Skip to content
HumenhukCIPP/US Study Guide
Study library Study guide Free diagnostic Practice questions Full question bank Account
Home / 1-page guide

CIPP/US: the whole exam on one page

Reviewed by Victor Humenhuk. Published 22 June 2026. Reviewed 31 August 2026.

Study levels - most to least detail: Full guide › Everything (1 page) › Essentials › Cram sheet

Every exam-relevant U.S. privacy law, regulator, threshold, opt-in/opt-out rule, distinction and landmark case for the IAPP CIPP/US - condensed into one scannable page. Skim it to see everything at once; use the full study notes and the practice exam to go deeper.

Jump to: Introduction to Privacy · U.S. Legal Framework · Technological Aspects of Privacy · Information & Privacy Risk Management · Federal & State Regulators and Enforcement · State Comprehensive Privacy Laws · State Breach, Security & Sectoral Laws · Medical Privacy · Financial Privacy · Education & Children's Privacy · Telecommunications & Marketing · Workplace Privacy · Government & Court Access to Data · GDPR & International Privacy · Other points · More must-knows

Introduction to Privacy

What privacy is

  • 1890 Warren and Brandeis, "The Right to Privacy" (Harvard Law Review) - defined privacy as "the right to be let alone."
  • Terminology by region: U.S. = "privacy law" (also data/information privacy); EU = "data protection law." Same field.

Four classes of privacy (I-B-T-C)

ClassFocus / typical invasion
InformationHandling of records (financial, medical, internet) - this guide's main focus
BodilyThe physical being - genetic/drug testing, body cavity searches
TerritorialA person's environment (home/work) - video surveillance, ID checks
CommunicationsMeans of correspondence - mail, phone, email interception
Memory hook

I-B-T-C = Information, Bodily, Territorial, Communications. Same fact pattern can hit two classes: a drug test (bodily) whose results are then sold (information).

Historical origins

  • 1361 Justices of the Peace Act (England) - arrest of "peeping Toms" and eavesdroppers; 1765 Lord Camden barred warrantless home searches.
  • U.S. Constitution (1789): does NOT contain the word "privacy" - inferred from 3rd (quartering), 4th (search warrants), 5th (self-incrimination), 14th (due process) Amendments.
  • California Constitution: EXPRESSLY guarantees privacy, added by ballot measure November 1974 (Art. 1, Sec. 1).
  • 1948 UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights; 1950 European Convention on Human Rights Article 8 (private life, home, correspondence).
Classic trap

U.S. Constitution = privacy implied. California Constitution = privacy explicit (1974 ballot). Don't swap them.

Fair Information Practices (FIPs / FIPPs)

Since the 1970s, the main way to organize rights and responsibilities. Four categories:

CategoryPrinciples
Rights of individualsNotice; choice and consent; data subject access
Controls on the informationInformation security; information quality
Information life cycleCollection; use and retention; disclosure
ManagementManagement and administration; monitoring and enforcement

FIP codifications - the framework table

Framework / yearWhat it doesKey point / trap
HEW Code (1973), U.S. Dept. of Health, Education and WelfareFoundation of today's FIPs; five requirementsNo secret recordkeeping systems; access; no new-purpose use without consent; correction; reliability
OECD Guidelines (1980, updated 2013)Most widely recognized FIP framework; eight principlesEndorsed by the FTC. Ends with the Accountability principle (controller answers for the rest)
Convention 108 (1981), Council of EuropeBinding treaty - signatory states must enact data protection in domestic lawCovers special categories of data; updated as 108+ (2018) to align with GDPR. U.S. is only an observer, not expected to ratify
APEC Privacy Framework (2004, updated 2015)21 Pacific members; nine principles mirroring OECD but more explicit on exceptionsNonbinding agreement (unlike EU). 1st principle = Preventing Harm. Led to CBPR and the 2022 Global CBPR Forum
Madrid Resolution (2009)Uniform principles + facilitate international data flowsApproved by data protection commissioners, NOT governments
OECD 8 principles

Collection Limitation, Data Quality, Purpose Specification, Use Limitation, Security Safeguards, Openness, Individual Participation, Accountability.

IT and the rise of data protection law - two firsts in 1970

FirstDetail
World's first modern data protection lawHesse, Germany (1970) - reaction to Third Reich abuses
First U.S. national privacy lawFair Credit Reporting Act / FCRA (1970) - sectoral, consumer credit only

Context: 1960s mainframes drove surveillance fears (Orwell's 1984, "Big Brother").

Categories of data

Personal information / PII
Data that identifies an individual; applies to both electronic and paper records.
Sensitive personal information
Subset needing extra safeguards: SSNs, financial info, driver's license numbers, health information.
Nonpersonal (deidentified / anonymized)
Identifiers removed; privacy laws generally do not apply.
Pseudonymized
Held under codes - only temporarily nonpersonal and reversible (can reidentify).
Anonymized vs pseudonymized

Anonymized = permanent, out of scope. Pseudonymized = reversible, can reidentify (e.g., drug-trial codes). Don't equate them.

The personal / nonpersonal line - IP addresses

RegimeIP address treated as...
European UnionPersonal data (identifiable)
U.S. agencies under the Privacy ActNOT covered
U.S. FTC (health-breach context)Personal information

Static IPs and IPv6 push the line toward "identifiable."

Sources of personal information

SourceDefinition / example
Public recordsHeld by government, available to public - deeds, court filings
Publicly availableBroadly accessible - phone book, newspapers, search engines
NonpublicRestricted by law/custom - medical, financial, adoption records

Same name and address can be all three at once - handling depends on the source.

Processing and data roles

Processing
Almost anything done with data - collect, store, use, disclose, combine, erase, destroy.
Data subject
The individual the data is about.
Data controller
Decides how and why data is processed - focus of most obligations.
Data processor
Acts on controller's behalf; "business associate" under HIPAA. Cannot process beyond what the controller permits.

Sources of privacy protection (4)

  • Markets - consumer/brand pressure
  • Technology - e.g., encryption, works even where law/markets are weak
  • Law - traditional approach
  • Self-/co-regulation - policies, industry codes
Three questions for self-regulation

Who legislates (defines rules), who enforces (initiates action - DPAs, agencies, individuals), who adjudicates (decides violations).

Models of data protection

ModelHow it worksKey point / trap
Comprehensive (EU)Government rules across public + private sectors, overseen by a DPAAdopted to (1) remedy past injustices (Germany/Nazi-Stasi), (2) ensure EU consistency / GDPR adequacy, (3) promote e-commerce. Critics: one-size-fits-all, may slow innovation
Sectoral (U.S.)Separate laws per industry (credit, health, video, finance)No single DPA; suffers gaps and overlaps
Co-regulatory (Australia; U.S. COPPA)Industry codes backed by government lawFTC-approved COPPA codes can satisfy the statute
Self-regulatory (U.S.)Codes with no general data protection law - PCI DSS, seal programsCriticized on adequacy and weak enforcement
Technology-basedTools (e.g., provider encryption) reduce reliance on administrative measures-
Sectoral gaps and overlaps

Gap: drones unregulated until Congress acts; HITECH (2009) filled a gap by adding breach notice for personal-health-record vendors not covered by HIPAA. Overlap: a HIPAA provider can be enforced by HHS under HIPAA or the FTC for unfair and deceptive practices.

Seal programs (self-regulation) - FTC-recognized COPPA seals: CARU, ESRB, iKeepSafe, kidSAFE, PRIVO, TrustArc.

U.S. Legal Framework

Three branches and sources of law

BranchRoleWho
LegislativeMakes lawsCongress (House + Senate); can override vetoes, Senate confirms appointees
ExecutiveEnforces lawsPresident, cabinet, federal agencies (e.g. FTC); president has veto + appoints judges
JudicialInterprets laws / rules on constitutionalityFederal courts
Agencies wield all three powers

When Congress delegates authority, an agency can make rules (legislative), investigate/enforce (executive), and adjudicate disputes (judicial) - all at once.

Sources of U.S. law: constitutions (federal + state), legislation, case law, contract law, tort law, agency regulations, consent decrees. A single privacy obligation can come from more than one. (Voluntary self-regulatory codes are NOT a primary source.)

Constitutions and privacy

  • U.S. Constitution (1787) never uses the word "privacy." The Fourth Amendment limits government searches.
  • Supreme Court recognized a privacy right via a penumbra of unenumerated rights + due process.
  • Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health (2022) overturned Roe v. Wade; said to be limited to abortion but raises concern for other penumbra-based rights.
  • State constitutions may grant stronger rights; California lists privacy as inalienable; 11 state constitutions expressly recognize privacy.

Legislation and preemption

Both Congress and states legislate. Under the Tenth Amendment, powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states. Key question: does federal law preempt state law (ceiling) or set a floor states may exceed?

LawEffect on state law
HIPAA Privacy RuleFLOOR - states MAY pass stricter rules
CAN-SPAM Act (commercial email)CEILING - federal PREEMPTS stricter state law
Don't reverse them

HIPAA allows stricter state laws; CAN-SPAM preempts them.

Case law, common law, contract, tort

Case law
Final judicial decisions used as precedent.
Stare decisis
"Let the decision stand" - following precedent (can change over time).
Common law
Principles built up in judicial decisions (vs. statute); long protected doctor-patient and attorney-client confidentiality without statutes.

Contract needs offer + acceptance + consideration (no consideration = no contract). Counteroffer ends the original offer. Used for vendor data/security/breach terms.

Notice as a contract

If a consumer gives data relying on the company's promise in its notice, the privacy notice may itself be a contract; breaking it = breach.

Torts (civil wrongs), three categories:

CategoryTestPrivacy example
IntentionalKnew/should have known harm would resultStealing personal info
NegligentConduct unreasonably unsafeInadequate security controls
Strict liabilityDamage regardless of carelessnessProduct liability

Privacy torts date to the 1890s: intrusion on seclusion, public disclosure of private facts, false light, right of publicity. Often met with a First Amendment free-speech defense; courts are not uniform (unsettled).

Regulations, guidance, consent decrees

  • Statutes can direct agencies (e.g. FTC and FCC) to issue rules with compliance force - e.g. CAN-SPAM (2003) rules on the opt-out mechanism.
  • Agency opinions guide interpretation but don't necessarily carry the weight of law; informal channels (reports, speeches, testimony) show mindset and enforcement priorities, not requirements.
  • Consent decree: judge-approved settlement to stop alleged illegal activity, typically without admitting guilt; once approved has the effect of a court decision. FTC has used many (e.g. COPPA), usually requiring payment to the government + future compliance.

Key definitions

Person
Any entity with legal rights - natural (individual) or legal (corporation).
Jurisdiction
Court needs both subject-matter (type of dispute) and personal (over parties) jurisdiction.
Private right of action
A harmed individual can sue the violator directly.
AuthorityMeaningFTC example
GeneralBlanket authority over a fieldUnfair/deceptive trade practices
SpecificTargeted by legislationEnforcing COPPA
FTC holds BOTH

An agency can have general AND specific authority at the same time.

Notice, choice, access

  • Notice = description of practices; serves consumer education + corporate accountability. For most industries, notice promises are enforceable by the FTC and the states.
  • Privacy notice (external, to consumers) vs privacy policy (internal standards).
  • Access = view (and often update/correct) data held; common where info drives substantive decisions (e.g. credit reports).
ModelMechanismIf silent (no answer)
Opt-inAffirmative "yes"Info NOT shared
Opt-outImplied unless objectsInfo IS shared

Regulatory authorities and self-regulation

  • FTC - general authority over unfair/deceptive practices (incl. deception actions for broken privacy promises) + specific authority (children's privacy, marketing).
  • Sector regulators: banking (CFPB, Federal Reserve, OCC), FCC, DOT, HHS Office of Civil Rights (health).
  • Department of Commerce has NO privacy regulatory authority but often leads executive-branch privacy policy.
  • State attorneys general enforce, often under state unfair/deceptive-practices laws.
  • Under the CPRA, California created the CPPA - first U.S. agency dedicated to a state comprehensive law (like European DPAs).
  • Self-regulation: NAI, Association of National Advertisers (formerly DMA), CARU; some government rules expect companies to enroll.

Six keys to understanding any law

  1. Who is covered? (scope)
  2. What information/uses are covered? (scope)
  3. What is required/prohibited? (how to comply)
  4. Who enforces? (risk)
  5. What if you don't comply? (risk)
  6. Why does it exist? (spirit/trends)

Worked example: California SB 1386 (breach notification)

QuestionAnswer
WhoEntities doing business in California that own/license computerized personal info
WhatName + unencrypted SSN, CA ID, driver's license, or financial account/card + access code
RequiredDisclose breach to affected CA residents "as expediently as possible"
Who enforcesCalifornia AG + private right of action
WhyPrevent identity theft - first U.S. breach-notification law
Exemptions

Databases with only names/addresses or only encrypted data are NOT covered. Also: good-faith employee acquisition (if not used/disclosed) is exempt, and notice may be delayed at law enforcement's request.

Technological Aspects of Privacy

This chapter is mostly technology, not law - but the exam tests how laws and cases attach to that technology. Watch for the laws/cases woven in: CAN-SPAM, TCPA, CIPA, COPPA, CPRA, HIPAA, GDPR and Carpenter v. United States.

How the internet and web work

  • TCP establishes a reliable connection and breaks data into packets; IP sets packet format and addressing (unique IP address). Data moves by packet switching - packets routed independently, reassembled in order. Header routes; payload is content.
  • Internet is broader than the web (also email, IP telephony, file sharing, IoT). HTTP/HTML (Berners-Lee, CERN) drive the web; HTTPS encrypts the connection. XML describes the data; HTML describes display.
  • URL = protocol + www + domain + top-level domain (.com/.org/.gov/.edu/country code). URLs are a subset of URIs.
HTML vs XML

HTML = how content displays; XML = the data itself (enables automated high-volume processing). Classic swap on the exam.

Infrastructure: gateways, IPs, architecture, cloud

ComponentPrivacy point
Proxy serverGateway; outside site sees only proxy IP; logs, filters malware, caches
VPNEncrypts user-to-server traffic; masks content + destination from the local ISP
TLSSecures user-server link against eavesdropping; successor to SSL
ISPConnects users; assigns static (fixed) or dynamic IPs
Web server logAuto-record of requests (IP, time, URL, browser/OS); can wrongly capture passwords
Why an IP can be personal data

A static or persistent dynamic IP durably links to a device. The EU (and some regulators) treat IP addresses as personal information; others do not.

  • Client-server: front end (HTML/CSS/JS) vs back end (databases). Separating them contains a breach. Thick client processes offline; thin client relies on remote processing.
  • Cloud: on-demand computing vs on-premises.
ModelDeliversCustomer control
SaaSVendor-managed apps in browserLowest
PaaSDev framework/componentsMedium
IaaSRaw compute/network/storageHighest (customer manages PI databases)
  • Edge computing: processes data at the network periphery (driven by IoT) to cut data-center cost and latency.

Email, texts and the laws on marketing messages

ProtocolNote
SMTPSends email
IMAPLeaves mail on server; multi-device sync (overtaking POP)
POPDeletes mail from server
SMS160-char limit; works over cell without internet
OTT (iMessage, Signal, WhatsApp)Internet-based; can offer end-to-end encryption
Email vs text marketing laws

CAN-SPAM = commercial email (honor opt-outs). TCPA = marketing via text. Don't swap them.

Tracking, monitoring and surveillance

  • Deep packet inspection: a node reads beyond the header (malware scanning, data-leak prevention, ad targeting, censorship - China's Great Firewall). Effective encryption (HTTPS, encrypted email) defeats it (HTTPS/encrypted email surged after the 2013 Snowden disclosures).
  • Packet sniffing: captures unencrypted Wi-Fi traffic. Defenses: encrypted Wi-Fi (per-user key), VPN (also covers the ISP), HTTPS.
  • HTTP cookies exist because HTTP is stateless. A domain can only read cookies it set.
CookieMeaning
SessionLasts until browser closes
PersistentSaved indefinitely; recognizes return visits
First-partySet by the site visited
Third-partySet by another company (ad/social network)
  • First-party data: cookies, UGC, and terms of use. Cookie consent covers only setting cookies; broad rights (selling data, location) come from the terms of use. In CA + EU, give notice before setting cookies.
  • Data brokers: obtain, cleanse, license data; scrutinized by the FTC (market >$250B).
  • Third-party cookie decline: CPRA (effective January 2023) requires notice + an OPT-OUT for third-party cookies (US opt-out, not EU opt-in). By end-2022, Edge, Firefox, Safari blocked them by default; Chrome "in process."
  • Email open tracking: a tracking pixel loads on open - read in plain text to defeat it.
  • Cross-device: deterministic (same login) vs probabilistic (inferred from IP, cookies, location, behavior).
Phishing variantDistinguishing feature
Spear phishingTailored to a specific individual (e.g. "from your boss")
WhalingSpear phishing aimed at C-suite/celebrities/politicians
SmishingVia SMS text
VishingVia fraudulent voice call/message
Spyware defense + definition

For phishing that slips past filters, the principal defense is user training. Whether software is spyware turns largely on the user's intent and knowledge (same remote-screen tool = tech support, or spyware without consent). Keylogging is a form of spyware.

Location, sensors and the cases/laws

  • Location tech: cell-tower/Wi-Fi triangulation, GPS, photo metadata (auto-stored location).
  • Sensors: a RAT (remote access trojan) can hijack camera/mic and disable the in-use light.
Carpenter + location laws

Carpenter v. United States: police need a warrant for long-term tracking of movements (short periods - holders may respond voluntarily). COPPA includes location in personal data; state laws treat location as sensitive.

Video vs audio surveillance

Government video surveillance is generally legal in the US except where there's a reasonable expectation of privacy (e.g. a bathroom). Wiretap laws restrict secret audio surveillance.

Monitoring by authority: US employers may generally monitor internet use/emails on company networks/devices. CIPA requires public schools and libraries to install content filters. Ability to monitor does not make it legal or ethical.

Deidentification

ConceptDefinition / exam point
AnonymizationRemoves identifiability; falls outside GDPR
PseudonymizationMasks identity with a unique code; GDPR still treats it as personal data
Strong identifierSSN, passport number - identifies alone
Weak / quasi-identifierMust combine with other data; e.g. date of birth (Latanya Sweeney re-identified the MA governor via ZIP + DOB + gender)
TechniqueHow
SuppressionRemove identifying values
GeneralizationBroaden detail (year not full DOB; municipality not GPS)
Noise additionSwap similar-but-different values, preserving statistics (e.g. averages)
  • Differential privacy: math guarantee that the result yields essentially the same inference whether or not any individual's data is included; used in parts of the 2020 Census (dropped in 2022 for complex datasets).
  • Linked vs linkable (FTC, Ramirez 2016): PII = data reasonably linkable to a person/computer/device (incl. device IDs, MAC, static IP, loyalty numbers).
StandardRequirement
HIPAA - Safe HarborRemove 18 identifiers (ZIP ≤ first 3 digits)
HIPAA - Expert DeterminationExpert documents very small re-identification risk
FTC 3-part "not reasonably linkable"(1) reasonable deidentification measures; (2) public commitment not to re-identify; (3) contractually bar downstream recipients (FTC warned 2022 "anonymous" claims are often deceptive)

Encryption, hashing and signatures

  • Encryption = plaintext to ciphertext via a key; protects in transit (man-in-the-middle), at rest, in use. Under most breach laws, encryption at rest creates an exception from the duty to report a breach.
ApproachKeys / trade-off
SymmetricOne shared key; fast, but Alice must securely share it with Bob
AsymmetricPublic + private pair; scales (encrypt with recipient's public key); basis for certificates
  • CA validates identity and issues digitally signed certificates linking a person to a public key; PKI is the surrounding system.
  • Hashing = one-way (irreversible); used for pseudonyms + integrity. Unsalted hashes of short values (SSNs) can be defeated by lookup tables - add salt.
  • Digital signature: Alice signs with her private key; Bob verifies it's unchanged with her public key.

Cybersecurity foundations

Privacy vs security

First approximation: privacy decides which uses are authorized; security prevents unauthorized access. Security adds integrity + availability beyond the confidentiality it shares with privacy.

  • CIA triad: Confidentiality (no unauthorized access), Integrity (not improperly altered), Availability (accessible when needed - ransomware hits this).
  • NIST CSF (2014): guidance, not law. Five Core Functions run concurrently: Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, Recover.
STRIDEThreat
SSpoofing (undermines authentication)
TTampering (alters hardware/software)
RRepudiation (failing to track actions)
IInformation disclosure
DDenial of service (DDoS makes service inoperable)
EElevation of privilege (up to root)
  • Zero trust: trust no actor inside or outside the perimeter; verify everything, encrypt all traffic.
  • Least privilege via role-based access controls - often required by the HIPAA Security Rule. Plus defense in depth and security by default.
Privacy by design + the human factor

Privacy by design embeds privacy from the onset and is legally required in California and the EU. But most encryption is cracked through implementation mistakes, not algorithm flaws - technical measures need organizational measures (limiting employee access) too.

Information & Privacy Risk Management

The Business Case for Privacy

  • Compliance is costly (over $1M/yr per company on GDPR after 2018; ITIF: a 50-state patchwork could cost ~$100B/yr), but mishandling data costs more - IBM 2022 average breach over $4M (higher in health/finance).
  • Sensitive data (medical, financial, children's) held to a higher bar.
  • Trust drives revenue: Cisco - ~75% of consumers won't buy from a business they distrust with data; Edelman - ethics matter more than competence. Equifax (~150M affected) regained near-pre-breach trust within a year.
Surveillance capitalism
Zuboff's term for collecting data to influence behavior.
Duty of loyalty
Proposed federal-bill duty to act in data subjects' best interests.

Information Management and Privacy Team Roles

Run under a senior leader (the CPO); mixes legal, IT, marketing, HR skills. Westin split the public into three attitude groups: fundamentalists (strong protectors), unconcerned (low worry), and pragmatists (largest, context-dependent, trade privacy for benefit).

RoleCore focus
Chief privacy officer (CPO)Leadership; develops/implements data-processing policies; can drive processing decisions
Data protection officer (DPO)More common in Europe; ensures legal compliance; must stay independent - not involved in processing decisions, no conflicting duties
Privacy engineerCompliance through technical processes (newer role)
Privacy managerMid-level; develops, maintains, enforces policies
Privacy analystOften entry-level; assesses business-unit ops, builds policies/trainings

Informal: privacy champions (advocates), first responders (front-line during incidents).

CPO vs DPO

CPO = leadership that can drive decisions. DPO = independent assurance role - cannot make processing decisions or hold conflicting duties (e.g., head of marketing analytics cannot be DPO).

Data Life Cycle, Inventory, Classification, Mapping

  • Data life cycle: Create → Store → Share/Use → Archive → Delete. Retention/destruction obligations (state data destruction laws, Ch.7) sit at the end.
  • Data inventory: document all PI collected/stored/used/disclosed (customer and employee). Documented inventory reduces penalty severity in enforcement; legally required under the GLBA Safeguards Rule (Ch.9).
  • Classification by sensitivity sets access clearance + protection; segregating sensitive data limits the blast radius of a breach and over-broad access.
Mapping approachDescription
Top-downFor regulatory purposes; often starts with the GDPR-required RoPA (purpose, recipients, retention, safeguards)
Bottom-upData assets → inventory/classification → processes (can use RoPA) → data lineage (source, critical data, how sets are aggregated)
Mapping ≠ RoPA

RoPA is one specific GDPR-mandated artifact; a broader data map merely starts from or incorporates it.

Data Accountability - Controllers, Processors, Encryption

TermMeaning / analogue
ControllerDetermines purposes and means of processing
ProcessorProcesses on the controller's behalf; usually signs a contract to meet controller's guarantees
Processor analoguesHIPAA business associate (PHI); GLBA service provider (financial info)
  • Limited retention cuts breach risk; some laws require deletion after a period or when purpose ends.
  • Data owner assigns sensitivity (confidential, proprietary, sensitive, restricted, public).
Encryption and breach notice

Under many breach-notification laws, no notice is required if the lost PI is sufficiently encrypted - a key driver of encryption at rest and in transit (HTTPS).

The Privacy Program - Four Business Risks

RiskWhat it covers
LegalComply with law and contracts (e.g., PCI DSS) or face litigation / multi-year consent decrees
ReputationalHarm from announcing but not following policies; enforcement particularly by the FTC
OperationalMust be efficient; overly heavy-handed programs block beneficial PI uses (personalization, fraud)
StrategicEarn a return on information/technology investments amid evolving regulation

Framework steps: develop → implement → metrics, beginning with a privacy mission statement/vision. Compliance metrics = data subject requests, disclosures, incidents, employees trained, PIA metrics. Beyond compliance = ROI, business resilience, program maturity, trend analysis, resource use.

Privacy Operational Life Cycle (A-P-S-R)

StageKey activities
AssessBaseline; evaluate processors/third parties; identify operational risks
ProtectReview access/technical controls and incident response; embed privacy in functions (HR)
SustainMonitor compliance + regulatory change; audit; train employees/management/contractors
RespondSupport consumer rights (access, redress, correction, erasure); handle complaints/appeals/incidents

Privacy Policy vs Privacy Notice

AspectPolicyNotice
DirectionInternalExternal
AudienceEmployees/contractorsCustomers, users (sometimes employees)
PurposeGuide PI handlingTransparency - treated as a promise
Breaking a notice = deceptive practice

Violating a promise communicated in the notice exposes a company to a deceptive-practice action by the FTC or a state attorney general.

Updating: needs legal review + executive approval; review at least annually; use revision dates/version numbers and keep old versions (use data only per the notice in effect at collection).

Opt-in for material retroactive changes

FTC: get express affirmative consent (opt-in) before a material retroactive change. A material change at minimum = sharing data with third parties after promising at collection not to.

Delivering Notices

  • Layered notice: short top layer + linked full notice (good for small mobile screens).
  • Just-in-time notice: at or before the point of collection.
  • Privacy dashboard: summary plus user control.
  • GLBA requires financial institutions to deliver the notice annually, with clear opt-out rights. HIPAA mandates training for all covered-entity employees.

Consent Models: Opt-In / Opt-Out / No Option

ModelExamples
Opt-in (affirmative/express)COPPA (verifiable parental consent before child's PI); HIPAA before disclosing PHI; FCRA before credit report to employer/lender; EU/GDPR marketing; sensitive data (geolocation)
Opt-out (consumer choice)GLBA before transferring PI to unaffiliated third party; VPPA before sharing rental data; CAN-SPAM marketing email; Do Not Call telemarketing
No option (commonly accepted)Order fulfillment (shipping, card processing); internal ops, fraud prevention, legal compliance, first-party marketing
Match law to consent model

COPPA / HIPAA disclosure / FCRA credit-report release = opt-in. GLBA third-party transfer / VPPA / CAN-SPAM = opt-out. Opt-out is less stringent but still an enforceable promise. Double opt-in = interest + email confirmation before marketing.

Managing Preferences and Dark Patterns

  • Channel symmetry: the marketing channel should be the opt-out channel - CAN-SPAM requires an online opt-out for email (mail/phone-only not acceptable).
  • Linking: under GLBA a bank must honor an opt-out across all communications regardless of media used to request it.
  • Scope: third-party sharing needs opt-out; affiliate sharing does not. Third-party vendors must honor preferences given to the first organization; consent must be revocable.
  • Dark patterns (interfaces that subvert user autonomy) are increasingly barred as valid consent.

Consumer Rights and Requests

  • Rights: access, correction (rectification), deletion, portability, against automated decision-making, nondiscrimination - with defined response periods and a right to appeal (then complain to a regulator).
  • Statutory access: FCRA (credit reports + rectification), HIPAA (medical records, disputes noted), GDPR, and the Judicial Redress Act of 2015 (qualifying non-U.S. individuals vs a U.S. agency). Absent a statute, access derives from OECD Guidelines / APEC Principles.

Privacy Risk Management, PIAs, Vendors

  • Privacy risk = likelihood individuals experience problems from processing × the impact if they occur (NIST framing).
  • Privacy harms: loss of self-determination (autonomy, exclusion, loss of liberty, physical harm), discrimination, loss of trust, economic loss.
  • PIA (≈ GDPR DPIA): ensures legal conformity, determines risks/effects, evaluates protections; usually combines risk assessment + treatment. The privacy risk assessment weighs privacy impact × likelihood given controls.

Vendor/third-party risk: companies remain responsible for vendor actions; policy claims apply to third parties. Contract protections: confidentiality, no further use, subcontractor flow-down, prompt breach notice, security provisions, return/deletion at end. Due diligence: reputation, finances, SOC 2 (AICPA), disposal per the FACTA Disposal Rule, PCI DSS.

SolarWinds

Software vendor to 18,000+ orgs; in 2020 inadvertently pushed malicious code in updates, creating backdoors used to spy on Fortune 500 firms and U.S. agencies - the classic vendor-risk lesson.

Information Security - CIA Triad and Controls

Confidentiality
Access limited to authorized parties.
Integrity
Data is authentic and complete.
Availability
Data accessible to the authorized as needed.
Control typeExamples
PhysicalLocks, cameras, fences
AdministrativeIncident response procedures, training
TechnicalFirewalls, antivirus, access logs
Security ≠ privacy

Security protects information from unauthorized access; privacy decides what use/disclosure is authorized and adds the individual's right to control. Security is necessary but not sufficient for privacy. NIST Cybersecurity Framework: Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, Recover.

Data Breach Readiness Assessment

Forward-looking gauge of likelihood and severity of a personal data breach. Factors: type/nature of data (esp. sensitive PI); whether safeguards like encryption or pseudonymization were applied (lower assessed severity); effect on data subjects; potential malicious use; potential substantial physical damage.

Global Perspective and Cross-Border Transfers

160+ nations have significant privacy laws; the GDPR draws the most attention - fines based on worldwide revenue. GDPR-similar laws (China, India, Brazil, Japan, South Korea) are not identical - comply with each regime. Data localization (store/process within borders) is a rising trend.

Trust mechanismDescription
Domestic / unilateralPre-authorization safeguards: adequacy determinations and/or SCCs
MultilateralOECD Privacy Guidelines; APEC Cross-Border Privacy Rules; Council of Europe Convention 108 / 108+
Trade agreementsIncreasingly include data-flow provisions (still allow public-policy restrictions)
Standards / technologyISO standards and PETs (privacy-enhancing technologies)

Federal & State Regulators and Enforcement

The U.S. regulatory model

  • Sectoral, not comprehensive - privacy regulated by industry (medical, financial, education), no single omnibus federal law.
  • The FTC is the lead privacy enforcer, filling consumer-protection gaps under Section 5.
  • All 50 states have UDAP statutes (Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices) similar to the FTC Act; absence of a federal comprehensive law makes state enforcement more important.

Three types of legal action

TypeWho brings itOutcome
Civil litigationPrivate plaintiff (sometimes via a private right of action)Money damages or injunction
Criminal prosecutionGovt - federally the DOJ (sole federal criminal enforcer); states use AGs/DAsImprisonment + criminal fines
Administrative enforcementAn agency (e.g. FTC) under the APAAdjudication before an ALJ, appealable to federal court

FCRA has a private right of action - a consumer can sue directly, no agency referral needed.

Federal sectoral regulators (who enforces what)

Law / sectorLead agency
HIPAA (health/PHI)OCR within HHS
GLBA (financial/NPI)CFPB + bank regulators (Fed, OCC)
FERPA (education records)Dept. of Education
TCPA (telecom/telemarketing)FCC
ADA / antidiscrimination (workplace)EEOC
Privacy Act of 1974 (federal agencies + contractors)OMB (lead interpreter)
Overlap trap

The FTC may have overlapping responsibility, but match the statute to its primary regulator - don't pick the FTC for sector-specific statutes. AI angle: OCR/HHS addresses improper PHI collection by AI; EEOC addresses algorithmic hiring discrimination.

Other actors: DOS (international), DOC (federal privacy policy, EU-U.S. data flows), DOT/FAA/NHTSA (drones, connected cars), IRS/Treasury + FinCEN (tax records, money laundering), DHS (E-Verify, TSA, ICE), DOE (Smart Grid).

FTC Section 5 - the cornerstone

  • Independent agency (chair + 4 commissioners); founded 1914 (antitrust), consumer-protection mission added 1938.
  • Section 5 bars "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce" - the single most important U.S. privacy provision (never mentions privacy explicitly).
Outside FTC reach

Section 5 does NOT cover: nonprofits, banks / federally regulated financial institutions, and common carriers (transportation + communications). The exam will hand you one of these and tempt the FTC answer.

Landmark cases

CaseCourt / yearHolding
FTC v. Wyndham3rd Cir., 2015Section 5 unfairness extends to cybersecurity; FTC may require more than minimum standards
FTC v. LabMD11th Cir., 2018Recognized authority but vacated the order as too vague ("mandates a complete overhaul" without saying how)
AMG Capital Mgmt v. FTCSCOTUS, 2021FTC cannot get monetary relief (damages) under Section 13(b)
West Virginia v. EPASCOTUS, 2022Major questions doctrine - may narrow FTC rulemaking authority

FTC enforcement tools

ProvisionTypeWhat it does
Section 5(l)AdministrativeCease-and-desist order; civil penalties for later violations of an order
Section 13(b)JudicialHistorically equitable money relief (restitution, disgorgement) - now limited by AMG
Section 19JudicialCourt relief, but only after a final cease-and-desist order
  • FTC cannot itself assess civil penalties; seeks them in federal court, up to $50,120 per violation.
  • Rulemaking: UDAP trade-rules use the slower Magnuson-Moss (Section 18) process, NOT ordinary APA notice-and-comment; must show the practice is prevalent + unfair/deceptive + economic effects.
Consent decrees

Most FTC privacy matters end in a consent decree: respondent does not admit fault but promises to change practices. Decrees are public, often require privacy programs/audits, and monetary fines are far easier to assess in federal court once a decree exists and is later violated (monitored by the BCP Enforcement Division with the DOJ).

Deceptive vs unfair practices

Deceptive practice
A material statement or omission likely to mislead reasonable consumers - includes breaking privacy-notice promises.
Unfair practice
Three-part test: (1) substantial injury (not speculative); (2) not reasonably avoidable; (3) not outweighed by countervailing benefits. No deceptive statement required.
CaseYearTheory / key point
Facebook2019Deceptive - $5B fine (then largest); violated its 2012 consent order; board-level privacy accountability
Everalbum2021Deceptive - auto-enabled facial recognition (said opt-in); algorithmic disgorgement (delete models from improperly obtained data)
Equifax2019Unfair - 2017 breach (~150M); settled w/ FTC + CFPB + 50 states; $300M consumer fund, $175M states, $100M CFPB penalty; 20-yr security program
Uber2018Unfair - concealed 2016 breach + ransom; first executive criminal prosecution (security chief convicted 2022)

Algorithmic disgorgement is non-monetary, so it survives AMG - increasingly used for AI.

FTC authority beyond Section 5

LawFTC roleKey detail
COPPARulemaking + enforcementChildren under 13; requires notice + verifiable parental consent
HITECHShares with HHSBreach notice for personal health record providers (even w/o govt reimbursement)
FCRA / FACTAHistoric, now largely CFPBState AGs must notify the FTC before suit (FTC may intervene)
CAN-SPAMShares with FCC + state AGsUnsolicited commercial email; FCC rules on MSCMs (commercial texts)

Future priorities: 2023 Office of Technology; 2022 proposed commercial surveillance rules (Magnuson-Moss); 2020 data portability workshop; 2022 dark patterns report; broadened Section 5 competition vision (no separate market-power showing needed).

State enforcement

  • State AGs are the primary privacy enforcers; may join federal actions under HIPAA, GLBA, and CAN-SPAM.
  • All 50 states have UDAP statutes; the FTC Act does NOT preempt non-conflicting state UDAP laws. Some reach unconscionable practices; several allow private rights of action.

Comprehensive state laws by end of 2022: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Utah, Virginia. Most reference COPPA for children's consent. They exempt federal sectoral laws via:

Entity-level exemption
Excuses the whole entity subject to a federal law.
Data-based exemption
Excuses only the data regulated by that law (HIPAA, GLBA, FCRA, DPPA).

State breach, SSN, identity-theft and other laws

  • California enacted the first breach law in 2002; all 50 states now have one. Many require reports to state AGs.
  • Breach-law personal info = name + (1) SSN, (2) driver's license/state ID, or (3) financial account/card number - narrower than comprehensive-law definitions.
  • FACTA (2003) amended FCRA and preempted many state credit-report laws, but states kept identity-theft authority; all 50 have identity-theft laws (over half allow restitution).
  • Common-law privacy torts: intrusion upon seclusion, appropriation of name/likeness, publicity given to private life, false light.
  • DPPA (1994): bars state DMVs from releasing drivers' info without permission.
Two age lines

COPPA protects under 13; California's Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (2022) protects under 18 (high-privacy defaults). The exam swaps these.

BIPA (Illinois, 2008): notice + informed consent for biometrics, with a private right of action driving class actions since 2015.

Self-regulation

  • Spans legislation, enforcement, adjudication. Under Section 5/UDAP it is only quasi-legislative - industry writes rules but a government agency still enforces and adjudicates.
  • PCI DSS = full self-regulatory system (privately drafted + enforced); penalties $5,000-$100,000 per month, can cut a merchant off from card networks.
  • Privacy seals / trust marks (BBB, TrustArc) and the DAA / AdChoices icon program (choice over behavioral advertising).

State Comprehensive Privacy Laws

The one big idea

The U.S. has no federal comprehensive privacy law; it regulates sectorally (HIPAA, GLBA, COPPA). States filled the gap. This chapter = the five laws in effect in 2023: California (CCPA/CPRA), Colorado (CPA), Connecticut (CTDPA), Utah (UCPA), Virginia (VCDPA). California = broadest; Utah = narrowest outlier.

Federal debates: preemption and private right of action

Preemption
Federal statute overrides inconsistent state law (e.g. CAN-SPAM preempts state commercial-email laws).
Private right of action
Lets individuals sue directly rather than relying on a government enforcer.
Data fiduciary duty
Novel proposal: data handlers must act in good faith on behalf of consumers.
Who wants what

Industry = broad preemption + NO private suits. Advocates (and state governors/AGs) = narrow/no preemption + YES private suits.

California timeline (first mover)

LawActionEnacted/PassedEffective
CCPAFirst state comprehensive law2018Jan 1, 2020
CPRAAmended/extended CCPA; created the CPPALate 2020Jan 1, 2023

The CPPA (California Privacy Protection Agency) is a dedicated regulator, viewed as California's answer to an EU DPA.

Applicability thresholds (who is a "business" / "controller")

California uses business; the other four use controller. California: $25M annual gross revenue ALONE triggers coverage.

StateConsumer-count triggerRevenue trigger
California100,000 consumers, OR 50% of revenue from selling OR sharing$25M alone (standalone)
Colorado25,000 + any revenue/discount from sellingNone standalone
Connecticut25,000 (excludes payment transactions) + 25% revenue from sellingNone standalone
Virginia25,000 + 50% revenue from sellingNone standalone
Utah$25M AND (100,000 consumers OR 25,000 + 50% selling revenue)Revenue alone NEVER enough
Three threshold traps

1) Only California counts selling AND sharing in its 50% test (others = selling only). 2) Connecticut excludes payment transactions from its count. 3) Utah is the only state where $25M revenue alone is never sufficient - must pair with a processing threshold.

Exemptions: entity-level vs data-based

  • Entity-level = whole organization exempt (e.g. nonprofits, higher ed, local government).
  • Data-based = only a class of data exempt (e.g. DPPA-covered data) - the rest stays regulated.
ExemptionStates that grant it
Governments and nonprofitsAll five
FCRA entitiesAll five (only universal federal exemption)
GLBA entitiesColorado, Connecticut, Utah, Virginia (NOT California)
HIPAA entities + higher edConnecticut, Utah, Virginia (NOT California)
Registered national securities associationsColorado, Connecticut
Why entity vs data bites

Under a data-based HIPAA exemption, a hospital's patient records are exempt but its HR records remain regulated. The same entity can hold exempt and regulated data at once.

Defining "consumer" and "personal information"

  • All five protect state residents (not just purchasers).
  • Only California includes employees; the other four exclude individuals "acting in a commercial or employment context."
  • Personal information = data linkable to an individual. California uniquely adds household and employment data.
PI exclusionStates
Deidentified data; Publicly available infoAll five
Federally regulated data (HIPAA, GLBA, FCRA, DPPA)All five (generally)
Aggregate dataCalifornia, Utah, Virginia (explicitly)

Sensitive personal information

All five include: citizenship; genetic/biometric; physical/mental health; race/ethnicity; religion; sexual orientation. Additions:

  • Children's data treated as sensitive (opt-in): Colorado, Connecticut, Virginia.
  • Geolocation as sensitive: California, Connecticut, Utah, Virginia.
  • California adds union membership, philosophical beliefs, content of mail/email/text.

Sale vs California's "sharing"

"Sale" defined asStates
Monetary compensation onlyUtah, Virginia
Any exchange for value (incl. bartering)California, Colorado, Connecticut

Exclusions from sale: disclosure to a processor; to fulfill a consumer-requested product/service; consumer-directed disclosures; M&A/bankruptcy asset transfers.

Only California regulates "sharing"

Only California separately regulates sharing - transfer for cross-context behavioral advertising, whether or not for money. The other four do not.

Consumer rights, timelines, and appeal

GDPR-like rights: access, correction, deletion, portability, opt-outs, against automated decisions, sensitive-data, nondiscrimination.

StateResponse timeRight to appeal?
Colorado / Connecticut / Virginia45 days (+45 if needed)Yes
Utah45 days (+45 if needed)No
California45 days; opt-out requests = 15 daysNo
Two California traps

Opt-out requests get only 15 days (not 45), and California has no explicit right to appeal (neither does Utah). Appeal = Colorado, Connecticut, Virginia only.

Access / correction / deletion + opt-outs

  • Access & deletion: all five. Correction: all except Utah.
  • Deletion scope: CO/CT/VA = all held data; CA/UT = only data collected from the consumer. California also must notify service providers/third parties to delete.
  • Opt out of sales: all five. Opt out of sharing: California only.
  • Opt out of targeting/cross-context behavioral advertising: explicit in CO/CT/UT/VA (CA likely via opt-out of sell/share).
  • Right against automated decision-making: all except Utah.

Sensitive-data handling and nondiscrimination

StateSensitive-data mechanism
Colorado, Connecticut, VirginiaOpt-IN consent required
UtahNotice + opportunity to opt OUT
CaliforniaSelf-restrict uses OR notice + opt-out

Nondiscrimination (no denial/different price/degraded quality for exercising rights): all five.

Notice and transparency

  • Privacy notice + notice of right to opt out: all five.
  • Notice at point of collection: California only.
  • "Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information" link and "Limit the Use of My Personal Information" link: California only.

Children's data (age thresholds)

StateOpt-in requirement
CaliforniaOpt-in to sell/share data of consumers under 16
ConnecticutOpt-in ages 13-16 to sell/target-advertise; under-13 = sensitive
Colorado, VirginiaUnder-13 treated as sensitive (opt-in)
UtahOpt-in to process data of under 13

Interacts with COPPA (parental consent generally required under 13).

Purpose limits, risk assessments, security

  • Purpose/processing limitation (necessary/proportionate) and risk assessments for heightened-risk processing (targeted ads, selling, sensitive data, certain profiling): California, Colorado, Connecticut, Virginia - NOT Utah.
  • Reasonable administrative, technical, physical security: all five (including Utah).

Enforcement, penalties, cure periods, private action

StatePenalty per violationEnforcer
CaliforniaUp to $2,500 ($7,500 if intentional)AG AND the CPPA
VirginiaUp to $7,500AG (sole)
UtahUp to $7,500AG (sole)
ColoradoUp to $20,000 (deceptive trade practice)AG AND local district attorneys
ConnecticutUp to $5,000 per willful violationAG + Division of Consumer Protection
StateCure period
CaliforniaHad one; expired
Colorado / ConnecticutSunsets Dec 31, 2024
Utah / Virginia30-day cure, no end date
Private right of action

No state has a traditional private right of action. CO/CT/UT/VA = none at all. California's is limited to data breaches (and usernames/passwords) - NOT the general access/deletion/opt-out rights.

Universal opt-out mechanisms (GPC) - supplement

Universal opt-out mechanism
A browser/device signal opting a consumer out of sale, sharing, or targeted advertising across ALL sites at once, with no per-site request.
Global Privacy Control (GPC)
The leading example of such a signal.

California and Colorado have the most substantive guidance and require businesses to honor these signals. (By end of 2026, others include Texas, Montana, Delaware, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Minnesota, Maryland, Connecticut, Oregon.)

Universal signal vs per-site link

The "Do Not Sell or Share" link is exercised one site at a time; a universal signal like GPC carries the opt-out to every site. Distinct obligations - posting the link does not satisfy the duty to honor the signal.

State Breach, Security & Sectoral Laws

All 50 states have breach notification laws; many add data security and data destruction laws. There is no comprehensive federal breach law, so national companies must comply with all 50 state regimes.

Two "personal information" definitions

A state's comprehensive privacy law and its breach law both define "personal information" but differ. Comprehensive laws limit what authorized parties do with data; breach laws target unauthorized fraud/identity theft. Do not carry one definition over to the other.

No federal breach law - the preemption fault line

  • First federal bill: 2003, Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA). None has passed.
  • Businesses want fewer requirements + preemption of stricter state laws; privacy advocates want a federal floor matched to the strictest states.

Anatomy of a state breach law

Three building blocks: key terms (personal info, covered entity, security breach), notification (who/when/what/how), enforcement (penalties + private rights).

Personal information (majority)
First name/initial + last name plus one of: SSN, driver's license/state ID, or financial account / card number (often with access code).
~Two-thirds of states add
Medical/health info, biometric data, tax info, mother's maiden name. Almost all states exclude publicly available info.
Covered entity
Does business in-state + maintains computerized personal data. Georgia outlier: limits to information brokers only.
Security breach
Unauthorized access/acquisition compromising confidentiality/security/integrity, where data was not encrypted or rendered unreadable.
Risk-of-harm analysis
Nearly all states: skip notice if harm not reasonably likely. EXCEPT California, Georgia, Illinois, Minnesota, North Dakota, Texas (no risk-of-harm).

Notification requirements

ItemRule / trap
Whom to notifyAffected residents = all 50 states; AG/state agency = ~2/3; nationwide CRAs = ~2/3
Timing (individuals)"As expeditiously as possible, without unreasonable delay"; common cap 45 days, but industry best practice = 30 days
AG notice timingThreshold often 250-1,000 affected; Vermont = 14 business days (shortest AG); MD, NH, NJ require AG notice before individuals
CRA notice timingUsually "without unreasonable delay" or defer to federal; Minnesota = 48 hours (shortest CRA)
MethodDefault = written postal mail; email/phone only if person previously and explicitly chose it
Substitute noticeLarge breaches (undue burden): website posting + statewide media
Letter content~half mandate content (incident, date, data types, steps, FTC/AG/CRA contacts). Massachusetts PROHIBITS describing breach nature or # affected
Free credit monitoringFTC suggests 1 yr if SSNs exposed; REQUIRED (≥12 mo) only in CA, DE, MA (CA first, 2015)
Vermont vs Minnesota

Vermont 14 business days = shortest AG timeframe. Minnesota 48 hours = shortest CRA timeframe. Classic swap trap.

Exceptions and delay

  • More stringent law - e.g. HIPAA (healthcare) or GLBA Safeguards Rule (financial).
  • Own compatible notice policy.
  • Encryption safe harbor - all states have it, but fails if the decryption key is breached too (Illinois explicit).
  • Law-enforcement delay - all states allow delay if notice would impede a criminal investigation; not permanent.

Enforcement

  • All 50 states: civil penalties. ~1/3 let the AG fine, often capped per breach - $750,000 highest (Michigan).
  • Nearly 15 states grant a private right of action, usually capped at actual damages + fees.
California statutory damages (CCPA/CPRA)

2020: CA first state to allow $100-$750 per incident statutory damages (no proof of loss) where breach resulted from failure to implement/maintain reasonable security. A 30-day cure bars statutory damages - but adopting security after the breach is NOT a cure.

State data security laws (~2/3 of states)

No federal all-industry security law; healthcare/financial sectors have federal rules, and the FTC uses Section 5 against deceptive (misrepresented) or unfair (unreasonable) security.

Approach~StatesExample
Reasonable security (no specifics)~20California AB 1950 (first state security law)
Prescriptive requirements~10Massachusetts (most prescriptive: encryption, access controls, training, etc.)
Cybersecurity safe harbor4Connecticut, Iowa, Ohio, Utah - defeats suit if safeguards existed pre-breach

Sector overlays exist; New York has the most prominent.

State data destruction laws (~2/3 of states)

Dispose of personal info so it is no longer readable or decipherable; advances data minimization. No all-industry federal law, but the FTC Disposal Rule covers consumer reports. Common exemptions: GLBA, HIPAA, FCRA.

Sectoral and emerging state laws (supplement)

Law / caseWhat it doesEnforcement / key point
WA My Health My Data Act (MHMDA), 2023Regulates consumer health data (apps/wearables) outside HIPAA; consent, separate policy, geofencing near health facilitiesPrivate right of action (the headline difference)
Nevada SB 370 / Connecticut SB 3Consumer health data laws modeled on MHMDAAG-only - NO private right of action
Illinois GIPA, 1998Bars conditioning employment on genetic infoPrivate right of action, uncapped per-violation damages; 50+ suits in 2023
Federal GINA, 2008Protects genetic info in employment + health insuranceGIPA = older STATE law; GINA = later FEDERAL law (don't swap)
Vermont data broker act, 2019First data broker law: annual registration + security programRegistry model
California Delete Act, 2023Broker registration + centralized deletion (one request reaches all brokers)Enforced by CPPA; TX (2023) & OR (2024) also have broker laws
Illinois BIPA, 2008 (amended 2024)First US biometric law; 5-yr SOL; damages $1,000 / $5,000 per violation; 2024 = one violation per individual (not per scan)Private right of action; Illinois v. Facebook = $650M settlement
Texas CUBI & Washington biometric lawsBiometric privacyAG-only - no private right; 2024 Texas got $1.4B from Meta (largest single-state ever)
Colorado AI ActAlgorithmic discriminationEnforced by AG only
NYC Local Law 144Employers using AEDTs need bias audit, publish results, notify candidates + offer alternativeHiring/promotion tools
NAIC Model Bulletin on AI SystemsInsurer AI guidance: transparency, accountability, fairness, governanceAdopted by at least 11 states
Tilting Point MediaMisclassified children as adults, bypassed parental consent, shared kids' data via SDKs$500,000 settlement; COPPA + CCPA + CA Age-Appropriate Design Code Act; neutral age gates + SDK transparency
Private-right-of-action map

HAS it: WA MHMDA, IL GIPA, IL BIPA, CA breach statute. AG-only (no private right): NV SB 370, CT SB 3, TX CUBI, WA biometric, Colorado AI Act.

US in context: some call the US less stringent than the EU (no comprehensive federal laws), but intense US breach focus has often driven more rigorous security programs.

Medical Privacy

Health data is sensitive (body/mind, candor with doctors, anti-discrimination by employers/insurers), yet used heavily for treatment, payment, research, and quality. Key trap: health data is NOT automatically HIPAA-protected - protection depends on WHO holds it.

Major Laws at a Glance

LawWhat it doesWho enforcesKey point / trap
HIPAA (1996)Original goal was efficiency (electronic Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement); Congress told HHS to add privacy/security rulesOCR (within HHS); DOJ for criminal; FTC/state AGs alsoOnly covers covered entities + business associates; no private right of action
HIPAA Privacy Rule (2000, rev. 2002/2013)Most detailed FIPPs: notices, authorizations, minimum necessary, access/amendment, safeguards, accountabilityOCRCovers ALL PHI in any form; TPO needs no authorization, most else is opt-in
HIPAA Security Rule (2003)Admin/physical/technical safeguards; technology-neutral; required vs addressable specsOCRCovers only ePHI; uniquely handles integrity, availability, backup, disaster recovery
HITECH (2009)Strengthened HIPAA; created breach notification; $19B for EHRs; rules apply directly to business associatesOCR (FTC for PHR vendors)Breach presumed unless low-probability shown; encryption avoids liability
Substance Use Rule (42 CFR Part 2)Protects patient-identifying info at federally funded substance abuse programs; written consent; no redisclosureReported to U.S. Attorney's OfficeCriminal penalties ($500 first / $5,000 subsequent); more protective than HIPAA
GINA (2008)Bars health insurers + employers from using genetic info (absent manifest disease)(amended laws may provide one)No private right of action; does NOT reach life insurers, mortgage lenders, schools
21st Century Cures Act (2016)Promotes EHI interoperability; bans information blocking; requires open APIsONC, up to $1 millionPrivacy/security is a recognized exception; APIs can move data from HIPAA to non-HIPAA apps
FTC Act Section 5Unfair/deceptive practices - primary federal tool for medtech outside HIPAAFTC2021 Flo Health action (shared data despite promise not to)
FDCAFDA regulates medical devices by risk level; growing cybersecurity focusFDAAI-based SaMD more heavily regulated
FTC HBNR (2009)Breach notice for identifiable health info held OUTSIDE HIPAA (apps, websites, wearables, PHRs)FTCNo deidentified-data exemption (unlike HIPAA); notify consumers, FTC, sometimes media

Core HIPAA Definitions

PHI
Individually identifiable health info held by a covered entity/business associate relating to health, care, or payment.
ePHI
PHI in electronic media. Paper, paper-to-paper faxes, and voice phone calls are NOT electronic media.
Covered entity
(1) Health care providers conducting certain electronic transactions, (2) health plans, (3) health care clearinghouses.
Business associate
Performs services using/disclosing PHI for a covered entity (e.g., cloud storage, billing); needs a written BAA.
TPO
Treatment, payment, operations - the purposes HIPAA pre-authorizes without separate authorization.
Deidentified
Via safe harbor (remove 18 listed elements) or expert determination; outside the Privacy Rule.
The cash-only doctor trap

A provider who takes only cash and never bills insurance electronically is NOT a covered entity. Covered-entity status hinges on the electronic transaction, not on keeping medical records.

Same data, different rules

A wearable used under medical supervision is HIPAA-covered; the same data from a retail smartwatch goes to a maker outside HIPAA (FTC enforcement). California's CMIA can reach health websites/apps HIPAA does not.

Privacy Rule Mechanics & Exceptions

  • Notices: required at first service delivery (exceptions: indirect treatment, emergencies).
  • Authorizations: TPO is free; other uses need opt-in; stricter for psychotherapy notes; treatment can't be conditioned on signing. Face-to-face communications are not marketing.
  • Minimum necessary: applies to all except treatment.
  • Access/amendment: patient may access/copy/amend designated record set; if amendment denied, patient files a statement included in future disclosures (no lawsuit - no private right of action).
  • Exceptions (disclosure without consent): public health, abuse/neglect reporting, judicial/law enforcement, research (IRB-approved or deidentified).
  • Post-Dobbs: Rule permits but does NOT require law enforcement disclosures.

Security Rule Specs

Required spec
Must be adopted as written.
Addressable spec
Assess appropriateness; if declined, document why and adopt a reasonable alternative (NOT optional to ignore).

Enforcement & Penalties

  • OCR civil penalties up to ~$2 million/year per violation type (Anthem $16M; Premera $6.85M; Banner Health $200K for access).
  • DOJ criminal authority, prison up to 10 years.
  • 2021 HIPAA Safe Harbor Law: OCR may grant leniency if recognized security practices used the prior 12 months (not automatic immunity).
  • Preemption: HIPAA is a federal floor - does NOT preempt stricter state law. Watch entity-exemption vs data-exemption distinction.

HITECH Breach Notification

TriggerRequirement
High probability of compromiseNotify individuals within 60 days
Business associate discovers breachNotify the covered entity
More than 500 affectedNotify HHS immediately
500+ in same jurisdictionNotify the media
All notice-requiring breachesReport to HHS at least annually

HITECH also: penalties up to $2M for willful violations (even without knowledge); criminal liability for individuals; limited data sets; cash-paying patients may restrict disclosure to health plan; EHRs may not be sold without patient consent; PHR vendors (apps/wearables) enforced by FTC.

GINA Details

  • Targets genetic predisposition absent manifestation of disease; bars insurers from premium adjustments/required testing and employers from using genetic info.
  • Amended ERISA (penalty $100/day, min up to $15,000), Public Health Service Act, Social Security Act, Civil Rights Act.
  • Employer exceptions (inadvertent, voluntary wellness w/ authorization, FMLA, public sources, toxin monitoring, DNA QC) - info must be kept in separate confidential medical files.
  • CalGINA (2011) + other states fill gaps (life insurers, lenders, housing, education).

Telemedicine (COVID-era changes)

  • OCR allowed nonpublic-facing videoconferencing (secure log-in) even if not fully HIPAA-compliant - enforcement discretion, not repeal.
  • CMS allowed telemedicine reimbursement; DEA suspended the Ryan Haight Act in-person exam rule for controlled substances; IMLC use grew ~50% for cross-state licensing.

2024-2025 Updates

  • Tracking technologies: OCR guidance - covered entities sending PHI to third-party trackers (cookies/pixels) can be an impermissible Privacy Rule disclosure. Non-HIPAA firms still bound by FTC Act, even if a third party built the app.
  • Warby Parker (Feb 2025): OCR $1.5M penalty for Security Rule failures after a 2018 credential-stuffing attack (~200,000 affected) - no risk analysis, no MFA, no log review.
  • HBNR 2024 update: explicitly covers health apps; identify third parties; for 500+ affected, FTC notice simultaneous with consumer notice; electronic notice allowed.
  • 42 CFR Part 2 Final Rule (Feb 8, 2024): aligns with HIPAA/HITECH - single consent for future TPO; recipients may redisclose per HIPAA; HIPAA enforcement + Breach Notification Rule apply.
  • Reproductive-health Privacy Rule (2024): barred PHI disclosure for lawful reproductive care, but vacated nationwide by a Texas federal judge in June 2025.
The one thing

HIPAA = covered entities/business associates only, enforced by OCR, no private right of action, federal floor (no preemption of stricter state law). Privacy Rule = all PHI; Security Rule = only ePHI.

Classic deidentification contrast

HIPAA protections fall away once data is properly deidentified; the FTC HBNR has NO deidentified-data exemption.

Financial Privacy

The Three Pillars + Regulator

LawWhat it doesWho enforcesKey point / trap
FCRA (1970)First federal law to regulate private use of personal info; governs CRAs and consumer reportsFTC, CFPB, state AGsPrivate right of action exists; statutory damages up to $1,000/violation (max $4,705 willful)
FACTA (2003)Amended FCRA: card truncation, free annual report, Disposal Rule, Red Flags RuleFTC, CFPB, banking regsPreempts stricter state credit-reporting laws (named exceptions only)
GLBA (1999)Privacy Rule + Safeguards Rule for financial institutionsBanking regs, SEC, FTC, CFPBNO private right of action; does NOT preempt stricter state laws; uses opt-out
Dodd-Frank (2010)Created the CFPB; added "abusive" standard - CFPB now writes rules for FCRA/FACTA and most GLBA institutions
FACTA preempts, GLBA does not

FACTA preempts stricter state credit-reporting laws; GLBA does NOT preempt stricter state laws. Confusing the two is the classic trap.

FCRA: Three Roles

CRA
Compiles/evaluates info to furnish consumer reports to third parties for a fee (Experian, Equifax, TransUnion + thousands of smaller bureaus).
User
Lender/insurer/employer who uses a report; must have + certify a permissible purpose and give adverse-action notice.
Furnisher
Lender/retailer who feeds data to CRAs; must supply accurate data and handle disputes. An entity can be both user and furnisher.
2017 Equifax breach

Breach of ~150M consumers was not a FCRA violation because Equifax never "furnished" the stolen data to hackers. FCRA protections attach only when a CRA furnishes a report.

CRA Duties + Obsolescence

  • Provide access + dispute process (reasonable investigation); may withhold credit/risk scores.
  • Ensure maximum possible accuracy.
  • Drop outdated negatives: account data after 7 years; bankruptcies after 10 years.

Permissible Purpose

A user must certify the permissible purpose AND certify it won't be used for any other purpose. Purposes: written instruction of consumer; credit application/review; employment (only with written permission); insurance underwriting; legitimate business need (consumer-initiated); government license/benefit; child-support; court order/subpoena; prescreened firm offers.

Adverse Action Notices

An adverse action is any negative business/credit/employment decision. No adverse action when a creditor makes a counteroffer the consumer accepts.

Info sourceConsumer windowProvider response
From a CRAFree file disclosure if requested within 60 days; right to disputeNotice when action taken
Third party (non-CRA)Written request within 60 daysDisclose within reasonable time
AffiliateWritten request within 60 daysDisclose within 30 days of request

Other FCRA Rules

  • Furnisher Rule: accuracy + integrity; bars re-aging (moving date of first delinquency later to keep items past the limit).
  • Risk-Based Pricing Rule (CFPB + Fed): notify consumers given less favorable terms due to their report. All who use credit scores to make/arrange residential real-property loans must disclose the score to applicants.
  • Employment use: clear stand-alone written notice → prior written authorization → certify (incl. no EEO violation) → give report copy + rights summary BEFORE adverse action; adverse-action notice follows after.
  • Misconduct investigations are NOT consumer reports if employer follows procedures, uses no credit info, and gives a summary if adverse action taken.
  • Investigative consumer report (character via interviews): written disclosure within 5 days of report request (FCRA §606) + notice of right to nature/scope.
  • Medical info from CRAs restricted; credit/employment use needs specific written consent.
  • Prescreened lists: set criteria in advance, retain 3 years from each offer, include required statement + opt-out.

FACTA Rules: Disposal + Red Flags

RuleRequirementEnforcers / trap
Disposal RuleReasonable disposal of consumer-report info (shred/destroy) to prevent unauthorized access; all org sizesFTC, banking regs, CFPB; overlaps GLBA Safeguards
Red Flags RuleWritten identity-theft detection program for financial institutions + creditors; no fixed checklistRed Flag Program Clarification Act (2010) narrowed "creditor" - excludes those extending credit only for expenses incidental to a service (e.g., doctors/attorneys billing later)

GLBA: Privacy Rule + Safeguards Rule

Title V of the 1999 Financial Services Modernization Act; spurred by the U.S. Bancorp/MemberWorks scandal (bank shared account numbers with a telemarketer; $3M settlement). Covers financial institutions "significantly engaged" in financial activities; regulates nonpublic personal information (NPI) - broad enough that even a customer's name is NPI. Penalties up to $100,000/violation (institutions); $10,000 (officers/directors).

Consumer vs Customer
GLBA protects consumers, but many duties (e.g., annual notice) apply only to customers with an ongoing relationship.

Privacy Rule: initial + annual notices; process opt-outs within 30 days; free sharing with affiliates + joint marketing partners; nonaffiliated sharing needs notice + opt-out.

Account-number ban

GLBA prohibits sharing account numbers with nonaffiliated companies for telemarketing/direct marketing - even if the consumer hasn't opted out.

Safeguards Rule (effective 2003, FTC-updated 2021): written information security program with administrative, technical and physical safeguards, scaled to size/complexity. Requires a designated coordinator, written risk assessment, monitoring/testing, vendor oversight, and ongoing adjustment.

FAST Act Annual-Notice Exception (Dec 2015)

Amended GLBA §503: institution may skip the annual notice when both conditions hold - (1) sharing triggers no opt-out right, AND (2) privacy policy unchanged since last notice. Failing either restores the duty.

TaxSlayer (FTC)

~9,000 accounts taken over; settlement barred GLBA Privacy + Safeguards violations for 20 years. Inadequate authentication → Safeguards Rule; no clear privacy notice → Privacy Rule.

State Financial Privacy

  • California CFIPA (SB-1): requires written opt-in consent ("Important Privacy Choices for Consumers" form) to share with nonaffiliated third parties - stricter than GLBA's opt-out. Negligent: $2,500/consumer up to $500K cap; willful: no cap.
  • NY NYDFS Cybersecurity Reg (2017): first state reg beyond GLBA - NIST-aligned, requires CISO, incident response, audit trails. Also BitLicense (2015) for virtual currency custody.
CCPA/CPRA exemption is dataset-by-dataset

Only data specifically covered by GLBA or CFIPA is exempt - not the whole institution. A 2024 CCPA amendment also requires an acquirer in an M&A to honor opt-outs the consumer made to the seller.

AML / Bank Secrecy Act

The Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) requires an adequate AML program and timely Suspicious Activity Reports. Enforced by banking/financial-crime regulators - OCC + FinCEN, not the FCRA accuracy regulators.

USAA (2022)

$140M OCC + FinCEN penalty for willful BSA/AML failures (inadequate program + missed SARs).

Opt-in vs opt-out hook

Federal GLBA = opt-out; California CFIPA = opt-in. FACTA preempts; GLBA does not. FCRA has a private right of action; GLBA does not.

Education & Children's Privacy

Theme: who controls student records (FERPA), who controls children's online data (COPPA/FTC), and how HIPAA, IDEA, PPRA and state laws fit around them.

Major laws at a glance

LawWhat it doesWho enforcesKey point / trap
FERPA (1974, "Buckley Amendment")Controls disclosure of and access to student education records; incorporates FIPPs (notice, consent, access/correction, security, accountability)Dept. of Education (FPCO); ultimate penalty = loss of federal fundingApplies only to schools that receive federal funding (K-12 AND universities). No private right of action; does NOT preempt stricter state law (floor, not ceiling)
PPRA (1978)Amends FERPA; parents of minors get rights over surveys collecting sensitive infoDept. of EducationK-12 only - does NOT apply to colleges/universities. Broadened by No Child Left Behind Act (2001): commercial-use policies, parental inspection, advance notice, opt-out for commercial-purpose data
IDEAGuarantees eligible students aged 3-21 a free appropriate public education (FAPE) via an IEP; protects special-ed recordsDept. of EducationProtects records alongside FERPA; must destroy no-longer-needed disability info on request (except permanent records). Also covered by Rehabilitation Act of 1973 + ADA (1990)
COPPALimits collection/use of personal info from children under 13; FTC said in 2022 it would police edtech via COPPAFTC + state attorneys generalCovers services directed to under-13s AND general-audience services with actual knowledge. Bars commercial use / excessive collection / over-retention
GLBA Safeguards RuleRequires info-security program, risk assessments, service-provider oversight(GLBA regime)Universities holding financial aid info are treated as financial institutions and are covered
SOPIPA (California)First U.S. law to ban using student data for noneducational targeted advertisingStateBecame the template for other states' edtech laws; also requires reasonable security

FERPA core definitions

Student
Anyone who is or has been in attendance (in-person OR internet). Excludes applicants who never enrolled - admission record becomes an education record only once the student matriculates.
Education record
Any record directly related to a student and maintained by/on behalf of the school (grades, financial aid, discipline; any medium incl. email).
PII
Name, family names, address, SSN/student number, DOB/place of birth, or anything that alone or combined identifies the student with reasonable certainty.
Directory information
Info not generally harmful if disclosed; each school defines its own list (name, DOB, address, email, phone, field of study, honors).

Records that are NOT education records

  • Campus police records (held for law-enforcement purposes)
  • Employment records (where employee is not a student)
  • Applicant records (not enrolled)
  • Alumni records (created after no longer a student)
  • Peer-graded papers before collected/recorded by faculty
  • Treatment records (health records, subject to conditions)
Police records flip back

Campus police records are excluded only while held for law enforcement. Once shared with other campus administrators (e.g. dean for discipline), they become education records.

Opt-out vs opt-in (classic trap)

Directory info = opt-out

FERPA (like HIPAA) requires opt-in consent for most personal info, but directory information is opt-out - school must give students a chance to opt out before releasing. SSNs and student ID numbers cannot be directory information (a student ID may qualify only if it cannot access records without a second factor).

Who holds FERPA rights

SituationRights holder
High school student under 18Parent
High schooler turns 18Rights transfer to student
Dual-enrolled (HS + college)High school rules apply (parent)
Attending only a college/universityStudent, regardless of age
Student is a tax dependentSchool may disclose to parents without student consent

When disclosure is permitted

  • Info is not PII
  • It is unblocked directory information
  • The rights holder consents
  • Disclosure goes to the rights holder
  • A statutory exception applies
Grades need consent

Nondirectory PII - GPA, grades, transcripts - may NOT be released without valid consent. There is no "employer" exception.

Valid consent must be signed, dated, and written, identifying the records, the purpose, and the recipient. To use a statutory exception only one exception must apply, but the school must use reasonable methods to verify identity.

Key no-consent exceptions

  • School officials with a legitimate educational interest (need not be academic) - includes third-party vendors under the school's direct control; vendor cannot redisclose or reuse the record for any other purpose (e.g. marketing)
  • Transfer/enrollment schools; financial aid; research studies; accrediting orgs
  • Victims of sex offenses; sex-offender registry info
  • Court orders / subpoenas - reasonable effort to notify the student first, unless nondisclosure is ordered
  • Health or safety emergency - threat must be articulable and significant; school is safe if there was a rational basis at the time

Access & correction

  • Access within 45 days of request (verify identity; cannot see others' portions, waived recommendation letters, parents' financials, treatment records, privileged info)
  • May seek correction of inaccurate/misleading records; if denied, right to a hearing by a party with no direct interest; if still denied, student may place a written statement in the file (maintained and disclosed with the record)

FERPA vs HIPAA for health records

SettingGoverning law
Public K-12 nurse / health recordsFERPA (HIPAA Privacy Rule exempts FERPA-covered schools)
Private K-12, no federal funding, is a HIPAA covered entityHIPAA (FERPA does not apply)
University clinic treating only studentsFERPA (education/treatment records)
University clinic treating students + nonstudentsFERPA for student records; HIPAA for nonstudent records

Edtech, COPPA & self-regulation

  • Edtech handling student data is subject to FERPA. 2014 Google Apps for Education suit (EPIC alleged FERPA violations over email scanning) prompted 2014 Dept. of Education guidance: assess case by case whether edtech partners use FERPA-protected data.
  • Student Privacy Pledge (2014; 400+ signatories by 2020): bars selling student data, behavioral ad targeting, non-educational profiling. Violation = deceptive trade practice under Section 5 of the FTC Act.
COPPA Final Rule (Jan 2025)

Requires opt-in, express, verifiable parental consent specifically for targeted advertising; limits retention; expands "personal information" to cover biometric and government-issued identifiers; encourages age verification beyond self-declaration. 365 days to comply.

FTC v. Epic Games / Fortnite (2023)

$520M total = $275M COPPA penalty (largest to date) + $245M refunds for dark patterns that tricked players into unwanted purchases.

Cybersecurity in education

  • FERPA: requires reasonable security but specifies no particular controls; breaches not explicitly addressed but can trigger DoE investigation
  • GLBA Safeguards Rule: covers universities holding financial aid info
  • NY Education Law 2-D: districts must adopt cybersecurity policies aligned to the NIST Framework; California SOPIPA: reasonable security for student data; all 50 states have breach-notification laws
Memory hooks

FERPA = federal funding + Dept. of Education + no private right + no preemption. PPRA = K-12 only. COPPA = under 13 + FTC. IDEA = ages 3-21.

Telecommunications & Marketing

Two coordinated federal regimes govern telemarketing - the FCC enforces the TCPA and the FTC enforces the TSR. Plus email (CAN-SPAM), faxes (JFPA), platform immunity (CDA 230), and FCC telecom breach rules.

The one thing

Neither the TSR nor the FCC/TCPA rules preempt state law. Comply with federal rules AND stricter state law. (Contrast: CAN-SPAM DOES preempt most state email laws, except those barring false/deceptive activity.)

Major laws at a glance

LawWhat it doesWho enforcesKey point / trap
TCPA (1991)Restricts unsolicited calls, faxes, robocalls, texts (robotexts)FCCDoes NOT preempt state law; private right of action; up to $500/fax
TSR (1995, amended 2003/08/10/15)Telemarketing Sales Rule - call conduct, disclosures, DNC, billingFTC + state AGsImplements the Telemarketing & Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act; no preemption
Junk Fax Prevention Act (2005)Amends TCPA; allows EBR-based commercial faxes if sender offers opt-outFCCConsent can be inferred from EBR; up to $500/fax
CAN-SPAM (2003)Commercial email "rules of the road" on an opt-out basisFTC (+ federal regulators, state AGs)No general private right of action; preempts most state email law; up to $50,120/violation
CDA Section 230 (1996)Platforms not treated as publisher of user content - immunity(civil immunity)Title V of Telecom Act; (c)(2) Good Samaritan protects good-faith moderation
TAKE IT DOWN Act (2025)Criminalizes nonconsensual intimate imagery, incl. AI deepfakes(criminal)Doesn't amend 230 but creates exception; platforms must remove on notice
FCC 2023 breach rules (Dec 2023)Telecom data breach notificationFCCCovers carriers, interconnected VoIP, relay services; breach now includes inadvertent access/use/disclosure

TSR call conduct rules

  • Call only between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m.
  • Scrub against the national DNC Registry; display accurate caller ID; identify self + what is sold; disclose material terms; retain records (2 years)
  • Entity-specific suppression list: must honor any "don't call me again" request to that company - independent of the national registry

Required opening disclosures

Before any sales content, disclose: (1) seller's identity, (2) that the purpose is to sell, (3) nature of goods/services, (4) for prizes, that no purchase/payment is necessary. Must be truthful.

Disclosure trigger

Required whenever a sales pitch is planned (even if conditioned on satisfaction). NOT required for a genuine satisfaction call with no plan to sell - even if the customer asks about other products.

Misrepresentations & billing

  • 10 material categories must be disclosed (cost, restrictions, performance, refund policy, prize/investment terms, affiliations, credit card loss protection, negative option features, debt relief)
  • Non-card payment (phone/utility billing) needs express verifiable authorization (higher standard - lacks card protections)
  • No billing without express informed consent. Pre-acquired account + free-to-pay conversion = strictest rules: last 4 digits + express agreement + audio recording of entire transaction

Call abandonment safe harbor

Abandoned = no live rep within 2 seconds of the greeting (predictive dialers cause this). Prerecorded sales messages violate the TSR unless prior express consent (opt-in).

3% rule - no averaging

Safe harbor (all 4): abandon ≤3% of live-answered calls per day, per campaign; ring 15 sec / 4 rings; recorded ID message; keep records. Cannot blend abandonment rates across simultaneous campaigns.

National DNC Registry (eff. 2003)

  • Access before calling; update lists every 31 days. Each seller gets a non-transferable SAN (telemarketer may use a client's SAN free, limited to paid area codes)
  • Trap: failing to check the registry is a violation even if the number called is NOT listed
DNC exceptionDetail
NonprofitsCalling on their own behalf (but for-profit telefunders ARE covered)
Customer EBR18 months from last purchase/transaction
Prospect EBR3 months from inquiry/application
Inbound callsIf no upsell
B2BMost business-to-business calls
  • Consent exception: must be in writing, state the number, include signature (e-sig OK), clear & conspicuous (no prechecked boxes; subterfuge invalid)
  • DNC Safe Harbor: shields a good-faith error if firm has written procedures, trains staff, keeps entity-specific list, uses registry data ≤31 days old, monitors compliance. Deliberately ignoring a no-call request is not "error."

TCPA robocall / autodialer updates

  • 2012 FCC: prior express written consent for all robocalls to residential lines - even with an EBR; opt-out during the call; HIPAA health-care robocalls exempt
  • 2015: robotexts get same protection as voice; consent disclosure must be clear/conspicuous; can't condition consent on a purchase
  • 2017: reassigned number - not liable for the first call, liable after notice; appearing in someone's contacts ≠ consent; consent revocable any reasonable way
  • Facebook v. Duguid (2021): autodialer = only equipment using a random or sequential number generator to store/produce numbers (narrowed definition)

Enforcement & penalties

  • TSR/DNC civil penalties up to $50,120 per call/violation (FTC + state AGs)
  • TSR private right of action requires $50,000 in actual damages
  • TransUnion v. Ramirez (2021): plaintiff must show actual harm, not mere risk, for standing
  • Mini-TCPAs: over half of states require licensing/registration; e.g. Louisiana limits EBR to 6 months. 2021 FCC record $225M robocall fine

CAN-SPAM email rules (opt-out)

  • No false headers / deceptive subject lines; working return address; clear cost-free opt-out honored within 10 business days; valid physical postal address (P.O. box OK); no aggravated violations (harvesting, dictionary attacks)
  • Applies to commercial messages, NOT transactional/relationship messages (order confirmations, warranty/safety, employment info)
  • ISPs adversely affected may sue (up to $250/violation, max $2M, trebled for willful)
Wireless MSCMs flip to opt-in

FCC CAN-SPAM wireless rules require express prior authorization (opt-in) for each MSCM (commercial email to a wireless device via internet domain). No third-party/affiliate sending - each entity gets its own consent. Check the Wireless Domain Registry; carriers report domains within 30 days; covers SMS-tech but not phone-to-phone.

Fax marketing notes

  • 2019 FCC: online cloud-based fax services (faxes as email) fall outside TCPA/JFPA - not "telephone facsimile machines"
  • California's bid to kill the EBR exception for interstate faxes struck down - TCPA preempts interstate fax regulation
  • Enforcement: $12M Hooters award (2001); $5.4M Fax.com FCC fine (2004)
Memory hooks

8-to-9 (call hours) - 2 seconds (abandonment) - 3% (safe harbor) - 31 days (refresh DNC) - 18mo customer / 3mo prospect (EBR) - 10 business days (opt-out) - 2 years (records) - $50,000 (private suit) / $50,120 (per-call penalty).

Workplace Privacy

The anchor

The U.S. has no comprehensive employment-privacy law. The default is employment at will and broad employer discretion; privacy protections are narrow exceptions from sectoral federal laws, state contract/tort law, and a state-by-state statutory patchwork. EU folds employee privacy into general data-protection rules (monitoring needs specific legal justification).

Constitutional law and the state-action limit

  • Fourth Amendment (limits searches of lockers/desks) applies to government (public-sector) employers only - private employers have no state action.
  • Exception: a few states (notably California) extend their state constitutional privacy right to private-sector employees.

State contract and common-law torts

  • Contract: Collective bargaining agreements are the most important contracts for employee privacy (often limit drug testing/monitoring). If privacy is to be protected, the task falls largely to legislatures.
TortCore testExample
Intrusion upon seclusionIntentional intrusion highly offensive to reasonable personCamera in restroom/changing room; secret wiretap
Publicity given to private lifeBroad dissemination of private matter, not of public concernSpreading private info (1st Amend. may defend)
DefamationFalse, reputation-harming statementFalse drug-test report; incorrect reference
Defeating an intrusion/wiretap claim

An announced policy that company computers are employer-owned and monitored often defeats the claim.

Federal laws affecting employment privacy

LawWhat it does
HIPAAPrivacy/security rules for protected health info (incl. self-funded plans)
COBRAContinued health coverage after termination
ERISAFair creation/administration of benefits programs
FMLAUnpaid leave for birth/illness of self or family
FCRARegulates consumer reports (background/reference checks)
FLSAMinimum wage and fair-pay standards
OSHAWorkplace safety
NLRACollective bargaining; also reaches social-media speech
IRCAEmployment eligibility verification
Whistleblower Protection ActProtects federal employees/applicants from retaliation
Securities Exchange Act 1934Senior-exec pay disclosures; broker-dealer registration
Benefits cluster trap

Stems swap these: HIPAA=health info, COBRA=continued coverage, ERISA=benefits administration, FMLA=unpaid leave.

Who enforces what

AgencyKey laws / role
DOLFLSA, OSHA, ERISA; also enforces the EPPA
EEOCTitle VII, ADEA, ADA (Titles I & V); workplace discrimination
FTC and CFPBUnfair/deceptive practices; FCRA
NLRBAdministers NLRA; runs union elections; unfair-labor-practice remedies

Employment life cycle

  • Before: background screening (FCRA).
  • During: polygraphs/testing, monitoring, social media, BYOD.
  • After: access termination, HR records.
  • HR-related privacy is a risk for virtually all organizations, even non-data-heavy ones.

Antidiscrimination limits on screening

LawProtected basis
Title VII (1964)Race, color, religion, sex, national origin (EEOC extends to sexual orientation & gender identity)
Equal Pay Act (1963)Wage disparity by sex
ADEA (1967)Age (over 40)
Pregnancy Discrimination Act (1978)Pregnancy, childbirth, related conditions
ADA (1990)Disability (qualified individuals)
GINA (2008)Genetic information
Bankruptcy Act 11 U.S.C. 525(b)Bankruptcy filers (courts split on pre-offer)
  • Reduce risk: avoid eliciting protected-class info; ask all candidates the same questions.
  • Protected info allowed when required by statute, a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ), or learned for another nondiscriminatory reason.
  • EEOC: screening (e.g., criminal-conviction bars) must be job-related and consistent with business necessity or risks disparate-impact claims.

ADA medical screening

  • Covers employers with 15+ employees.
  • Pre-offer: exams/inquiries only if job-related & business necessity; cannot ask if accommodation needed (unless disability known).
  • Post-conditional-offer: exam OK if all entering employees examined, results kept confidential, used per statute.
  • Must provide reasonable accommodation unless undue hardship.
  • Psychological tests may count as medical exams. ADA excludes current illegal drug use but protects recovered addicts and qualified alcoholics.

FCRA background checks

  • Covers any check from a CRA - not just credit, but criminal and driving records too.
  • Need a permissible purpose ("employment purposes" = screening + promotion/reassignment/retention).
  • Steps: written notice (indicate if investigative consumer report - info from neighbors/associates), written consent, certify to CRA, pre-adverse-action notice with report copy, then adverse-action notice.
  • Noncompliance: civil + criminal penalties and a private right of action. FTC pursues nontraditional CRAs (online data brokers).

FACTA preemption & state credit laws

  • FACTA (2003) amended FCRA and preempted many state credit-reporting/identity-theft laws, but does NOT preempt stronger state employment credit-check laws.
  • California ICRAA: notice + written authorization first; box to receive report copy; report given before adverse action.
  • 10 more states (CO, CT, DE, HI, IL, MD, NV, OR, VT, WA) limit credit use; most require a substantial relationship, Hawaii requires "directly relate" (strictest).

Fair Chance Act & Ban the Box

  • Fair Chance to Compete on Jobs Act (2019): bars federal agencies and federal contractors from asking criminal history until a conditional offer.
  • Part of Ban the Box movement (~two-thirds of states, 150+ municipalities; many reach private employers).

Screening tech: social media & AI

  • Social-media screening risks: discrimination (protected-class info), FCRA (nontraditional providers), invasion of privacy via social engineering (fake profiles).
  • Maryland first (2012) to ban demanding social-network passwords; ~half the states followed.
AEDTs & NYC Local Law 144

Automated Employment Decision Tools (AI scoring hiring/promotion). NYC Local Law 144 = three duties: (1) bias audit, (2) publish results, (3) notify candidates (and of any alternative process).

Polygraphs - EPPA

  • EPPA (1988), enforced by DOL: bars most private employers from using lie detectors on workers/applicants; no adverse action for refusing.
  • Exceptions: gov't, security services, controlled-substance mfg, defense contractors, national security; plus ongoing-investigation of economic loss with reasonable suspicion. Cannot discharge on polygraph alone.
  • Does NOT preempt stricter state laws. Must post provisions conspicuously.

Substance testing

  • No federal privacy statute directly governs employer drug/alcohol testing (public employees: 4th Amend.).
  • ADA: drug test is not a medical exam; current illegal drug use excluded; qualified alcoholic protected.
  • Settings: preemployment, reasonable-suspicion, routine (notice at hire), post-accident, random (narrow regulated/safety jobs).
Cannabis preemption

Federal law mandates testing for safety-sensitive roles (aviation, rail, trucking) and preempts contrary state law. Cannabis is federally prohibited, so these employees follow federal rules even in legalizing states; fewer than half of legalizing states protect positive-testing employees.

Lifestyle discrimination

  • Off-duty conduct generally private. Obesity from a physiological disability may be ADA-covered (courts split).
  • No federal law protects smokers; more than half the states protect off-duty/off-premises smoking.

Monitoring baseline

  • U.S. private employees have limited privacy expectations - facilities/equipment belong to employer.
  • Acceptable use policies + monitoring notices establish knowledge and defeat improper-monitoring claims; may be required by state law.
  • Reasons to monitor: OSHA safety, quality (recorded calls - pause for full payment-card data), avoiding negligent supervision, physical security (CCTV/GPS), cybersecurity, trade secrets.

Intercepting communications - Wiretap Act / ECPA

  • Wiretap Act & ECPA prohibit intercepting wire/oral/electronic communications (criminal + private right of action).
  • Two exceptions: consent (one party) and ordinary course of business (courts split on breadth).
  • Listening to a purely personal call risks liability. States vary: one-party vs all-party consent to record.

Stored Communications Act - City of Ontario v. Quon

  • SCA bars unauthorized access to stored communications; exceptions for the service provider (often employer) and authorized user. Employers may review for reasonable, work-related reasons.
City of Ontario v. Quon

Supreme Court allowed an employer to review an employee's texts to check policy compliance (employer provided the pager). Caution: employer was public, so the 4th Amendment applied - does not carry over to private employers. ECPA does NOT preempt stricter state laws.

Biometric, video, mail & union speech

State biometric lawKey feature
Illinois BIPANotice + informed consent; private right of action (drives class actions)
TexasCovers employers; no private right of action
WashingtonCovers employers; no private right of action
  • Federal wiretap/stored-record statutes do not reach silent video; state/common law bar cameras in restrooms/locker/changing areas.
  • Mail is "delivered" when it reaches a business - opening business mail doesn't violate the federal statute (some state common-law risk).
  • NLRB: employee social-media speech complaining about managers/coworkers/company may be protected.
Kronos / BIPA

Timeclock vendor Kronos was held liable under Illinois BIPA for fingerprint timeclocks deployed without consent - settled $15.28M (~$290-$580/class member). Lesson: a biometric-device vendor can face direct BIPA liability; get explicit consent first.

LBS, DLP, BYOD, teleworking

  • LBS: GPS on company vehicles generally OK (business purpose, work hours, prior notice); tracking employees themselves is limited - Connecticut requires written notice ($500 first-offense); California makes electronic location-tracking a misdemeanor.
  • DLP: keystroke logging/webcams/geolocation - very invasive; do a privacy impact assessment.
  • BYOD: work-device monitoring may be inappropriate on personal devices; disclose and consider consent. COIT = consumer tech now drives into the workplace.
  • Teleworking: secure home networks, lock screens, shred papers, household members on video.

Investigating misconduct - Vail Letter & FACTA fix

  • Vail Letter (FTC): made an outside investigator a CRA and its report an investigative consumer report - FCRA notice/consent destroyed undercover investigations.
  • FACTA fix: excludes investigation communications from "consumer report" if (1) to investigate suspected misconduct/legal-policy compliance, (2) not for creditworthiness, (3) shared only with limited recipients. No advance notice needed; only a summary after adverse action (preserves secrecy).

After employment

  • Terminate access (badges, accounts, devices); recover data; forward personal mail, review work mail; avoid shared passwords.
  • References risk defamation, but common-law qualified privilege protects good-faith reports. No common-law duty to give a reference (some state statutes require for specific jobs, e.g., airline pilot, public-school teacher).
  • HR record retention: consistent policies balancing legitimate need vs privacy.

Government & Court Access to Data

For any request, ask: is disclosure required, permitted, or forbidden? The same statute can do all three depending on the circumstances (e.g. produce with a court order, prohibit without one). Turning over too much or too little can both create liability.

Required vs Permitted vs Forbidden

PostureExamples
RequiredFDA adverse-event reporting; OSHA injury reporting; state abuse/gunshot/disease reporting; subpoena under FRCP 45 (enforced by contempt). HIPAA permits PHI disclosure where "required by law."
Permitted (not required)HIPAA requires very few disclosures (only to the individual and to HHS in enforcement) but permits many (public health, law enforcement, national security). PATRIOT Act computer trespasser exception (Sec. 217) lets a system owner voluntarily authorize interception of an intruder.
ForbiddenOpt-in/opt-out laws + evidentiary privileges (see below).
Opt-in vs opt-out trap

HIPAA and COPPA = opt-in (no consent, no sharing). GLBA = opt-out (sharing allowed unless person says stop). Breaking an opt-out promise can trigger FTC Act Section 5 enforcement.

Post-Dobbs HHS guidance (2022)

After Roe was overturned, HHS Office for Civil Rights clarified a covered entity is not permitted to disclose PHI as "required by law" where state law does not expressly require reporting - but is permitted to disclose via court order or court-ordered warrant.

Escalating legal standards (least → most demanding)

ToolStandard
Pen register / trap-and-trace orderInformation relevant to an ongoing investigation
18 U.S.C. 2703(d) order (stored content)Specific and articulable facts = reasonable grounds records relevant to a criminal investigation
Search warrantProbable cause a crime has been/is/will be committed (neutral magistrate)
Telephone wiretapProbable-cause warrant PLUS extra showings (e.g. alternative means exhausted)

Evidentiary privileges (forbid disclosure)

  • Generally defined under state law: attorney-client, doctor-patient, priest-penitent, spousal.
  • Attorney-client: bars compelling attorney testimony about a client within scope of representation; exceptions = client consent or preventing imminent physical harm.
  • Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination applies nationally.

Public records, protective orders, redaction

  • Strong U.S. tradition of open courts + FOIA/state open-records laws. Putting records online ended practical obscurity, raising identity-fraud risk.
  • Protective order (FRCP 26(c)): needs good cause; three-part test - (1) resisting party shows info confidential, (2) requester shows relevant/necessary, (3) court weighs harm vs need.
  • HIPAA qualified protective order (QPO): used in state courts outside Federal Rules; bars non-litigation use + requires return/destruction of PHI at end.
FRCP 5.2 (2007) - max in civil filingWhat may remain
SSN / taxpayer IDLast 4 digits only
Date of birthYear only
Minor's nameInitials only
Financial account numberLast 4 digits only

Criminal Rule 49.1 and Bankruptcy Rule 9037 mirror 5.2. In criminal filings a 5th category applies: only city and state of a home address.

E-discovery and ESI

  • Since the 2006 FRCP revisions, ESI (email, databases, logs, IM, voicemail, social media, removable media) drives pretrial discovery. Sedona Conference = leading source of retention best practices.
  • Litigation hold: once on notice of (anticipated) litigation, suspend routine destruction. Discovery obligations generally prevail over conflicting business practices.
  • Retention-policy dispute = 3-factor test: (1) policy reasonable on facts, (2) similar complaints against org, (3) policy adopted in bad faith.

Discovery under HIPAA and GLBA

  • HIPAA: disclose PHI in discovery via (1) patient authorization, (2) court order, or (3) satisfactory assurances = agreed QPO submitted, or requester asked court for one.
  • GLBA: may disclose to comply with legal process / respond to judicial process; courts read this to cover civil discovery - but still get a protective order.

Cross-border discovery

  • Broad U.S. discovery (possession, custody, or control - globally) collides with foreign law like the GDPR. Supreme Court: foreign statutes don't strip a U.S. court of power to order production. Some courts require a privacy log.
  • Hague Evidence Convention: alternative route; party invoking it bears the burden of showing it's more appropriate and that foreign law prohibits discovery - slow, costly, last resort.
  • Aerospatiale factors: importance, specificity, U.S. origin of data, alternative means, and competing national interests (the MOST important factor).

Fourth Amendment

Bars unreasonable searches; warrants need probable cause, particularity, neutral magistrate. Exclusionary rule suppresses unlawfully obtained evidence.

Case (year)Holding
Olmstead (1928)No warrant for wiretaps outside building (later overruled); Brandeis dissent "right to be let alone"
Katz (1967)Overruled Olmstead; warrant for phone-booth bug; created reasonable expectation of privacy test (subjective + society recognizes)
Jones (2012)Warrant for month-long GPS tracking (trespass theory)
Riley (2014)Warrant to search cellphone contents (quantitatively + qualitatively different from container)
Carpenter (2018)Warrant for cell site location info; narrowed third-party doctrine
Third-party doctrine

Info voluntarily given to a bank/phone company loses 4th Amendment protection, so companies are generally constitutionally permitted to turn over customer records - BUT statutes (RFPA, ECPA) may still restrict it. Carpenter narrowed this for CSLI. (Smith v. Maryland: dialed numbers NOT protected.)

Emerging issues

  • Post-Dobbs / abortion data: an anti-abortion state may send a warrant to a company in another state. California bars compliance with other states' abortion warrants = interstate conflict of law (possible Supreme Court case).
  • Geofence warrants: challenged as unconstitutional general warrants; lower courts split; Supreme Court has not ruled.

Statutes beyond the 4th Amendment

Congress added process where the Constitution didn't reach. These require some legal process but less than a probable-cause warrant.

Law (year)What it doesKey point / trap
RFPA (1978)Customer authorization or specific legal process before federal access to financial records of individuals/small partnershipsApplies only to federal requests; only individuals + partnerships of fewer than 5; advance notice + right to challenge; actual + punitive damages, attorney's fees
ECPA / Wiretap Act (Title III) (1986/1968)Bars interception of communications; ECPA extends to electronic comms (email)Real-time interception treated more strictly than stored records; criminal + private right of action
SCA (part of ECPA, 1986)Bars unauthorized access to comms in electronic storageSimpler exceptions: provider-authorized + user-authorized; does NOT preempt stricter state law (DE, CT require monitoring notice)
PPA (1980)Shields media work product from government search/seizure in criminal investigations (forces use of subpoena)After Zurcher v. Stanford Daily; all gov't levels; criminal only; $1,000 minimum + damages + fees. No protection if reporter committed crime - unless the only crime is possessing/communicating the work product
CALEA (1994)Requires telecom carriers to build lawful-interception capability into productsFCC (2005) extended to broadband + VoIP interconnecting with phone service
CLOUD Act (2018)Part 1: U.S. orders reach data regardless of where stored. Part 2: qualifying foreign gov'ts go directly to U.S. providers via executive agreementPart 1 mooted U.S. v. Microsoft (Ireland); Part 2 bypasses slow MLAT (~10 months, needs U.S. probable cause) for non-U.S. persons; agreements only for human-rights/rule-of-law countries (UK, Australia)
One-party vs all-party consent

Federal law = one-party consent. Many states require all-party consent ("this call may be recorded"). Federal law is NOT preemptive, so recording can violate a stricter state law. Ordinary course of business exception: covers routine call-center monitoring/malware scanning with provider equipment; listening to a purely personal call risks violating wiretap laws.

HIPAA law-enforcement disclosure (Sec. 512(f))

Permits disclosure via court order, grand jury subpoena, or administrative request if all three: (1) relevant and material to a legitimate inquiry; (2) request specific and limited in scope; (3) deidentified info could not reasonably be used.

Preservation, pen register / trap-and-trace

  • SCA preservation order: on government request, provider must preserve records pending a court order (like a litigation hold).
  • Pen register (outgoing) / trap-and-trace (incoming) issue on lenient "relevant to an ongoing investigation" standard. PATRIOT Act expanded scope to "dialing, routing, addressing, or signaling info." USA FREEDOM Act barred bulk collection - requires specific selectors.

CISA - cyber threat sharing

  • Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (2015): companies voluntarily share cyber threat indicators + defensive measures with the government for liability protection. DHS is main coordinator; indicator definition excludes sensitive personal/business info.
  • Must first remove personal info not directly related to a threat. Sharing with federal gov't doesn't waive privileges - NO similar protection for state/local or other companies. Info exempt from FOIA. Protected from liability for monitoring (NOT for operating defensive measures).
  • Officially sunset Sept 30, 2025 (Congress missed reauthorization), then extended to Jan 30, 2026; long-term future uncertain.

Budapest Convention

2004 Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime (first cybercrime treaty, 60+ countries). Second Additional Protocol (U.S. signed 2022): expedited production, direct disclosure of subscriber/domain info, emergency requests, with data-protection safeguards.

National security surveillance

Tension: Article II (president, foreign affairs) vs Article III (courts). Katz reserved the national security question.

AuthorityKey point
FISA (1978) / FISCOrders on probable cause target is a foreign power or agent (not probable cause of a crime), when foreign intelligence is a significant purpose. USA FREEDOM Act added amicus curiae of privacy experts
Section 702 (FISA Amendments Act 2008)Targets non-U.S. persons reasonably believed outside the U.S.; can collect full content. Programs: PRISM (directives to U.S. providers for selectors) and Upstream (filters internet backbone). FISC approves certifications annually
Section 215 (PATRIOT Act)Bulk call-detail-record collection; bulk collection ended by USA FREEDOM Act; provision expired 2020
National Security Letter (NSL)FBI subpoena issued without judicial involvement for records relevant to terrorism/intelligence. PATRIOT Act expanded to tens of thousands/yr. Recipients can petition court to modify/set aside; may disclose to those needed to comply + an attorney; secrecy presumptively terminated when investigation closes or within 3 years. Breach: up to 5 yrs prison, $250,000 fine
  • Snowden (2013) reforms: USA FREEDOM Act (2015) ended Section 215 bulk collection; Judicial Redress Act (2016) extended Privacy Act protections to certain non-U.S. persons; PCLOB reviewed the programs.
  • National security exceptions vary: HIPAA permits disclosure to authorized federal officials (National Security Act); GLBA has a vaguer public-safety exception; COPPA has NO national security exception.

GDPR & International Privacy

Scope, Sanctions, and Core Concepts

The GDPR (2018) is the worldwide template for data protection, built on fair information practices (FIPs). It applies to companies with assets/employees in the EU, companies selling to individuals in the EU, and data stored in the EU - no EU establishment needed.

Six provisions + the 4% number

GDPR introduced: (1) processing requirements, (2) individual rights, (3) breach notification, (4) DPO designation, (5) sanctions up to 4% of worldwide revenue, (6) international transfer rules. Headline max fine = 4% of worldwide revenue.

Personal data
Any data relating to an identified/identifiable natural person, directly or indirectly.
Sensitive (special-category) data
Race/ethnicity, political opinions, religious/philosophical beliefs, trade union membership, genetic, biometric, health, sex life/orientation - generally needs explicit consent.
Anonymized
Irreversibly de-identified - only then outside GDPR scope.
Pseudonymized
De-identified but reversible - still personal data.
IP address / cookie ID trap

Under GDPR, an IP address and cookie ID ARE personal data - even though often not PII in the U.S. Encrypted/pseudonymized data is still personal data if reidentifiable. NOT personal data: company registration number, generic role emails (support@), anonymized data.

Roles

RoleDefinition / key point
ControllerDetermines purposes and means; bears more legal responsibility; appoints DPO, runs DPIAs.
ProcessorProcesses on controller's behalf, per contract/instructions.
SubprocessorSubcontractor of a processor; GDPR requirements flow downstream to it.
Data subjectThe natural person whose data is processed.

Consent

Must be freely given, specific, informed, and unambiguous - by statement or clear affirmative action. Silence, pre-ticked boxes, and inactivity fail. Business bears the burden to demonstrate consent was obtained.

DPA, DPO, and EU Representative

  • DPA: independent national authority enforcing the law - one per member state except Germany (federal + 16 Lander).
  • DPO: in-EU internal point of contact; needs expertise and no conflicts of interest (cannot also set processing purposes). Need is triggered by EU data subjects, large-scale monitoring, or large-scale sensitive processing - not by controller-vs-processor status.
  • EU representative: appointed by a company with no physical EU presence; subject to GDPR enforcement.

Seven Principles

  1. Lawfulness, fairness, transparency
  2. Purpose limitation (research/archiving/statistics not "incompatible")
  3. Data minimization
  4. Accuracy
  5. Storage limitation
  6. Integrity and confidentiality (security)
  7. Accountability - meta-principle: must demonstrate compliance with the other six (via records, DPIAs, breach documentation).

Data Subject Rights

RightKey point / trap
Be informedDrives privacy notices (layered, just-in-time, dashboards); if not collected directly, must reveal the source.
Access (SAR)Confirmation + copy + processing info; gateway to other rights.
RectificationCorrect inaccurate / complete incomplete data.
Erasure (right to be forgotten)Defined grounds; reaches backups and downstream controllers (unless exemption, e.g. legal claims).
RestrictionMark data to limit future use (alternative to erasure, e.g. while accuracy contested).
PortabilityOnly data subject provided, where processing is by consent or contract AND automated; structured machine-readable format.
ObjectAbsolute for direct marketing (incl. profiling). Public-interest / legitimate-interest objections are qualified - controller can refuse on compelling overriding grounds.
Automated decision-makingGeneral prohibition on fully automated decisions with legal/significant effect. Exceptions: necessary for contract, authorized by law, or explicit consent.
Response timing

Respond within one month (extendable to three). Generally no fee, but may charge for manifestly unfounded or excessive requests or extra copies. Communicate rectification/erasure/restriction to each recipient.

Breach Notification

Who notifiesRecipientTiming / trigger
ControllerDPAWithin 72 hours of becoming aware, where feasible; explain any delay
ProcessorControllerWithout undue delay
ControllerData subjectsWithout undue delay when breach = high risk

GDPR breach concept is broader than U.S. law. No DPA notice if unlikely to risk individuals (but still document it). No subject notice if data protected (encrypted), harm prevented, or notice disproportionate.

Enforcement and Fines

Complaint by data subject or DPA; multi-DPA cases get a lead DPA. If DPA gives no outcome/progress in three months, subject may go to national court. Controllers AND processors can be liable to data subjects; in the same processing each is liable for the entire damage, then seeks contribution (exempt only if not in any way responsible).

TierMaximumTargets
Higher-levelGreater of €20M or 4% global revenueBasic processing principles, consent conditions, special-category data, data subject rights, transfers
Lower-levelGreater of €10M or 2% global revenueData protection by default/design, records, DPA cooperation, security, breach notification, DPO designation

Member states may also impose criminal sanctions. Notable fines: Instagram €405M (children), Facebook €265M (scraping), Amazon €746M (cookie consent).

International Transfers

Transfers from the EEA (EU + Norway, Liechtenstein, Iceland) to non-EEA countries are prohibited unless one applies: adequacy decision, appropriate safeguard, or derogation.

  • Adequacy decision: protections essentially equivalent to GDPR; data flows freely; subject to periodic review. Adequate: Andorra, Argentina, Canada, Faroe Islands, Guernsey, Isle of Man, Israel, Japan, Jersey, New Zealand, South Korea, Switzerland, UK, US (via DPF), Uruguay.
  • SCCs (standard contractual clauses): contract to comply with EU law + submit to DPA supervision - most common basis.
  • BCRs (binding corporate rules): intra-group transfers after DPA certification.
  • Derogations: narrow exceptions (explicit consent; occasional contract/legal-claims/vital-interest/public-interest). Read narrowly - only as strictly necessary; not for routine bulk transfers.

EU-U.S. Transfers: Schrems and the DPF

Case / frameworkYearOutcome
Schrems I (CJEU)2015Struck down Safe Harbor (U.S. surveillance, post-Snowden)
Schrems II (CJEU)2020Struck down Privacy Shield (no redress/proportionality); applies to all third countries (implicates China, fewer protections)
EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework2023Third agreement; backed by Executive Order 14086 (necessity + proportionality, independent data protection review court); EU issued U.S. adequacy decision; expected to be challenged

Other Global Data-Flow Mechanisms

  • Global CBPR Forum (2022): certification built on APEC Cross-Border Privacy Rules but independent of APEC so non-members can join.
  • OECD (2022): declaration on common principles for government access to private-sector data (legal basis, oversight, remedies, etc.).

Other high-yield exam points

Chapter 11 - Telecommunications and Marketing

LawWhat it doesWho enforcesKey point / trap
Telecommunications Act of 1996, Section 222 (CPNI)Restricts how telecom carriers access, use, and disclose Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) - call detail, services subscribed, billing/network data, call logs (time, date, destination, duration)FCCName, phone number, and address are NOT CPNI. Carriers may use/disclose CPNI only with customer approval or as required by law
Communications Decency Act (CDA, 1996), Section 230An interactive computer service shall not be treated as the publisher or speaker of content provided by another party - immunizes platforms from liability for user-generated content; 230(c)(2) "Good Samaritan" protects good-faith removal of objectionable content(immunity defense; courts)"Interactive computer service" is the defined term that determines who is protected. A platform is NOT a publisher (unlike a newspaper). Title V of the Telecom Act of 1996
Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 (Cable Act)Governs cable providers' notice, collection, disclosure, retention of subscriber data; annual privacy notice; collect only necessary info; disclose only with written/electronic consentFCC; private right of action (actual/statutory + punitive damages, attorneys' fees)Does NOT cover cable broadband internet ("cable service" = one-way video/programming)
CalOPPA (2003)California Online Privacy Protection Act - first U.S. law requiring commercial websites/apps to post a privacy notice if they collect PII from Californians; 2013 amendment added Do Not Track disclosureCalifornia AGFirst U.S. website/app privacy-notice mandate - applies to anyone collecting PII from California residents
CPNI: opt-out vs opt-in

After U.S. West, Inc. v. FCC (1999, 10th Cir.) struck the FCC's 1998 opt-in rule as a violation of carriers' First Amendment speech rights, a carrier's own use of CPNI shifted to opt-out. The 2007 CPNI order requires opt-in before sharing CPNI with joint-venture partners/contractors and adds anti-pretexting rules (passwords, breach notice to law enforcement within seven business days).

Pretexting
Gaining access to CPNI through fraudulent means; combated by the 2007 order's password and breach-notice requirements.

Chapter 9 - Financial Privacy

Law / conceptWhat it doesWho enforcesKey point / trap
EFTA (1978) + Regulation EElectronic Fund Transfer Act sets consumer rights/company duties for electronic fund transfers (ATM, direct deposit, point-of-sale, debit card)CFPB (rulemaking transferred 2011 under Dodd-Frank)Regulation E can cover P2P payments that meet the EFT definition; consumer liability depends on the statutory conditions and timely notice
Bank Secrecy Act (1970) - Currency Transaction Report (CTR)CTR filed for currency transactions of $10,000 or more (reported to the IRS)FinCEN (Treasury)$10,000 is the CTR threshold - do not confuse with the SAR thresholds ($5,000+ with suspect, $25,000+ without)
Know Your Customer (KYC)Requirements to identify customers and beneficial owners to deter money launderingFinCENExpanded by the USA PATRIOT Act (International Money Laundering Abatement and Anti-Terrorist Financing Act, 2001)
FATCA (2010)Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act - targets U.S. taxpayers with foreign accounts; requires more detailed KYC documentationIRS / TreasuryFocus = offshore tax evasion
AML Act of 2020Anti-Money Laundering Act - most comprehensive AML changes since the PATRIOT ActFinCENExpanded the BSA to explicitly include virtual currencies
CFPB "abusive" standard (UDAAP)CFPB can act against unfair, deceptive, AND abusive acts/practicesCFPB (created by Dodd-Frank, 2010)"Abusive" is the extra prong CFPB adds beyond the FTC's unfair/deceptive - covers taking unreasonable advantage of a consumer's lack of understanding or reliance

Chapter 8 - Medical Privacy

TermWhat it isKey point
Health care clearinghouseA third-party organization that hosts, handles, or processes medical informationOne of the three HIPAA covered-entity types (with health care providers doing certain electronic transactions, and health plans)
Qualified Service Organization (QSO)An entity that may receive patient-identifying information without consent for info it needs to provide services to the programUnder 42 CFR Part 2 (substance use disorder records); "patient-identifying information" = anything that could reasonably identify a person treated for substance abuse

Chapter 1 - Introduction to Privacy

OECD Collection Limitation Principle
Personal data collection should be limited, obtained by lawful and fair means and, where appropriate, with consent (one of the eight 1980 OECD principles).
Madrid Resolution - Proportionality principle
Processing limited to what is adequate, relevant, and not excessive for the purposes, with reasonable efforts to minimize (2009 standards approved by privacy commissioners, not governments).
Choice and consent (a distinct FIP category)
Organizations must describe available choices and obtain implicit or explicit consent for handling personal information.

Chapter 3 - Technological Aspects

Threat modeling
Identifying the most salient security risks for an organization (the "adversarial mindset"), using tools like MITRE ATT&CK and STRIDE.
STRIDE vs threat modeling

STRIDE is the mnemonic (Spoofing, Tampering, Repudiation, Information disclosure, Denial of service, Elevation of privilege); threat modeling is the broader practice of finding salient risks, and MITRE ATT&CK is another tool used for it.

Chapter 14 - GDPR and International Privacy

CJEU - Court of Justice of the European Union
The court whose Schrems I (2015, struck Safe Harbor) and Schrems II (2020, struck Privacy Shield) decisions scrutinized U.S. surveillance of EU data.

More must-know exam points

Frameworks, Regulators & Enforcement

TopicMust-know detail
Info Mgmt Program build modelOrdered phases: Discover (environment, goals, applicable regs) → Build (develop and verify procedures) → Communicate (to stakeholders) → Evolve (adapt to changing tech and law). Distinct from A-P-S-R and from develop → implement → metrics.
State depts of insuranceAct as privacy regulators for the insurance sector (an enumerated regulator alongside FTC, FCC, DoC, HHS, banking regulators, state AGs). Broader than the NAIC AI Model Bulletin (industry guidance).
GPENGlobal Privacy Enforcement Network - facilitates cross-border enforcement cooperation among privacy authorities (BoK I.B). Distinct from cross-border transfer mechanisms.

Sectoral Laws - Tested Specifics

LawDetail
GLBA opt-outMust give a reasonable means to opt out - e.g. toll-free number or detachable check-off form returned by mail. Not acceptable: pre-checked boxes or oral consent.
ECPA / SCAStored email content ≤180 days = government needs a warrant; content stored >180 days may be compelled by subpoena. Sits within the escalating-standards ladder (pen register / 2703(d) / warrant).
RFPAFinancial records must always be reasonably described. The other conditions - customer authorization / qualified search warrant / judicial subpoena - are alternatives.
CALEAAlso called the Digital Telephony Bill (lawful-interception capability; 2005 FCC extension to broadband and VoIP).
PCI DSS levelsFour merchant levels set by annual transaction volume (Level 1 >6M ... Level 4 <20K), not by company size, risk, or jurisdiction.

State Privacy & Data-Security Laws

Law typeDistinctive point
Colorado Privacy Act (CPA)Grants a right to opt out of profiling used to curate CONTENT - broader than the targeted-ad / sale opt-outs shared with VCDPA, UCPA, CCPA.
Data destruction lawsEach state law defines personal information for itself and prescribes the destruction method based on the storage media (paper vs electronic), not just "no longer readable/decipherable."
SSN-protection lawsSome states restrict public display of SSNs (e.g. barring printing the SSN on ID cards) - distinct from breach, destruction, and reasonable-security laws.

Workplace & Cross-Border (U.S. side)

  • Employee-record disclosures w/o consent: permissible for legitimate purposes - e.g. confirming legal standing / citizenship status, retirement planning, group-insurance underwriting. Not permitted: sharing records to test-market the company's own products.
  • Cross-border transfers: U.S. sectoral law imposes no general geographic / cross-border transfer restriction (unlike GDPR Chapter V) - though the exporter can still bear liability for downstream misuse.
  • Web scraping: raises privacy issues (collection without notice/consent, repurposing public data) - a BoK II.E indicator, separate from telemarketing/CAN-SPAM/CDA 230.
Incident first response

On a ransomware/malware incident the first containment step is to isolate (disconnect) infected devices from the network before further analysis - this stops lateral spread.

Sources and study method

This independent study material uses the current published CIPP/US outline, active recall, spaced retrieval and scenario practice. Read the full method. Current sources are identified in the article.

Frequently asked questions

What does the CIPP/US one-page exam guide cover?

Every exam-relevant area of the IAPP CIPP/US body of knowledge on a single page: the U.S. legal framework and regulators, FCRA/FACTA/GLBA financial privacy, HIPAA/HITECH/GINA medical privacy, FERPA and COPPA, telecommunications and marketing (TCPA, TSR, CAN-SPAM, CPNI, VPPA), workplace privacy, government and court access (ECPA, FISA, CALEA, CLOUD Act), state comprehensive and breach laws, and the GDPR/international angle - with who enforces each law, opt-in vs opt-out, thresholds and landmark cases.

Is the one-page guide enough to pass the CIPP/US on its own?

Use it as the fast, see-everything-at-once revision layer. It distils the same material as the full study notes, but for deeper explanations and to test yourself, use the topic-by-topic guide and the practice exam.

What's the difference between the one-page guide and the cram sheet?

The cram sheet is the highest-yield memorisation list (dates, dollar amounts, the classic traps). The one-page guide is broader - it walks the entire body of knowledge, chapter by chapter, so nothing testable is left out.

All certifications Support About Privacy Terms Refunds Disclaimer Accessibility Contact

CIPP/US study guide. Use active recall, spaced retrieval and scenario practice. The practice question bank has a one-time unlock.

Independent study guide with exam-style practice questions. Not affiliated with, endorsed by or sponsored by IAPP. IAPP, CIPP, CIPP/E, CIPP/US, AIGP and related marks are trademarks of the IAPP, used for identification only. See the full disclaimer. Contact studyguides@thesmios.com.

© 2026 Humenhuk

CIPP/E study guideAIGP study guide