Now more than ever, technology is influencing the way we do business, communicate, move through and around the world, access and manage our homes, receive and administer healthcare, make purchases, secure information, and protect our most valuable property. Morrison Foerster keeps pace with this rapidly evolving landscape across our internationally recognized corporate, finance, intellectual property, and litigation practices. MoFo Tech brings together our insights relating to fields such as blockchain and distributed ledger, cloud and as-a-service technologies, driverless cars, drones, fintech, computer hardware and software, the Internet of Things, semiconductors, and telecommunications. The MoFo Tech blog offers real-time, in-depth analyses of the trends and complex issues shaping the global technology industry.<h2>ABOUT MORRISON FOERSTER</h2>Morrison Foerster is a leading global law firm that transforms complexity into advantage for its clients. Our clients include some of the largest financial institutions, banks, consulting and accounting firms, and Fortune 100, technology, and life sciences companies. Highlighting the firm’s commitment to client service, leadership in market-changing deals and impact litigation, and values-based culture, Morrison Foerster has been repeatedly recognized as one of the top 10 firms on The American Lawyer’s A-List. Year after year, the firm receives significant recognition from Chambers and The Legal 500 across their various guides, including Global, USA, Asia‑Pacific, Europe, UK, Latin America, and FinTech Legal. Our lawyers passionately care about delivering legal excellence while living our values. Morrison Foerster has a long-standing commitment to creating a culture that respects and celebrates differences, while providing an inclusive environment. The firm has achieved Mansfield Certification Plus since 2018 as a result of successfully reaching at least 30 percent women, communities of color, and LGBTQ+ lawyer representation in a notable number of current leadership roles and committees. The firm also has a long history of commitment to the community and society through providing pro bono legal services, including litigating for civil rights and civil liberties, improving public education and fostering the wellbeing of children, advocating for veterans, promoting international human rights, enforcing the right to asylum, and safeguarding the environment.

Social

Search

testimage.jpg

MoFo Tech

Scott Llewellyn’s practice focuses on complex litigation in federal and state courts around the country, with an emphasis on patent and trade secret disputes. Over the past decade, he has worked on some of the most significant, high–profile IP cases involving technology for televisions, smartphones, and self–driving cars, relying on 40 years of experience with computer hardware and software. Scott also has significant experience with business divorce cases before courts and arbitrators, involving a mix of trade secret, patent, tort, and contract claims relating to technology development and implementation.Scott also has successfully tried general commercial arbitration and agency matters, briefed and argued various appeals in federal appellate court, and tried more than 20 cases for the Denver City Attorney’s office, most of them jury trials.Scott also has an active pro bono practice, having worked on a variety of criminal and immigration appeals, and having represented Colorado criminal defense and mental health organizations in high–profile suits against the state of Colorado for violations of the constitutional rights of defendants.At MoFo, Scott serves on the board of the Morrison & Foerster Foundation. In the broader legal community, he serves on the boards of the Colorado Lawyers Committee and Drop in the Bucket (a charity that builds wells and sanitation systems in sub–Saharan Africa).After law school, Scott clerked for the Honorable Clarence A. Brimmer, District of Wyoming, and the Honorable Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, Ninth Circuit. He was also previously an adjunct professor at the Georgetown University Law Center.

llewellyn_scott_blog_150x150.png

llewellyn_scott_common_640x280.jpg

llewellyn_scott_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

llewellyn_scott_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

llewellyn_scott_social_600x600.jpg

Partner

Scott Llewellyn’s practice involves complex litigation before state and federal courts around the country, with an emphasis on patent and trade secret disputes for high-tech companies, to which he brings more than 35 years of experience with computer hardware and software, in particular relating to the processing and transmission of audio, video, voice, and other types of data. Mr. Llewellyn has also tried commercial arbitration and agency matters; briefed and argued various appeals in federal appellate court; and tried more than 20 cases for the Denver city attorney’s office, most of them jury trials.

Scott F. Llewellyn

favicon.ico

favicon-16x16.png

favicon-32x32.png

apple-touch-icon.png

MoFo Favicons

MoFo Tech brings together legal insights and in-depth analyses on trends and complex issues shaping the global technology industry, covering fields such as blockchain and distributed ledger, cloud and SaaS technologies, driverless cars, drones, FinTech, computer hardware and software, the IoT, semiconductors, and telecommunications.

Mofo Tech testimage

Announcements

Welcome to the MoFo Tech Blog

Blog - Blog Disclaimer

Blog - Terms of Use

Blog - Privacy Policy

Blog - Attorney Advertising

morrison-foerster-blog-logo.png

Provides insights and reports on the most current class actions lawsuits and product liability issues that affect consumer-facing companies.

Class Dismissed Blog

Class Dismissed

In-depth analysis of developments and trends impacting government contracting.

Government Contract Insights Blog

Government Contract Insights

Government Contracts Insights Blog

Govcon

News and thought leadership from lawyers who are adding value to the legal profession and the communities we call home.

  External-Link

MoFo + Blog

MoFo+ Together

MoFo Tech brings together legal insights and in-depth analyses on trends and complex issues shaping the global technology industry, covering fields such as blockchain and distributed ledger, cloud and SaaS technologies, driverless cars, drones, FinTech, computer hardware and software, the IoT, semiconductors, and telecommunications.

MoFo Tech

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

MoFo Tech Blog - RSS

Stay Connected

At the Intersection of Technology, Law, and Business

At the Intersection of Technology, Law, and Business

Morrison Foerster - Footer

Blogs -  Home Button

Home

Blog - Topics

Telecommunications

Artificial Intelligence

Asia

Blockchain

Cloud Services + SaaS

European Union

Financings

Fintech

Hardware

Intellectual Property

Internet of Things

Litigation

Mergers + Acquisitions

Privacy + Data Security

Regulatory

Software

Tech Talks

Topics

Blog - Editors

Editors

Blog - About

About

Blog - Subscribe

Subscribe

More

Current State of the AI VC Financing Market

MoFo Tech Law Summit – Tech and Antitrust: Policy Shifts in the Second Trump Administration

MoFo Tech Law Summit – Responsible Tech: Policy Becomes Practice

AI Dynamics: Regulatory Landscape and Industry Insights

Introducing the MoFo Tech Law Summit – Innovation Under Regulation

A groundbreaking agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom will give rise to a streamlined process for UK law enforcement to request data from U.S. companies, using UK legal process. DOJ views it as an important advance in cooperation between two longstanding allies in combating terrorism and other serious crimes – but U.S. companies should be prepared for questions and confusion from customers about what the agreement means for the privacy of information and the future of cross-border law enforcement requests. Read our <a href="https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/EYjvCYElrZF27G7qF975xD">client alert.</a>

litt_robert_blog_150x150.png

litt_robert_common_640x280.jpg

litt_robert_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

litt_robert_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

litt_robert_social_600x600.jpg

Of Counsel

Bob Litt, former General Counsel for the Director of National Intelligence, is of counsel and co-chair of Morrison & Foerster’s Global Risk and Crisis Management group. He advises industry-leading org

Robert S. Litt

Robert Litt

mofotechblog-cloud-600x295-cloud1.jpg

CLOUD Act Compliance: Key Takeaways for U.S. Companies from the U.S.-UK Executive Agreement

Google Ordered to Comply with Warrant for Foreign-Stored User Data

511541940

A groundbreaking agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom will give rise to a streamlined process for UK law enforcement to request data from 

CLOUD Act Compliance: Key Takeaways for U.S. Companies from the U.S.-UK Executive Agreement

Businesses have been tirelessly preparing for the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA), which becomes operative on January 1, 2020. But Californians for Consumer Privacy, the nonprofit behind the 2018 ballot initiative that was withdrawn with the passage of the CCPA, has been busy too. It recently announced a new ballot initiative that would significantly amend the CCPA and, if successful, once again radically shift the privacy landscape in California. If it obtains sufficient signatures, Initiative 19-0019, the California Privacy Rights and Enforcement Act of 2020 (CPREA), will appear on the November 2020 California ballot.Read our <a href="https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/Ar48CKr5zGH5NxJQUvG6b1">client alert.</a>

patel_purvi_blog_150x150.png

patel_purvi_common_640x280.jpg

patel_purvi_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

patel_purvi_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

patel_purvi_social_600x600.jpg

Purvi G. Patel is the former managing partner of the Los Angeles Office. She represents retail, e-commerce, and other businesses in significant advertising, unfair competition, consumer fraud, and privacy 

Purvi G. Patel

Purvi G. Patel defends retail, e-commerce, and other businesses in significant advertising, unfair competition, consumer fraud, and privacy matters. She has built a robust practice defending household names in complex and class action litigation in federal and state courts across the country, winning motions to dismiss, defeating class certification, and securing summary disposition in several multi-million dollar lawsuits. Purvi is a strategic and practical thinker who is in tune with her clients’ priorities, which leads to successful outcomes both inside and outside the courthouse.

Purvi Patel

mofotechblog-litigation-600x295-gavel.jpg

Here We Go Again: New CCPA Ballot Initiative, Fall 2020

The Madden Saga Continues: On Remand, Madden Survives Summary Judgment and District Court Certifies Class

637294178

Businesses have been tirelessly preparing for the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA), which becomes operative on January 1, 2020. But Californians f

Here We Go Again: New CCPA Ballot Initiative, Fall 2020

The U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) has added <a href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2019-22210.pdf" target="_blank">28 Chinese organizations to the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) Entity List</a>, a move that effectively cuts off these entities from directly or indirectly acquiring hardware, software, and technology subject to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). These new restrictions are effective upon publication of the notice in the Federal Register, which is scheduled for October 9, 2019.The Chinese organizations include commercial and government-owned entities that specialize in artificial intelligence and other technologies deployed for surveillance purposes. Twenty of the organizations are government entities affiliated with the XUAR People’s Government Public Security Bureau. Commerce determined that eight commercial companies “are enabling activities contrary to the foreign policy interests of the United States.” Among the companies identified are Hikvision, Dahua Technology, and SenseTime, which are some of the world’s largest and most advanced manufacturers of video surveillance products.

capito_charles_blog_150x150.png

capito_charles_common_640x280.jpg

capito_charles_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

capito_charles_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

capito_charles_social_600x600.jpg

Charles Capito is a partner in both Morrison Foerster’s National Security and Government Contracts + Public Procurement practices.
In the National Security space, he has significant experience couns

Charles L. Capito

Charles Capito

benkert_joseph_blog_150x150.png

benkert_joseph_common_640x280.jpg

benkert_joseph_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

benkert_joseph_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

benkert_joseph_social_600x600.jpg

Senior Advisor, National Security

Joseph Benkert is a senior advisor  in Morrison & Foerster’s National Security practice group. He advises  clients on critical national security matters pertaining to the Committee on  Foreign Investm

Joseph Benkert

Joseph A. Benkert

mofotechblog-hardware-600x295-chip-2.jpg

Commerce Adds 28 Chinese Organizations to the Entity List for Associations with Human Rights Violations and Abuses

Watch Out: The Federal Trade Commission Continues to Watch the (Alleged) Watchers

478398876

The U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) has added 28 Chinese organizations to the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) Entity List, a move that effectivel

Commerce Adds 28 Chinese Organizations to the Entity List for Associations with Human Rights Violations and Abuses

What are the real data protection issues?The fact that BC, both public and private, is inherently transparent and immutable may clash with data minimization principles and may make it impossible to respond to rights of individuals to have their data corrected or deleted. BC is further, by definition, unable to forget; as a result, the right to be forgotten will be impossible to enforce. The transparency and immutability issues can, to a large extent, be addressed by implementing innovative privacy‑by‑design measures (see below for examples). Noteworthy is that these innovations are not necessarily triggered by privacy considerations, but mostly out of efficiency considerations.In its most basic form, BC can be used to store plain text information on the ledger, which information can be accessed by those who have read rights. Storing all information on BC takes up a large amount of space on BC and takes a lot of energy both to run and cool the machines. Block space can be saved by separating (segregating) the signature (‘witness’) information from the transaction data (the ‘payload’), so the network can increase the transactions processed. These measures may also, to a certain extent, mitigate transparency issues.The immutability of BC further does not sit well with, for example, smart contracts in more complex transactions (as contracts often have to be amended for unforeseen circumstances); with technological malfunction, including in case of interference by hackers; and, more generally, with human error (known to lose their BC private key). Solving these issues will require solving the immutability of BC, which may also solve the issue of being able to respond to requests of individuals for deletion and the right to be forgotten. Immutability is not always an issueAs a side note, we mention that the immutability of BC is not always an issue. For certain applications (in particular, in case of public registries), immutability is actually a requirement. Illustrative here is the judgment of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in the Manni case. The plaintiff (Mr. Manni) requested deletion of his personal information from the Italian public company register, where information on his prior bankruptcy was recorded. He argued that this record in the company register was widely reused by data brokers, and as a result, his reputation was prejudiced, having a detrimental effect on his new business. The ECJ balanced the public interest in the legal certainty in trade and transparency of business information in the company register with the fundamental right to data protection and concluded that, in this case, the interference with the right to data protection was not disproportionate, taking into account the limited amount of personal information held in the company register. In line with the above ruling, registering limited personal data in a BC for public registers like land ownership, trademark ownership, and company registers may, therefore, be justified. The above case entails that a balancing of interests should be made for each BC application. For other use cases, the balancing test may conclude that BC will not be suitable, as the impact on data protection will be disproportionate. An example of the latter would be if BC would be applied to provide air passengers with expedited access through the airport, while also recording all money spent in shops and restaurants at airports, subsequent transport, and accommodations on the BC for purposes of a loyalty program. Using BC for the commercial loyalty program would likely be disproportionate.  Privacy-by-Design OptionsLimit ledger storage. The original Bitcoin BC stores the full ledger on every node, making it impossible to make changes to prior blocks and thus providing an indisputable ledger for all prior transactions. However, this also means that the personal data included on the ledger is shared with a large number of nodes (Bitcoin has approximately 9,500 nodes). Storing so many instances of personal data is at odds with the data minimization principle of GDPR, which requires access to personal data to be limited to the fewest possible recipients.A privacy-by-design solution is to no longer store the entire ledger on all nodes. In most Bitcoin instances, the validity of a new block is verified by a consensus mechanism. This means that the creator of the block provides a unique hash of the information. The nodes make the same mathematical equations and, if the outcome of this hash is the same, the block is verified. This requires the nodes to have access to the information included on the block. However, the nodes would still be able to fulfill their verification function if they deleted the information after verification. This would increase the confidentiality of the personal data included on the block and, at the same time, has economic advantages. If each node has to store a full copy of the ledger, a large amount of storage capacity is required, which, in turn, requires a large investment in data storage and uses a lot of energy. Therefore, storing the ledger in one (or a few) instances, rather than on every node, has both privacy and economic advantages.Pruning. Most BC applications store all transactions since the start of the chain, dating back to the ‘genesis block’, which means that all transactions on that BC are stored infinitely (and, as set out above, are sometimes stored on all nodes). Storing data infinitely is, by definition, at odds with GDPR’s data minimization requirement but also brings ever-increasing storage requirements. For example, during a stress test, the size of the BC of an Ethereum client increased to 40 gigabytes in the first three months of the test.A privacy-by-design solution to this storage issue is pruning, which enables the node to verify a new block without processing historical transactions by having the node download as many block headers as it can and determine which header is on the end of the longest chain. Starting from this header on the longest chain, the node goes back 100 blocks to verify that the chain matches up. Because this verification process removes the need for retaining the entire chain history for verification purposes, this allows for the removal of unused blocks, which drastically lowers the required storage and implements data minimization into the BC. To ensure that no data is lost, the unused blocks can be stored in one or more archive nodes, which store all data just in case the rest of the network needs them in the future, but the ‘active’ nodes no longer have to process these archived blocks.Privacy-friendly consensus. A privacy-by-design solution for the infinite storage issue is the concept of non-interactive zero‑knowledge proof, which makes it possible to verify the correctness of a computation, e.g., a hash, without having to execute the computation or even learning what was executed. For example, the proposed currency Zerocoin works as follows. When a coin is purchased, a serial number is attributed to the coin, which can only be revealed using a random number. Using these two numbers, a user can generate a zero-knowledge proof for the fact that the user knows both the serial number and the random number. This zero‑knowledge proof can then be verified by the network without having access to the coin’s serial number or the random number.The potential use of zero-knowledge proof is not limited to the transfer of coins using BC but can be used to verify any computation without having access to the underlying information. This enables nodes to reach consensus on a new block without accessing the information on that block, and thus without sharing the personal data included on that block with the nodes.Editable BC. A more radical approach that solves a number of BC data protection issues is the editable BC, for which Accenture has been awarded a patent. The editable BC uses the ‘chameleon’ hash function, which allows for changing the underlying information without changing the outcome of the hash function. This allows for changes to the underlying information for which the hash is already included on the BC, which makes it possible to correct (human) error or intentional (fraudulent) inaccuracies on the BC. This would allow for the execution of individuals’ rights under GDPR, e.g., to correction and to be forgotten.Solving the immutability of BC comes at a price. To a large extent, the trust in a BC application relies on the network’s consensus on the content of a block and the immutability of the content thereafter. When removing this immutability, other measures should be implemented to retain (or gain) sufficient trust in the BC application for individuals and organizations to use it as a record of their transactions. The trust in a BC application could be retained if, for example, only a single trusted entity can make these changes, similar to the fact that only governments can make certain changes to governmental public registries. A different solution could be to implement a very strict change management procedure, which could include a consensus mechanism that verifies the legitimacy of a change. In any event, changes will have to be strictly logged to ensure that changes can always be reviewed and explained in the future.BC ‘self-sovereign’ identity management. The well-known use cases of BC are mostly focused on administering transactions, but BC can also be deployed for privacy enhancing purposes, for example, by facilitating ‘self-sovereign’ identity management. In the offline world, an individual’s identity is mostly established by verifying an individual’s driver’s license or passport. The strength of this system follows from a trusted central governmental authority that provides these proofs of identity. However, because the online world does not follow the national boundaries of the offline world, it is difficult to appoint such a trusted centralized authority for an online proof of identity. By now, there are many initiatives to provide individuals with a digital identity. An example of how BC can be deployed for online identify management is the initiative of Microsoft and Accenture providing a BC-based solution designed to allow individuals with direct control over who has access to their personal data. Rather than all service providers each collecting and storing the personal data required for providing services to an individual, the personal data are stored off-chain, and the system only calls on these data when the individual grants access, whereby access can be limited both in scope and in time. For example, when an individual needs to prove his or her identity when renting a car, the access to the identifying information can be limited to what is necessary to provide this proof and for a short period of time only.Decentralized identity management has a number of benefits. From a privacy point of view, it enables individuals to take back control over their digital identity, coined the ‘self-sovereign identity’. Currently, many individuals are, for example, not aware of the use of their digital identity and personal data, e.g., for advertising purposes. By using a decentralized identity system, individuals would be able to decide who to give access to which information, for which period of time. A single decentralized identity system also has economic benefits. Right now, a large number of companies are storing similar information about the same individuals. A decentralized identity management system makes this duplicated storage obsolete and ensures that companies have access to up‑to‑date information on an individual, insofar as the individual wants the company to have such access.Read <a href="https://mofotech.mofo.com/topics/why-blockchain-is-not-inherently-at-odds.html" target="_blank">Part 1</a> of this post.Read more about <a href="https://media2.mofo.com/v3/assets/blt5775cc69c999c255/bltec64345cb0bd32d9/627317cab5ad5f2863c59630/191019-blockchain-data-protection.pdf" target="_blank">the interplay of blockchain and data protection from Dr. Moerel</a>.Note: This blog is a summary version of a full publication of Lokke Moerel published in European Review of Private Law 6-2019 [825 – 852] and in The Cambridge Handbook of Smart Contracts, Blockchain Technology and Digital Platforms (September 2019).

moerel_lokke_blog_150x150.png

moerel_lokke_common_640x280.jpg

moerel_lokke_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

moerel_lokke_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

moerel_lokke_social_600x600.jpg

Senior Of Counsel

Among the world’s best-known privacy and cybersecurity advisers, Lokke Moerel is regularly called upon by some of the most sophisticated multinational organizations to confront their global privacy and ethical challenges. Lokke routinely offers guidance to clients when implementing new technologies and digital business models and assists them with their global cybersecurity incident response and regulatory investigations.

Lokke Moerel

Lokke Moerel is among the world’s best-known privacy lawyers. She advises companies on their global information handling governance, strategy, and compliance. “An authority on data protection matters” (Chambers 2014), Lokke is consistently ranked as a leader in data protection law in Chambers Global and Legal 500. She is also professor of global ICT law at Tilburg University, member of the Cyber Security Council of the Netherlands, the advisory body of the Dutch cabinet, and member of the Board of Trustees of WWF International.What do you like best about your work? I enjoy thinking about the data privacy issues and ethical dilemma’s presented by the new technologies, and helping companies decide on how to tune them and implement on a global basis, in an emerging regulatory environment.What do you enjoy doing in your free time? Travel with my husband and three children, the modern arts, but most of all, a good book!What individual most inspired you, and why? In my former EU-based firm, there were no female role- models (I was the first female partner with children) and partners step out at age 55. After moving to MoFo, I met women years older than me and fully at the forefront of their field. What an inspiration! I still have a whole career in front of me.

storm_marijn_blog_150x150.png

storm_marijn_common_640x280.jpg

storm_marijn_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

storm_marijn_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

storm_marijn_social_600x600.jpg

Marijn Storm specializes on the intersection of law and technology, with a focus on cutting-edge technologies, such as (generative) artificial intelligence (AI) and large language models, ethical tech, and biometrics. 

Marijn Storm

191008-mofo-tech-blockchain-2.jpg

Why Blockchain is not inherently at odds with GDPR - Part 2

Why Blockchain is not inherently at odds with GDPR - Part 2

191008-mofo-tech-blockchain-2

What are the real data protection issues?
The fact that BC, both public and private, is inherently transparent and immutable may clash with data minimization pr

“In an almost direct clash of intentions, the GDPR has effectively banned the use of blockchain technology in Europe because of its immutable nature.” – ForbesSummaryThe current perception is that blockchain is not compatible with GDPR. We disagree that this is the case and explain why none of the issues identified by legal scholars and stakeholders are likely to pose issues for blockchain applications. Our conclusion is that GDPR is well able to regulate this new technology.Current perceptionThe current conception amongst industry stakeholders is that blockchain (BC) is not compatible with GDPR, resulting in a call for urgent revision right after GDPR came into force. The concerns are fed by public statements of Jan-Philipp Albrecht (the MEP responsible for coordinating the Parliament’s input for GDPR) that BC “probably cannot be used for the processing of personal data” and the CNIL cautioning in draft guidelines that public BC may not be the most appropriate technology for the processing of personal data and that priority should be given to other processing solutions that can achieve the same purpose. As the same results currently can always be achieved with another solution, this is a difficult standard to meet. The above conception is fed by recent in-depth publications on the data protection aspects of BC, which indeed paint a grim picture: the characteristics of public BC would be “on a collision course” and “profoundly incompatible at a conceptual level” with GDPR.What are the issues?GDPR requires identification of a central ‘controller’ who is responsible for compliance with GDPR, while a public BC decentralizes the storage and processing of personal data, as a result of which there is no such central point of control. For lack of a better alternative, the authors conclude that all ‘nodes’ involved in operating a BC qualify as a controller under GDPR, raising enforcement and jurisdictional issues that make it impossible for individuals to enforce their rights. The transparency and immutability of a public BC would further not sit well with principles of data confidentiality, data minimization, data accuracy, and the rights of individuals to correction and deletion of their data.A different perspectiveWe disagree with this analysis. The main reason is that the authors focus on the shortcomings of the initial public (Bitcoin) BC when many new types of permissioned private and consortium BC already have been developed that significantly diverge from the original, permissionless public BC. In fact, these types of permissioned BC have been developed exactly in response to the shortcomings of public BC. The authors further consider the data processing implications of BC as if this technology itself constitutes a data processing activity for which a controller has to be identified. Controllership is, however, decided based on a specific use or deployment of a certain technology. BC, like the internet, is a general purpose technology (GPT) that is subsequently deployed by actors for a certain purpose in a specific context. We will explain below why none of these identified issues are currently hampering application of the GDPR to the internet and are equally unlikely to pose issues for BC applications.The conclusion is that GDPR is well able to regulate this new technology. This does not, however, mean that BC will thus be suitable for all use and deployment cases.Intermediaries will not become obsoleteWe consider it highly unlikely that BC will make intermediaries obsolete; rather, it will replace the current intermediaries. The BC revolution is well described by the World Economic Forum (2017 report), indicating that where the last decades brought us the internet of information, we are now witnessing the rise of the internet of value, whereby we can send money and soon any form of digitized value – from stocks and bonds to intellectual property – directly and safely between us.As BC is about value (rather than just ‘information’), and therefore whether someone has ownership of money, stocks, houses, or not (as evidenced by the BC), the participants will insist that their stakes be safeguarded before the BC will be trusted. The prediction, therefore, is that, whenever BC applications are built for evidence and transfer of value, there will always be a set of governance rules reflecting the terms agreed by the participants of the ecosystem to regulate their relationship. The first examples indeed show new entities being set up mostly as a consortium (often including or funded by incumbents, such as banks), which are in charge of the governance of the BC platform, as well as separate entities operating a BC application on top of the BC platform for specific ecosystems. These BC are permissioned, in the sense that they implement membership rules that determine which parties have read or read/write authorization. To avoid jurisdictional and enforcement disputes, these rules will provide who the responsible entity is, as well as a choice of law and forum. The jurisdiction and enforcement issues raised by the authors, therefore, are likely not a realistic reflection of how these issues will be encountered in practice. The controller issue is solved as, in any event, this central entity deciding on purposes and means of the BC platform will qualify as the controller under GDPR. The entities operating the BC application on top of the BC platform will also qualify as controllers in their own right (potentially jointly with the controller of the BC platform).Deja VuWe here recall that early predictions in respect of the internet foresaw similar enforcement and jurisdictional issues. Every encounter of consumers in cyberspace would raise the possibility that diverse laws would apply and multiple courts would have jurisdiction, and a myriad of court cases was predicted. Contrary to these early expectations, there have been only isolated court cases dealing with online cross-border consumer disputes. One of the explanations is that stakeholders quickly found practical work-arounds in the form of contractual self-regulatory systems. Examples are the use of credit cards for online payments, which bring their own dispute resolution system, and the emergence of large intermediaries like eBay, which was at first just regulated by the ratings and review consumers could post, but later introduced full‑fledged dispute resolution. Also, here the old intermediaries (retailers) were replaced by new intermediaries, again generating the required trust to do business. In fact, it is fair to say that there is very little happening on the internet that is not governed by some form of contract. The use of websites is regulated by their website , online purchases are governed by purchase terms, access to the internet is governed by the terms and conditions of ISPs, App stores have their own Terms & Conditions (“T&Cs”), search functionality is governed by the T&Cs of the provider of the search engine, etc. As happened with the internet, it is a justified expectation that the stakeholders involved in BC will implement their own contractual self-regulatory mechanisms to ensure adequate dispute resolution.GDPR applies to the use of a technology, not the technology itselfThe authors try to determine controllership in respect of BC technology at large, which would indeed raise the identified issues. Controllership is, however, decided based on a specific use or deployment of a certain technology. BC, like the internet, is a GPT that is subsequently deployed by actors for a certain purpose in a specific context. None of the issues raised by the authors have hampered the development of the internet, for the simple reason that controllership is not decided based on the technical level of operation of the relevant technology, but is based on who deploys this technology for a certain purpose. For example, a website owner uses the internet to offer its website. It is the website owner who qualifies as the controller in respect of the processing of any personal data via the website and not the operator of the technical infrastructure.GDPR does not impose requirements on designers of technologyGDPR includes an obligation for the controller to set up data processing functions on the basis of privacy-by-design (Article 25 GDPR). GDPR does not impose this requirement on providers of software and infrastructure that are used to process personal data. As a consequence, individual controllers need to expressly instruct each of their technology suppliers to provide software and infrastructure that incorporate privacy-by-design in order to meet their controller obligations.Although this indirect manner of regulating seems inefficient, the reality is that for technology developers, it is often difficult to foresee all possible deployments of their technology. As a consequence, it is difficult to implement all requirements into their product from the outset. It is often in the feedback loop of the users, customers, or society at large when the technology is deployed in practice that the design issues become apparent and are addressed. Too-strict upfront design requirements (in the form of standards) may even hamper innovation, and it may even lead to “widespread adoption of inferior technology” (as explained in this report of the World Economic Forum). In the words of Behlendorf (CEO of the Linux Foundation):“The space is still so young that the desire for standards, while well-placed, runs the risk of hardening projects that have just come out of the lab,” and “we need to avoid making serious architectural decisions that first become legacy and then become a hindrance.”GDPR is, just as its predecessor, technology agnostic (see Recital 15) in the sense that it provides for general data protection principles and requirements but does not prescribe any technology or technical manner for how these principles and requirements should be implemented. As BC is an emerging technology still in its infancy, GDPR works exactly as it is intended, challenging developers to think of creative ways for how to develop the technology in such a manner that the impact on the privacy of individuals can be mitigated and basic principles of GDPR can be complied with. That this may take several development cycles to be achieved is fully understood. The conclusion of the authors that GDPR is thus unable to embrace this new technology is missing the point that GDPR is intended to provide guidance on how to develop new technology in the first place. In Part 2 of this sequel, we will discuss how the transparency and immutability issues raised by BC can be addressed by implementing innovative privacy‑by‑design measures.Read <a href="https://mofotech.mofo.com/topics/blockchain-is-not-inherently-at-odds.html" target="_blank">Part 2</a> of this post here.Read more about <a target="_blank" href="https://media2.mofo.com/v3/assets/blt5775cc69c999c255/bltec64345cb0bd32d9/627317cab5ad5f2863c59630/191019-blockchain-data-protection.pdf">the interplay of blockchain and data protection from Dr. Moerel</a>.Note: This blog is a summary version of a full publication of Lokke Moerel published in European Review of Private Law 6-2019 [825 – 852] and in The Cambridge Handbook of Smart Contracts, Blockchain Technology and Digital Platforms (September 2019).

191008-mofo-tech-blockchain-1.jpg

Why Blockchain is not inherently at odds with GDPR - Part 1

Why Blockchain is not inherently at odds with GDPR - Part 1

191008-mofo-tech-blockchain-1

“In an almost direct clash of intentions, the GDPR has effectively banned the use of blockchain technology in Europe because of its immutable nature.” – Forbes


In a landmark ruling, the European Court of Justice—Europe’s highest court—dealt Google a clear win by placing a territorial limit on the “right to be forgotten” in the EU.  The court’s holding in Google v. Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL) clarifies that a search engine operator that is obligated to honor an individual’s request for erasure by “de-referencing” links to his or her personal data (i.e., removing links to web pages containing that personal data from search results) is only required, under the GDPR, to de-reference results on its EU domains, and not on all of its domains globally. Read our <a href="https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/iXShCL950GHny2AptqyLS5">client alert.</a>

van-der-wolk_alex_blog_150x150.png

van-der-wolk_alex_common_640x280.jpg

van-der-wolk_alex_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

van-der-wolk_alex_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

van-der-wolk_alex_social_600x600.jpg

Managing Partner, Brussels

Alex van der Wolk, co-chair of Morrison Foerster’s preeminent Global Privacy & Data Security practice and managing partner of the firm’s Brussels office, employs his nearly 20 years of experience to advise global companies on their most complex data strategies and compliance programs governing all aspects of information management. 

With more than a decade of experience, Mr. van der Wolk helps clients develop privacy strategies for digital transformations, industrial IoT, telematics, Big Data, commercial and marketing programs, a

Alex van der Wolk

Alex van der Wolk, co-chair of Morrison Foerster’s preeminent Global Privacy & Data Security practice and managing partner of the firm’s Brussels office, employs his nearly 20 years of experience to advise global companies on their most complex data strategies and compliance programs governing all aspects of information management.

Forget Me...or Not

In a   landmark ruling, the European Court of Justice—Europe’s highest court—dealt   Google a clear win by placing a territorial limit on the “right to be   for

Forget Me...or Not

Need help distilling the CCPA and figuring out the nuances? Watch our new video series, Cracking the CCPA Code, as MoFo partners share foundational knowledge as well as advanced understanding of this legislation that will help you navigate its impact to your business. Each week, we will launch two fresh videos with insights into everything from basic challenges to be mindful of to how CCPA differs from the Nevada privacy law.  Watch the first two videos on our <a href="https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/DTu5CW6jp1Um880kCxFjFj">CCPA Resource Center</a> page featuring partners Kristen Mathews and Miriam Wugmeister to learn more, and stay tuned for new releases to come!

wugmeister_miriam_blog_150x150.png

wugmeister_miriam_common_640x280.jpg

wugmeister_miriam_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

wugmeister_miriam_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

wugmeister_miriam_social_600x600.jpg

Few lawyers in the world have Miriam Wugmeister’s breadth and understanding of privacy and data security laws, obligations, and practices. 

Miriam H. Wugmeister | Privacy and Data Security Lawyer

Few lawyers in the world have Miriam Wugmeister's breadth and understanding of privacy and data security laws, obligations, and practices. In the words of her clients, she is “extremely practical and phenomenally smart. Just about one of the best privacy advisers there is” (Chambers USA). Co-chair of Morrison & Foerster’s market-leading Global Privacy and Data Security Group and ranked among the top in the profession by all major directories, Ms. Wugmeister is regularly called upon by some of the world’s largest and most complex multinational organizations to confront their most difficult U.S. and international privacy challenges. “Tremendous at helping you come up with practical solutions to real problems” (Chambers USA), she develops cutting-edge solutions for clients that marry legal compliance with business realities.

Miriam Wugmeister

mofotechblog-litigation-600x295-scales.jpg

Don’t Miss an Episode of Our New Video Series, Cracking the CCPA Code

California Supreme Court Clarifies Standards for Whistleblower Claims Under California Labor Code Section 1102.5

638601140

Need help distilling the CCPA and figuring out the nuances? Watch our new video series, Cracking the CCPA Code, as MoFo partners share foundational knowledge as

Don’t Miss an Episode of Our New Video Series, Cracking the CCPA Code

Antitrust scrutiny of technology companies in the United States has reached an unprecedented level of intensity. In the last several months alone, (1) the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) each announced major investigations into digital platforms; (2) as part of its own wide-ranging, bipartisan investigation, the House Judiciary Committee conducted another round of hearings exploring the impact of digital platforms on competition; and (3) in parallel, states have launched their own joint investigation of large technology companies in consultation with the DOJ. These developments underscore the reality that technology companies of all stripes – especially digital platforms – are operating in an increasingly complex, evolving, and fraught regulatory environment.This article discusses recent developments in the U.S. regulatory landscape, explains how they dovetail with broader antitrust enforcement trends, and explores their potential implications for technology companies.DOJ and FTC Investigations Into Digital PlatformsOn July 23, 2019, the DOJ announced that the Antitrust Division has launched a broad “review” of whether and how “market-leading online platforms have achieved market power and are engaging in practices that have reduced competition, stifled innovation, or otherwise harmed consumers.” Although the announcement did not single out specific companies, it stated that the review is focused on concerns relating to “search, social media, and some retail services online.” In addition, the DOJ noted that it is conferring with and seeking information from various interested parties, including the public and industry participants “who have direct insight into competition in online platforms.” On August 30, Google’s parent company, Alphabet, confirmed that it had received a civil investigative demand (CID) from the DOJ requesting documents and information relating to prior antitrust investigations in the United States and abroad.The DOJ review parallels ongoing efforts by the FTC, which has made <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events-calendar/2018/10/ftc-hearing-3-competition-consumer-protection-21st-century">examining</a> and investigating the antitrust implications of large technology companies a major enforcement priority. Earlier this year, the FTC launched the Technology Task Force (TTF), a new division of the Bureau of Competition dedicated to “monitoring competition in U.S. technology markets, investigating any potential anticompetitive conduct in those markets, and taking enforcement actions when warranted.” In addition to examining industry practices and conducting law enforcement investigations, the TTF will coordinate and consult with staff throughout the FTC on technology-related matters, including reviewing prospective and consummated mergers in the technology sector. The TTF is already staffed by at least 17 attorneys detailed from divisions across the Bureau of Competition and will include one or more specialists from the private sector, with direct oversight by senior agency officials. Since its deployment, the TTF has been very busy, proactively meeting with Silicon Valley companies to gather information and considering potential investigations. The extent to which the FTC and DOJ are coordinating their inquiries is unclear. In June, it was reported that the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/03/technology/facebook-ftc-antitrust.html">FTC and DOJ reached a formal clearance agreement</a> dividing up review of major technology companies, although such an agreement has not been confirmed by the agencies. It is unusual for the agencies to formally split up “jurisdiction” over companies. Instead, clearance is typically determined by industry or at the outset of a formal investigation, with investigative authority going to the agency with greater familiarity with the relevant product, service, or sector.State Attorney General InvestigationsFor some time, a large, bipartisan group of state attorneys general (AG) has reportedly been preparing to launch a joint investigation of large technology companies. The states have been closely coordinating their efforts with the DOJ. In July, representatives of several <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/25/states-antitrust-william-barr-1435474">state AGs met with senior DOJ officials and Attorney General William Barr</a> to discuss antitrust concerns and potential investigations. A spokesperson for Arizona’s AG noted that the meeting “involved a discussion of online platforms and a number of concerns regarding consumer protection issues raised by the states,” adding that, “[w]hile DOJ already has an antitrust review of big tech companies underway, the states are weighing all of their available options and considering possible independent courses of action.” Commenting on collaboration between the DOJ and the states, Antitrust Division head Makan Delrahim recently stated that “it would be a cooperative matter that benefits everybody, and all the states and their enforcement objectives as well as the [companies being investigated].” On September 9, the attorneys general of 48 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico announced a wide-ranging antitrust investigation of Google, initially focused on online advertising. Today, nearly every state in the United States is involved in sweeping investigations of one or more major technology companies.Congressional Investigation and HearingsIn June, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee announced a bipartisan investigation focused on competition in digital markets. As part of this investigation, on July 16, 2019, the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law held a hearing with representatives from several technology companies. Committee Chairman David Cicilline set a charged tone for the hearing in his opening remarks, stating that the internet has become “increasingly concentrated, less open, and growingly hostile to innovation and entrepreneurship,” and suggesting that large technology companies are creating a “kill zone” with respect to new competition. He took the FTC and DOJ to task for not doing enough to regulate these platforms, accusing the regulators of giving the companies “de facto immunity.”Committee members questioned the companies on a range of topics, including their respective market positions; their use of terms of service and data policies; the ability of platform owners to wield market power to disadvantage rival participants and benefit their own products and services; and the targeting of nascent competitors in so-called “killer” acquisitions. The companies’ representatives responded to questions in live and written testimony, emphasizing the highly competitive, dynamic, and fragmented nature of the markets at issue and the significant procompetitive benefits stemming from their products and services. Additional Congressional hearings exploring the antitrust implications of large technology platforms will be held in September.Global Enforcement TrendsThese U.S. developments are unfolding in the context of a broader global climate of aggressive and escalating antitrust regulation of digital platforms and other technology companies. Competition authorities around the world are actively pursuing new cases, exploring novel liability theories, and reconsidering whether existing antitrust legal frameworks are equipped to regulate technology companies in the digital economy. For example, as the European Commission’s (EC) preliminary investigation of Google’s online job search tool continues, 23 rival job search engines recently sent a letter to Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager alleging that Google is abusing its dominance by favoring its own job search results and disadvantaging competitors. Since 2017, the EC has brought several enforcement actions against Google for abuse of dominance in online shopping, Android, and ad intermediation, resulting in over $9 billion in fines. Today, numerous competition authorities around the world are actively investigating technology companies in a wide range of areas.Political ClimateMeanwhile, in the political sphere, an increasingly vocal chorus has been calling for extreme reforms to remedy perceived harms to competition, such as <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/26/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-break-up-amazon-facebook.html">the breakup of “Big Tech”</a> and the unwinding of consummated mergers. U.S. Senator and presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren has unveiled <a href="https://medium.com/@teamwarren/heres-how-we-can-break-up-big-tech-9ad9e0da324c">a sweeping plan</a> that proposes “big, structural changes to the tech sector to promote more competition . . . .” Specifically, the plan calls for legislation classifying large digital platforms as “utilities,” prohibited from simultaneously owning and participating in their platforms. In addition, the plan proposes to appoint regulators “committed to using existing tools to unwind anti-competitive mergers.” Echoing this idea, FTC Chairman Simons recently remarked that the FTC would be willing to break up major technology companies if appropriate and necessary to prevent harm to competition, noting that “[i]t’s not ideal because it’s very messy[,] . . . [b]ut if you have to you have to.”Key Insights and TakeawaysThe scope and pace of new developments in antitrust enforcement in the tech sector are dizzying. However, several key themes are emerging from these developments, foreshadowing where enforcement might be headed.<ul><li>First, a new era of antitrust regulation of technology companies is well underway in the United States and abroad. Foundational antitrust principles (e.g., reliance on the consumer welfare standard and the separation of antitrust and privacy laws) are being questioned, while drastic remedies, such as the breakup of firms, are being considered by enforcers and normalized in the political discourse.</li></ul><ul><li>Second, antitrust enforcement in this sector is gaining momentum. The foregoing developments may mark the beginning, rather than the culmination, of a long enforcement arc that could continue for many years.</li></ul><ul><li>Third, technology companies are facing scrutiny from a multitude of sources, including federal and state law enforcement authorities, competition authorities around the world, policymakers, and political figures. Antitrust has become a hot topic in the public domain, taking on a populist dimension as the media covers new developments and fuels the antitrust debate, driving further engagement by key players. As the number of actors propelling aggressive enforcement in the technology sector continues to grow, antitrust exposure increases. Moreover, the pace of enforcement is rapidly accelerating as these entities attempt to keep up with the pace of technological innovation – and one another.</li></ul>In some ways, it remains unclear where these various enforcement vectors may ultimately lead and how they might intersect (e.g., collaboration, jurisdictional tensions, divergent enforcement decisions, and/or duplicative relief). Nonetheless, it is clear that recognizing and managing antitrust risk in this environment requires understanding a complex battle being waged on multiple fronts.