to draft legal documents to reflect the agreed principles. This will take at least a few months and will then have to be reviewed by the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) adding more time. And of course there is the strong possibility of a legal challenge especially if the ECJ’s concerns about US surveillance laws are not addressed. Max Schrems said in a statement:

“We already had a purely political deal in 2015 that had no legal basis. From what you hear we could play the same game a third time now. The deal was apparently a symbol that von der Leyen wanted, but does not have support among experts in Brussels, as the US did not move. It is especially appalling that the US has allegedly used the war on Ukraine to push the EU on this economic matter.” 

“The final text will need more time, once this arrives we will analyze it in depth, together with our US legal experts. If it is not in line with EU law, we or another group will likely challenge it. In the end, the Court of Justice will decide a third time. We expect this to be back at the Court within months from a final decision.“

“It is regrettable that the EU and US have not used this situation to come to a ‘no spy’ agreement, with baseline guarantees among like-minded democracies. Customers and businesses face more years of legal uncertainty.”

What should organisations do in the meantime? Our view is, if you have any choice in the matter, stick to personal data transfers to adequate countries i.e. those which have been deemed adequate by the UK/EU under Article 45. This will save a lot of time and head scratching conducting TRAs and executing SCCs. Where a US/non-adequate country transfer is unavoidable, a suitable transfer mechanisms has to be used as per Article 45. Of course for genuine one-off transfers the provisions of Article 49 derogations are worth considering. 

Only 2 places left on our Advanced Certificate in GDPR Practice course starting in April. We have also just announced three new GDPR workshops for experienced practitioners.

The CCPA Becomes Enforceable on 1st July 2020 (and there is more to come!)

photo-1523595857-fe9ee689f76f

The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) becomes fully enforceable on 1st July 2020. The Act regulates the processing of California consumers’ personal data, regardless of where a company is located. CCPA provides broader rights to consumers and stricter compliance requirements for businesses than any other state or federal privacy law.

Like the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), CCPA is about giving individuals control over how their personal data is used by organisations. It requires transparency about how such data is collected, used and shared. It gives Californian consumers various rights including the right to:

  • Know and access the personal being collected about them
  • Know whether their personal data is being sold, and to whom
  • Opt out of having their personal data sold
  • Have their personal data deleted upon request
  • Avoid discrimination for exercising their rights

CCPA also requires that a security breach involving personal data, must be notified to each individual it affects. It does not matter if the data is maintained in or outside of California.

CCPA is often called the US equivalent of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Both laws give individuals rights to access and delete their personal information. They require organisations to be transparent about information use and necessitate contracts between businesses and their service providers. In some respects, however, the CCPA does not go as far as GDPR. For example, it only applies to for profit entities, it does not require a legal basis for processing personal data (like Article 6 of GDPR), there are no restrictions on international transfers and no requirement to appoint a data protection officer.

Enforcement

Unlike GDPR, CCPA does not have a regulator like the Information Commissioner in the UK. It is primality enforced by the California Attorney General (AG) through the courts; although there is a private right of right action for a security breach. The courts can impose fines for breaches of CCPA depending on the nature of the breach:

  • $2,500 for an unintentional and $7,500 for an intentional breach
  • $100-$750 per incident per consumer, or actual damages, if higher – for damage caused by a security breach

A business shall only be in breach of the CCPA if it fails to cure any alleged breach within 30 days after being notified of the same.

The AG has now published the final proposed CCPA Regulations. These have to be read alongside the Act. The accompanying Final Statement of Reasons provides some interesting insights into the AG’s views and potential positions on certain issues.

While the CCPA fines and damages may appear relatively low, it is important to note that they are per breach. A privacy incident can affect thousands or tens of thousands of consumers, in which case it could cost a company hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars.

Two big US companies, Hanna Andersson and Salesforce, are already facing a class action lawsuit alleging CCPA violations. Both suffered a data breach that compromised the names, addresses, and credit card information of over 10,000 California residents, which were then sold on the dark web. The lawsuit claims the companies failed to protect consumer data, provide adequate security measures, safeguard their systems from attackers, and delayed notification of the breach.

During the coronavirus pandemic there has been an increased use of video chat and conferencing apps to stay connected. Both Zoom and Houseparty have class actions claiming that they failed to obtain consent from customers for the disclosure of their personal information to third parties like Facebook.

CCPA 2.0

There is more to come! The California State Assembly held a hearing on 12th June 2020 on the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) ballot initiative. Californians for Consumer Privacy, an advocacy group and the proponent of the 2018 ballot initiative that led to the enactment of the CCPA, has gathered more than 900,000 signatures to place the CPRA on the ballot in November of 2020. This is now looking very likely after Friday’s California Superior Court ruling although a deal could be struck to amend the CCPA in exchange for withdrawing the ballot initiative.

The CPRA (or an amendment to the CCPA) will further expand privacy rights of California consumers as well as compliance obligations of businesses, their service providers and contractors. It will, among other things, permit consumers to (1) prevent businesses from sharing (in addition to selling) their personal data; (2) correct inaccurate personal data about them; and (3) limit businesses’ use of “sensitive personal information,” known as Special Category Data under GDPR. This includes information about their race, ethnicity, religion, union membership and biometric data. The proposed law will prohibit businesses from collecting and using personal information for purposes incompatible with the disclosed purposes, and from retaining personal information longer than reasonably necessary. Readers with knowledge of GDPR will agree that this new law is even more like GDPR than the CCPA.

The CPRA will also establish a new California Privacy Protection Agency which will be tasked with enforcing and implementing consumer privacy laws and imposing administrative fines. If enacted CPRA will become operative on 1st January 2023 although its obligations would only apply to personal data collected after 1st January 2022.

A Federal Privacy Law?

CCPA represents the first real, comprehensive privacy legislation in the U.S. It will, no doubt, form the foundation for other state privacy regulations in the future, and quite possibly a U.S federal privacy regulation. Nevada residents also now have more control over how their personal information is used. Senate Bill 220 went into law recently, giving consumers more ability to keep websites from selling their information to third-party firms. Proactive businesses are already considering CCPA as a de facto US privacy law. Recently Microsoft announced that it will apply the main CCPA rights to all its customers in the U.S.

CCPA’s impact will not just be felt by California based businesses. Any business which processes personal data about Californian consumers needs to revaluate its privacy practices. With 40 million Californian residents, making up 12 percent of the US population, it is likely that most big business wherever they are based will have to comply with the CCPA. With substantial fines and penalties for breaches and a 6 month ‘look back’ period, now is the time to implement CCPA compliance measures.

Act Now has launched a US privacy programme covering every thing US and international business need to know about CCPA and GDPR.

 

.

online-gdpr-banner

Viva Las Vegas

Welcome to fabulous Las Vegas sign

Act Now is pleased to announce that Ibrahim Hasan has accepted an invitation to address the 21st Annual NAPCP Commercial Card and Payment Conference in Las Vegas, April 6-9 2020.

high_rez_NAPCP all black with url

The NAPCP is a membership-based professional association committed to advancing Commercial Card and Payment professionals and industry practices globally, with timely research and resources, peer networking and events serving a community of almost 20,000 individuals worldwide. The NAPCP is a respected voice in the industry and an impartial resource for members at all experience levels in the public and private sectors.

In a session entitled “Complying with the GDPR and United States Privacy Legislation” Ibrahim will examine the impact of GDPR and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) on the Payment Card industry. He will also be presenting webinars pre and post conference on these subjects to the NAPCP community.

The NAPCP Annual Conference is the can’t-miss event for the industry, bringing together 600 professionals from around the world to share perspectives on all Commercial Card and Payment vehicles, including Purchasing Card, Travel Card, Fleet Card, Ghost Card, Declining Balance Card, ePayables and other electronic payment options. Experts and practitioners share case studies, successes and thought-provoking ideas in almost 80 breakout sessions, all with an eye for trends and innovation across sectors.

Diane McGuire, CPCP, MBA, Managing Director of the NACP, said:

“I am really pleased that Ibrahim has accepted our invitation to join us in Las Vegas. As legislators and governments globally are starting to wake up to the implications of the digital revolution on individuals’ rights, our conference delegates will benefit from his GDPR and privacy expertise in what is sure to be a thought-provoking session.”

This is one of a number of international projects that Act Now has worked on in recent years. In June 2018 we delivered a GDPR workshop in Dubai for Middle East businesses and their advisers. In 2015 Ibrahim went to Brunei to conduct data protection audit training for government staff.

Ibrahim Hasan said:

“I am really pleased to address the NACP conference in Las Vegas. Our GDPR expertise is now being recognised abroad. The United States is the latest addition to our increasing international portfolio. We hope to use the conference as a platform to showcase our expertise to the US Data Controllers.”

Regular registration is now open for the event. Head over to this link to confirm registration.

NAPCPConferenceLogo_2020-high rez

Act Now’s forthcoming live and interactive CCPA webinar will cover the main obligations and rights in CCPA and practical steps to compliance. This webinar is ideal for data protection officers and advisers in UK and US businesses.