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

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

Japan’s Approach to AI Regulation in 2025

Federal Circuit Clarifies Requirements for Prior Art Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)

AI Agent as a Service in Medtech - Key Considerations for Commercial Contracts

D.C. Circuit Holds that Works Created Solely by AI are Not Copyrightable

Navigating Inventorship in the Era of AI-Assisted Drug Discovery

LinkedIN

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, Amsterdam and Brussels

Alex van der Wolk, co-chair of Morrison Foerster’s preeminent Global Privacy & Data Security practice and managing partner of the firm’s Amsterdam and Brussels offices, 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.

mofotechblog-litigation-600x295-gavel.jpg

Forget Me...or Not

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

637294178

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

In just over a week, on October 1, 2019, key amendments to Nevada’s online privacy law will take effect. We previously detailed the amendments <a href="https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/92DiCYElrZF2Q6B2S974Wr">here</a>. Julie O’Neill and Courtney Bowman of Morrison & Foerster’s Global Privacy + Data Security group provide a brief summary of what you need to know about this new law.   Read our <a href="https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/y5qGCXDkqPHo1MroSVt5HQ">client alert.</a>

oneill_julie_blog_150x150.png

oneill_julie_common_640x280.jpg

oneill_julie_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

oneill_julie_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

oneill_julie_social_600x600.jpg

Clients seek out Julie because of her practical advice on cutting-edge issues at the intersection of privacy and consumer protection laws. She provides clients with practical solutions to compliance c

Julie O'Neill

Clients seek out Julie because of her practical advice on cutting-edge issues at the intersection of privacy and consumer protection laws. She provides clients with practical solutions to compliance challenges around a wide variety of both online and offline privacy issues, including tracking, interest-based advertising, geo-targeting and other mobile tracking, personalization, and cross-device tracking. Recognized in The Legal 500 US 2014, 2016, 2019, and 2020 and Chambers USA 2021 for her exceptional legal work, her clients praise her saying, “She is really good at giving practical, targeted advice and taking stock of what the risk profile of the client is, so that the advice is holistic.” (Chambers USA 2021).

mofotechblog-software-600x295-code-2.jpg

Effective October 1: Nevada “Do Not Sell” Requirements for Website Operators

Court Allows Microsoft to Challenge Secrecy of User Data Requests

629285904

In just over a week, on October 1, 2019, key amendments to Nevada’s online privacy law will take effect. We previously detailed the amendments here. Julie O’Nei

Effective October 1: Nevada “Do Not Sell” Requirements for Website Operators

With the passage of several bills that would amend the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) in the final hours of California’s legislative session, businesses are one step closer to knowing what the law will look like when it becomes operative on January 1, 2020. The amendments usher some business-friendly provisions, including a partial exemption for personal information (PI) pertaining to job applicants, employees, owners, directors, officers, medical staff, or contractors of a business (though there is a one-year sunset provision for this exemption and it does not apply to CCPA’s private right of action), and a partial one-year exception for PI collected in the context of certain business-to-business (B-to-B) transactions. Read our <a href="https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/MHDeCR65kXUq8JYMTND27g">client alert.</a>

mofotechblog-regulatory-600x295-gavel.jpg

CCPA Taking Shape: Several Amendments Pass as California’s Legislative Session Comes to a Close

811079234

With the passage of several bills that would amend the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) in the final hours of California’s legislative session, bu

CCPA Taking Shape: Several Amendments Pass as California’s Legislative Session Comes to a Close

Last week, the Federal Trade Commission made clear that child-directed parts of an otherwise general audience service will subject the operator of the service to COPPA. Just six months after the FTC’s record-setting settlement against TikTok, the FTC announced a $170 million fine against Google and its subsidiary YouTube to settle allegations that YouTube had collected personal information from children without first obtaining parental consent, in violation of the FTC’s rule implementing the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). This $170 million fine — $136 million to the FTC and $34 million to the New York Attorney General, with whom the FTC brought the enforcement action — dwarfs the $5.7 million levied against TikTok earlier this year. It is by far the largest amount that the FTC has obtained in a COPPA case since Congress enacted the law in 1998. The settlement puts operators of general-audience websites on notice that they are not automatically excluded from COPPA’s coverage: they are required to comply with COPPA if particular parts of their websites or content (including content uploaded by others) are directed to children under age 13. Read our <a href="https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/PoOECrkMBpUlnMDlfz5KMV">client alert.</a>

The Company Who Cried “General Audience”: Google and YouTube to Pay $170 Million for Alleged COPPA Violations

Last week, the Federal Trade Commission made clear that child-directed parts of an otherwise general audience service will subject the operator of the service t

The Company Who Cried “General Audience”: Google and YouTube to Pay $170 Million for Alleged COPPA Violations

Advancements in technology appear to have spurred the Federal Trade Commission to initiate a review of its rule promulgated pursuant to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (the “COPPA Rule” or “Rule”) four years ahead of schedule. Last week, the FTC published a Federal Register <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-07-25/pdf/2019-15754.pdf" target="_blank">notice</a> seeking comments on the Rule. Although the FTC typically reviews a rule only once every 10 years and the last COPPA Rule review ended in 2013, the Commission unanimously voted 5-0 to seek comments ahead of its next scheduled review. The Commission cited the education technology sector, voice-enabled connected devices, and general audience platforms hosting third-party, child-directed content as developments warranting reexamination of the Rule at this time.BackgroundThe COPPA Rule, which first went into effect in 2000, generally requires operators of online services to obtain verifiable parental consent before collecting personal information from children under the age of 13.  In 2013, the FTC amended the COPPA Rule to address changes in the way children use and access the internet, including through the increased use of mobile devices and social networking.  Its amendments included the expansion of the definition of “personal information” to include persistent identifiers that track online activity, geolocation information, photos, videos, and audio recordings. The new review could result in similarly significant amendments.Questions for Public CommentIn addition to standard questions about the effectiveness of the COPPA Rule and whether it should be retained, eliminated, or modified, the FTC is seeking comment on all major provisions of the Rule, including its definitions, notice and parental consent requirements, exceptions, and security requirements. The Federal Register notice poses 29 wide-ranging questions for public comment, including:<ul><li>Should general audience platforms that have large numbers of child users be subject to the COPPA Rule?  In other words, should the COPPA Rule be amended to address online services that do not meet the current definition of “web site or online service directed to children” but that have large numbers of child users?  </li><li>Should the COPPA Rule be modified to encourage general audience platforms to identify and police child-directed content uploaded by third parties? For example, should such platforms be able to rebut the presumption that all users interacting with child-directed content are children, thereby allowing them to collect personal information from users who are 13 or older?</li><li>Should the COPPA Rule expressly address behavioral targeting, profiling, and advertising? Information processing to support the internal operations of an online service is exempt from the Rule’s parental consent obligation. Should “support for internal operations” be modified to (1) expressly exclude practices such as behavioral targeting and profiling or (2) add certain permitted activities, such as advertising attribution?</li><li>Should the definition of “personal information” be expanded? Presumably to keep pace with the rise of “big data” and the collection of biometric information, the Commission asks whether the definition should be expanded to include personal information that is inferred about, but not directly collected from, children and biometric information (e.g., fingerprints, retinal patterns).</li><li>Should the COPPA Rule be more specific about the appropriate methods for determining the age of users? In other words, would additional guidance regarding age screening result in stronger protections for children’s privacy?</li><li>Should methods of obtaining verifiable parental consent be added to or removed from the Rule?</li><li>Should there be additional exceptions to prior parental consent? The FTC is particularly interested in comments on exceptions for (1) the use of education technology, where the school provides consent for the collection of personal information from children, and (2) the collection of audio files containing a child’s voice as a replacement for text, where the audio files are promptly deleted.</li><li>Should the Rule include more specific information security requirements, such as requiring encryption of certain personal information?</li><li>What are the implications for COPPA enforcement raised by technologies such as interactive television, interactive gaming, or other similar interactive media?</li></ul>The FTC’s questions evince awareness of technological developments since the FTC’s last review in 2013 and reflect a concern for how to apply COPPA protections when children under 13 are increasingly agile with technology and may visit websites and online services that are targeted to a general audience. The questions further evidence the Commission’s exploration of how to employ modern technological capabilities in COPPA compliance, including through up‑to-date solutions for age screening and information security. Ultimately, the FTC’s notice shows the FTC’s continued commitment to children’s privacy matters, suggesting more frequent review of the COPPA Rule if necessary to keep pace with technological advances and potentially increased activity in this sphere.How to Submit a CommentComments can be submitted on or before October 23, 2019. Comments may be submitted online at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/" target="_blank">https://www.regulations.gov</a> or sent by mail to the address listed in the Federal Register notice.The FTC will hold a <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events-calendar/future-coppa-rule-ftc-workshop" target="_blank">public workshop</a> on October 7, 2019, to examine the COPPA Rule.The FTC’s press release announcing the request for public comment is available <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/07/ftc-seeks-comments-childrens-online-privacy-protection-act-rule?utm_source=govdelivery" target="_blank">here</a>.

Back to School Early: FTC Seeks Comments to COPPA Rule Ahead of Schedule

Advancements in technology appear to have spurred the Federal Trade Commission to initiate a review of its rule promulgated pursuant to the Children’s Online Pr

Back to School Early: FTC Seeks Comments to COPPA Rule Ahead of Schedule

New York is the latest state to expand its breach notification law with the Stop Hacks and Improve Electronic Data Security (SHIELD) Act, signed into law by Governor Andrew Cuomo on July 25, 2019. A number of the key changes that the law ushers—including broadening the definitions of both personal information (PI) and data breach, expanding the scope of covered entities subject to breach notification requirements, and imposing data security standards—are reminiscent of similar provisions in other states’ breach laws. Amidst a historically disparate patchwork of state laws, these commonalities may signal coalescence around prevailing security and breach notification standards and a gradual shift toward increased uniformity. Read the full <a href="https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/qnEhCgJQ8yHQnx2Ps391N4" target="_blank">client alert</a> for more on how the SHIELD Act will change existing New York law.

New York State Enacts More Stringent Breach Notification Law

New York is the latest state to expand its breach notification law with the Stop Hacks and Improve Electronic Data Security (SHIELD) Act, signed into law by Gov

New York State Enacts More Stringent Breach Notification Law

The French data protection authority, the CNIL, continues to fine organizations for failing to adopt what the CNIL considers to be fundamental data security measures. In May 2019, the CNIL imposed a EUR 400,000 fine on a French real estate company for failing to have basic authentication measures on a server and for retaining information too long. This is the second fine by the CNIL under the EU General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 (GDPR) after the one against <a href="https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/OfcwCG6QzAUkQ7gWupx17o">Google</a>. The <a href="https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/dHXCCJ67z1UZDJXphLF4d9">decision</a> is among many pre-GDPR fines imposed by the CNIL for failing to meet security standards, and shows that data security continues to be a high enforcement priority for the CNIL.Read our <a href="https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/LVklCKr5zGHOGoJ8hpBg2Y">client alert</a>.

mofotechblog-regulatory-600x295-computer-key.jpg

The CNIL Strikes Again – Mind Your Security

Biometric Information as Personal Information In A Brave New World of Regulatory Compliance

mofotechblog-regulatory-600x295-computer-key

The French data protection authority, the CNIL, continues to fine organizations for failing to adopt what the CNIL considers to be fundamental data security mea

The CNIL Strikes Again – Mind Your Security

The Singapore Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) has had a busy year and shows no signs of slowing down. In January 2019, the PDPC handed down a record SGD 1 million enforcement related to the SingHealth data breach – a breach that resulted from a cyber attack of unprecedented scale in Singapore, which saw the theft of 1.5 million personal and medical records from an electronic medical records system. Following that, the PDPC has levied financial penalties against companies small and large, posted new regulatory guidelines on breach notice timing and enforcement, and proposed key changes to data subject rights under Singapore’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA). We urge any company doing business in Singapore to familiarize themselves with the latest PDPC developments laid out below. Read our <a href="https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/AikOCBBROvijKM84fNC-wI">client alert</a>.

alam_saqib_blog_150x150.png

alam_saqib_common_640x280.jpg

alam_saqib_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

alam_saqib_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

alam_saqib_social_600x600.jpg

Saqib Alam is an English solicitor, New York attorney and Singapore advocate who advises global companies, boards and high net worth individuals facing business-critical issues and helps them resolve such matters from a legal and reputational standpoint.

Saqib Alam

Singapore Shakes Up Privacy: 72-Hour Breach Notice, New Guidance

The Singapore Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) has had a busy year and shows no signs of slowing down. In January 2019, the PDPC handed down a record 

Singapore Shakes Up Privacy: 72-Hour Breach Notice, New Guidance

Nevada just joined California as the second state to enact an opt-out right for consumers from the “sale” of their personal information. Senate Bill 220, which was signed into law on May 29, 2019, is scheduled to take effect on October 1, 2019, three months prior to its precursor under the California Consumer Protection Act (the “CCPA”). The opt-out right is one of several changes made to Nevada’s existing online privacy law, which requires operators of commercial websites and other online services to post a privacy policy.  In addition to the new opt-out right, the revised law exempts from its requirements certain financial institutions, HIPAA-covered entities, and motor vehicle businesses.  Read our <a href="https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/NdYcCzpxQAS6E79gHgrJtF">client alert</a>.

Nevada Enacts CCPA-Style Opt-Out Right for Consumers—but Similarities Are Few

Nevada just joined California as the second state to enact an opt-out right for consumers from the “sale” of their personal information. Senate Bill 220, which 

Nevada Enacts CCPA-Style Opt-Out Right for Consumers—but Similarities Are Few