CIPP-US Sample Questions Answers

According to the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003, a federal law that regulates commercial email messages, a commercial message sender must honor a recipient’s opt-out request within 10 business days. The sender must provide a clear and conspicuous way for the recipient to opt out of receiving future emails, such as a link or an email address. The sender must not charge a fee, require the recipient to provide any personal information, or make the recipient take any steps other than sending a reply email or visiting a single web page to opt out. The sender must also not sell, exchange, or transfer the email address of the recipient who has opted out, unless it is necessary to comply with the law or prevent fraud.

References:

• IAPP CIPP/US Body of Knowledge, Domain II: Limits on Private-sector Collection and Use of Data, Section B: Communications and Marketing
• IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide, Chapter 2: Limits on Private-sector Collection and Use of Data, Section 2.2: Communications and Marketing
• Practice Exam - International Association of Privacy Professionals

The biggest potential privacy concern related to Chanel’s use of this new software is scanning a client’s social media accounts to use in a client profile without notice to the client. This could violate the client’s reasonable expectation of privacy and consent, as well as the privacy policies of the social media platforms. The client may not be aware that their social media posts are being used for this purpose, and may not have given their permission or opt-in consent for such data collection and processing. This could also expose the client to potential discrimination or harm based on their social media activity, such as losing their appointment or being charged a cancellation fee. Furthermore, this practice could conflict with the Fair Information Practice Principles (FIPPs), such as transparency, purpose specification, and data minimization12. References:

• CIPP/US Practice Questions (Sample Questions), Question 149, Answer A, Explanation A.
• IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide, Chapter 1, Section 1.1, p. 9-10.

The false statement regarding the provisions of the EPPA is C. Employers are prohibited from administering psychological testing based on personality traits such as honesty, preferences or habits. The EPPA does not regulate psychological testing, only polygraph testing. Psychological testing is a broad term that covers various types of assessments that measure cognitive abilities, personality traits, interests, values, and skills. Employers may use psychological testing for various purposes, such as hiring, promotion, training, or development, as long as they comply with other laws and regulations, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidelines, and the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures. However, employers should be careful to ensure that thepsychological tests they use are valid, reliable, job-related, and nondiscriminatory, and that they respect the privacy and dignity of the test takers. References:

• [IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide], Chapter 4: Workplace Privacy, pp. 115-116.
• IAPP CIPP/US Body of Knowledge, Section IV: Workplace Privacy, Subsection A: Employee Privacy Expectations, Topic 2: Employee Polygraph Protection Act.
• IAPP CIPP/US Practice Questions, Question 142.

The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) is a federal law that regulates the online collection and use of personal information from children under 13 years of age. COPPA requires operators of websites or online services that are directed to children, or that knowingly collect personal information from children, to obtain verifiable parental consent before collecting, using, or disclosing such information. Verifiable parental consent means any reasonable effort (taking into consideration available technology) to ensure that before personal information is collected from a child, the child’s parent receives notice of the operator’s information practices and consents to those practices. COPPA also imposes other obligations on operators, such as providing parents with access to their children’s information, maintaining reasonable security measures, and limiting data retention. References: COPPA, IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1

Federal anti-discrimination laws, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, prohibit employers from discriminating against employees or applicants based on certain protected characteristics, such as race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, and genetic information. These laws also limit the types of information that employers can collect, use, disclose, or retain about employees or applicants,in order to prevent discrimination or invasion of privacy. For example, employers cannot ask about an applicant’s medical history, disability status, genetic information, or religious beliefs, unless they are relevant to the job or a bona fide occupational qualification. Employers also cannot use such information to make adverse employment decisions, such as hiring, firing, promotion, or compensation, unless they are justified by a legitimate business necessity or a reasonable accommodation. Employers must also safeguard the confidentiality of such information and dispose of it properly when it is no longer needed. References:

• Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination Questions And Answers
• Laws Enforced by EEOC
• Employment and Anti-Discrimination Laws in the Workplace
• Protections Against Discrimination and Other Prohibited Practices
• 3. Who is protected from employment discrimination?

The USA FREEDOM Act is a law that was enacted in 2015 to reform the surveillance practices of the U.S. government. The law was a response to the revelations by Edward Snowden about the mass collection of phone records and internet data by the National Security Agency (NSA) under the authority of Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act. The USA FREEDOM Act ended the bulk collection of telephone data and internet metadata by the NSA, and instead required the government to obtain a specific order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to access such data from the telecommunication providers. The law also authorized the following practices:

• Emergency exceptions that allow the government to target roamers: The law allows the government to temporarily target a non-U.S. person who is using a phone number or identifier of a U.S. person, without a court order, if there is an emergency situation that involves a threat of death or serious bodily harm. The government must obtain a court order within seven days to continue the surveillance.
• An increase in the maximum penalty for material support to terrorism: The law increases the maximum prison term for providing material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization from 15 years to 20 years.
• An extension of the expiration for roving wiretaps: The law extends the sunset date for the roving wiretap provision of the USA PATRIOT Act, which allows the government to obtain a single order from the FISC to conduct surveillance on a target who switches devices or locations, without specifying the device or location. The law extends the expiration date from June 1, 2015 to December 15, 2019. References:
• USA FREEDOM Act
• USA FREEDOM Act Summary
• USA FREEDOM Act FAQs

 The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is the primary federal agency that enforces consumer privacy and data security laws in the United States. The FTC has the authority to bring enforcement actions against businesses that engage in unfair or deceptive acts or practices that affect commerce, under Section 5 of the FTC Act. Unfair acts or practices are those that cause or are likely to cause substantial injury to consumers that is not reasonably avoidable by consumers and is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition. Deceptive acts or practices are those that involve a material representation, omission, or practice that is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances.

The FTC’s action against B.J.'s Wholesale Club in 2005 was unique because it was based on matters of fairness rather than deception. The FTC alleged that B.J.'s Wholesale Club, a retailer that operates warehouse stores and gas stations, failed to provide reasonable security for the sensitive information of its customers, such as name, card number, and expiration date, that it collected from the magnetic stripes of credit and debit cards. The FTC claimed that this information was used by unauthorized persons to make millions of dollars of fraudulent purchases. The FTC did not allege that B.J.'s Wholesale Club made any false or misleading statements or omissions about its data security practices, but rather that its failure to take appropriate security measures was an unfair practice that violated Section 5 of the FTC Act. The FTC argued that B.J.'s Wholesale Club’s lax security caused or was likely to cause substantial injury to consumers that was not reasonably avoidable by consumers and was not outweighed by any benefits to consumers or competition.

The FTC’s action against B.J.'s Wholesale Club was one of the first cases in which the FTC used its unfairness authority to address data security issues,and it set a precedent for future enforcement actions against businesses that fail to protect consumer data. The settlement required B.J.'s Wholesale Club to implement a comprehensive information security program and obtain audits by an independent third-party security professional every other year for 20 years. References:

• FTC Complaint, Paragraphs 1-23
• FTC Agreement Containing Consent Order, Paragraphs 1-9
• FTC Analysis of Proposed Consent Order to Aid Public Comment, Pages 1-3
• [IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide], Pages 69-70

A private right of action is a legal provision that grants individuals the ability to bring a lawsuit against a party that has wronged them and to seek redress for the harm that they have suffered. A private right of action is a fundamental component of the U.S. judicial system and an essential element of enforcingprivacy rights. Privacy advocates argue that a private right of action is necessary to hold perpetrators of privacy violations accountable and to address the limitations of the FTC’s enforcement authority. However, businesses are concerned that a private right of action would lead to a proliferation of frivolous lawsuits that would burden responsible data processors and impede innovation. References:

• U.S. Private-Sector Privacy, Third Edition by Peter P. Swire, DeBrae Kennedy-Mayo, Chapter 2, Section 2.3.3, pp. 35-36.
• How to end the deadlock on the private right of action by Paula Bruening, IAPP Privacy Perspectives, Jan 20, 2022.
• Private Right of Action (Legal Definition & Examples) by Lawrina, accessed on Jan 25, 2022.

 According to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) and its implementing Regulation P, a financial institution may share consumer information with non-affiliated third parties for marketing purposes only after disclosing its information-sharing practices to customers and after giving them an opportunity to opt out of such sharing. The GLBA defines a customer as a consumer who has a continuing relationship with a financial institution that provides one or more financial products or services to be used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. A consumer is an individual who obtains or has obtained a financial product or service from a financial institution that is to be used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, or that individual’s legal representative. A non-affiliated third party is any person except a financial institution’s affiliate or a person employed jointly by a financial institution and a company that is not the financial institution’s affiliate. An affiliate is any company that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with another company.

The GLBA requires that a financial institution provide a privacy notice to customers: (i) at the time of establishing the customer relationship; (ii) annually during the continuation of the customer relationship; and (iii) before disclosing any nonpublic personal information (NPI) about the customer to any non-affiliated third party, unless an exception applies. The privacy notice must describe the categories of NPI that the financial institution collects and discloses; the categories of affiliates and non-affiliated third parties to whom the financial institution discloses NPI; the categories of NPI disclosed to service providers and joint marketers; the policies and practices with respect to protecting the confidentiality and security of NPI; and the disclosures of NPI to which the customer has a right to opt out. The financial institution must also provide a reasonable means for the customer to opt out of the disclosure of NPI to non-affiliated third parties, such as a check-off box, a reply form, or a toll-free telephone number. The opt-out notice must be clear and conspicuous, and must state that the customer can opt out at any time. The opt-out notice must also explain how the customer can opt out, and the effect of opting out. The financial institution must honor the customer’s opt-out direction as soon as reasonably practicable after receiving it, and must not disclose any NPI to which the opt-out applies, unless an exception applies.

The GLBA provides several exceptions to the opt-out requirement, such as when the disclosure of NPI is necessary to effect, administer, or enforce a transaction requested or authorized by the customer; when the disclosure of NPI is required or permitted by law; when the disclosure of NPI is to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act; or when the disclosure of NPI is to a person that performs marketing services on behalf of the financial institution or on behalf of the financial institution and another financial institution under a joint marketing agreement. A joint marketing agreement is a formal written contract between a financial institution and any other person under which the parties agree to offer, endorse, or sponsor a financial product or service. The joint marketing agreement must prohibit the other person from using or disclosing the NPI for any purpose other than offering, endorsing, or sponsoring the financial product or service covered by the agreement.

The GLBA also requires that a financial institution provide a privacy notice to consumers who are not customers before disclosing any NPI about the consumer to any non-affiliated third party, unless an exception applies. The financial institution does not need to provide an opt-out notice to consumers who are not customers, unless it has a customer relationship with them. However, if the financial institution establishes a customer relationship with a consumer who was previously not a customer, it must provide a privacy notice and an opt-out notice to the customer as described above.

References:

• Guide to the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act
• GLBA or FCRA? Data Sharing Between Affiliates and Non-Affiliates
• Existing Privacy Laws Already Regulate Information Sharing
• Why Do Banks Share Your Financial Information and Are They Allowed To?
• [IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide], Chapter 5, pages 161-165.

The HITECH Act was enacted as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to promote the adoption and use of health information technology, especially electronic health records (EHRs), in the United States. The HITECH Act established the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs, which provide financial incentives to eligible health care providers who demonstrate meaningful use of certified EHR technology. Meaningful use is defined as using EHRs to improve quality, safety, efficiency, and coordination of care, as well as to engage patients and protect their privacy and security. To qualify for the incentive payments, health care providers must meet certain objectives and measures that demonstrate meaningful use of EHRs as part of their regular care. Some of these objectives and measures include:

• Protect electronic protected health information (ePHI)
• Generate prescriptions electronically
• Implement clinical decision support (CDS)
• Use computerized provider order entry (CPOE) for medication, laboratory, and diagnostic imaging orders
• Timely patient access to electronic files
• Exchange health information with other providers and public health agencies
• Report clinical quality measures and public health data

Therefore, the correct answer is A. Making EHRs part of regular care is an important action that a health care provider must take if she wants to qualify for funds under the HITECH Act. References:

• What is the HITECH Act? 2024 Update, section “The Meaningful Use Program”
• The HITECH Act explained: Definition, compliance, and violations, section “HITECH Act definition and summary” and “Why was the HITECH Act created and why is it important?”
• Proposed Rulemaking to Implement HITECH Act Modifications, section “The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act”
• Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Audits, section “The American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, or Recovery Act)”
• What is HITECH Compliance? Understanding and Meeting HITECH Requirements, section “HITECH Compliance Requirements”

The FCRA requires that an employer who takes an adverse action against an applicant or employee based on information in a consumer report must provide a notice of the adverse action to the individual. The notice must include the name, address, and phone number of the CRA that supplied the report; astatement that the CRA did not make the decision and cannot explain why the adverse action was taken; a notice of the individual’s right to dispute the accuracy or completeness of the information in the report; and a notice of the individual’s right to obtain a free copy of the report from the CRA within 60 days12. References:

• CIPP/US Practice Questions (Sample Questions), Question 141, Answer A, Explanation A.
• IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide, Chapter 4, Section 4.2, p. 101-102.
• Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Section 615, Subsection (a).

According to the FTC report, the most important directive for businesses is to adopt a “privacy by design” approach, which means integrating privacy protections throughout the entire product lifecycle, from initial design to disposal. This includes implementing reasonable security measures, collecting only the data needed for a specific purpose, retaining data only as long as necessary, and safely disposing of data that is no longer needed. The FTC report also recommends that businesses provide clear and transparent privacy notices, offer consumers meaningful choices about how their data is used, and increase their accountability for data practices. References: FTC Report, IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide (p. 32-33)

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) is considered part of U.S. federal privacy law because it regulates the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information by consumer reporting agencies, such as credit bureaus, background check companies, and tenant screening services. The FCRA aims to protect the privacy, accuracy, and fairness of consumer credit information, and to ensure that consumers have access to and control over their own credit reports. The FCRA also imposes obligations on users and furnishers of consumer reports, such as creditors, employers, insurers, and landlords, to obtain consent, provide notice, and correct errors when using consumer reports for various purposes. The FCRA is enforced by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and other federal agencies, as well as by private lawsuits and state attorneys general. The FCRA was enacted in 1970 and has been amended several times, most notably by the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACTA), which added provisions on identity theft prevention, fraud alerts, free credit reports, and disposal of consumer information. References:

• Fair Credit Reporting Act - Wikipedia
• Fair Credit Reporting Act | Federal Trade Commission
• Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) - Consumer Information
• Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) | Privacy Rights Clearinghouse

 In order for a court to hear a case, it must have both personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction refers to the authority of a court over the parties to a case, while subject matter jurisdiction refers to the authority of a court to hear a particular type of case. For example, a federal court may have subject matter jurisdiction over a case involving a federal law, but it may not have personal jurisdiction over a defendant who has no contacts with the state where the court is located. Similarly, a state court may have personal jurisdiction over a resident of the state, but it may not have subject matter jurisdiction over a case involving a foreign treaty. References: [IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide], Chapter 2: Introduction to U.S. Law, p. 25-26; Wex Legal Dictionary, Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Personal Jurisdiction.

The “Discover” phase of building an information management program is the first step in the process of creating a privacy framework. It involves identifying the types, sources, and flows of personal information within an organization, as well as the legal, regulatory, and contractual obligations that apply to it. The tasks in this phase include:

• Conducting a data inventory and mapping exercise to document what personal information is collected, used, shared, and stored by the organization, and how it is protected.
• Assessing the current state of privacy compliance and risk by reviewing existing policies, procedures, and practices, and identifying any gaps or weaknesses.
• Understanding the laws that regulate a company’s collection of information, such as the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA).
• Facilitating participation across departments and levels to ensure that all stakeholders are involved and informed of the privacy goals and objectives, and to foster a culture of privacy awareness and accountability.

Developing a process for review and update of privacy policies is not a task in the “Discover” phase, but rather in the “Implement” phase, which is the third step in the process of creating a privacy framework. It involves putting the privacy policies and procedures into action, and ensuring that they are effective and compliant. The tasks in this phase include:

• Developing a process for review and update of privacy policies to reflect changes in the business environment, legal requirements, and best practices, and to incorporate feedback from internal and external audits and assessments.
• Implementing privacy training and awareness programs to educate employees and other relevant parties on their roles and responsibilities regarding privacy, and to promote a privacy-by-design approach.
• Establishing privacy governance and oversight mechanisms to monitor and measure the performance and outcomes of the privacy program, and to ensure accountability and transparency.
• Developing a process for responding to privacy incidents and requests from data subjects, regulators, and other parties, and to mitigate and remediate any privacy risks or harms.

References:

• IAPP CIPP/US Body of Knowledge, Domain I: Information Management from a U.S. Perspective, Section A: Building a Privacy Program
• IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide, Chapter 1: Information Management from a U.S. Perspective, Section 1.1: Building a Privacy Program
• Practice Exam - International Association of Privacy Professionals

Larry has a misconception about the applicability of federal law to private-sector employee rights. He believes that the U.S. Constitution protects American workers from various forms of discrimination, harassment, and invasion of privacy by their employers. However, the U.S. Constitution only applies to government actions, not private actions, unless there is a specific federal statute that extends constitutional protections to the private sector1. For example, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin by private employers2. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 regulates the interception and disclosure of electronic communications by private parties3. The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 sets the rules for commercial email and gives recipients the right to opt out of receiving unwanted messages4. These are examples of federal laws that apply to private-sector employees, but they do not cover all the situations that Larry faces at SunriseLynx. For instance, there is no federal law that protects private-sector employees from political discrimination or from having their personal mail opened by their employers. Larry may have to rely on state laws or common law torts to seek redress for these violations of his rights. References: 1: Private Sector vs. Public Sector Employee Rights2: [Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia] 3: [Electronic Communications Privacy Act - Wikipedia] 4: CAN-SPAM Act: A Compliance Guide for Business : IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide, Chapter 5: Federal Trade Commission and Consumer Privacy, p. 141-142

The federal act that does NOT contain provisions for preempting stricter state laws is the Telemarketing Consumer Protection and Fraud Prevention Act1. This act authorizes the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to establish and enforce rules for telemarketing practices, such as the Do Not Call Registry, the prohibition of robocalls, and the disclosure of material information2. However, the act also explicitly states that it does not "annul, alter, or affect, or exempt any person subject to the provisions of this section from complying with, the laws of any State with respect to telemarketing practices, except to the extent that those laws are inconsistent with any provision of this section, and then only to the extent of the inconsistency"1. This means that states can enact and enforce their own laws regarding telemarketing, as long as they are not less protective than the federal law. In contrast, the other three acts listed in the question do contain preemption clauses that limit or override the authority of states to regulate certain aspects of electronic communications, online privacy, and credit transactions345. References: 1: Telemarketing Consumer Protection and Fraud Prevention Act2: Telemarketing Sales Rule | Federal Trade Commission3: CAN-SPAM Act: A Compliance Guide for Business4: Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (“COPPA”) | Federal Trade Commission5: Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 - Wikipedia : IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide, Chapter 5: Federal Trade Commission and Consumer Privacy, p. 144-145, 149-150, 154-155

Under the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), a business that collects personal information of California residents must notify them of a data breach if their personal information is subject to unauthorized access and exfiltration, theft, or disclosure as a result of the business’s violation of the duty to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices. However, the CCPA excludes encrypted or redacted personal information from the definition of personal information, unless the encryption key or security credential is also compromised. Therefore, Privacy Is Hiring Inc. would need to notify the affected individuals only if the encryption keys were also taken along with the credit card information, as this would render the encryption ineffective and expose the personal information to unauthorized access. The other options are not relevant to the CCPA notification requirement, although they may be relevant to other laws or best practices. References: CCPA (Section 1798.150), IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide (p. 63-64)

The data privacy leader needs to identify all the personal data that the Company has received from the retailer, as well as the purposes, retention periods, and sharing practices of such data. Since the data inventory is obsolete, the data privacy leader cannot rely on it to provide accurate and complete information. Therefore, the next best source of information is to interview the key marketing personnel who are responsible for the partnership with the retailer and the use of the personal data. The marketing personnel can provide insights into the data flows, the data categories, the data processing activities, and the data protection measures that the Company has implemented. They can also help the data privacy leader to locate the relevant documents, contracts, and records that can support the investigation. References: [IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide], Chapter 5: Data Management, p. 97-98; IAPP Privacy Tech Vendor Report, Data Mapping and Inventory, p. 9-10.

Mega Corp. is a U.S.-based business with employees in California, Virginia, and Colorado. Therefore, it must comply with the privacy laws of these three states in regard to its human resources data, unless it qualifies for an exemption under each law.

The California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) is an amendment to the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) that was approved by voters in November 2020 and will take effect on January 1, 2023. The CPRA expands the rights and protections of California residents with respect to their personal information and creates a new category of sensitive personal information that includes certain employment-related data, such as Social Security numbers, driver’s license numbers, passport numbers, financial account information, biometric information, and geolocation data. The CPRA also establishes a new enforcement agency, the California Privacy Protection Agency, to oversee and enforce the law.

The Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act (VCDPA) is a comprehensive privacy law that was enacted in March 2021 and will take effect on January 1, 2023. The VCDPA grants Virginia residents several rights with respect to their personal data, such as the right to access, correct, delete, port, and opt out of certain processing activities. The VCDPA also imposes various obligations on businesses that control or process personal data of Virginiaresidents, such as conducting data protection assessments, entering into contracts with processors, and providing privacy notices.

The Colorado Privacy Act (CPA) is another comprehensive privacy law that was enacted in July 2021 and will take effect on July 1, 2023. The CPA grants Colorado residents similar rights as the VCDPA, with some variations, such as the right to appeal a business’s response to a request and the right to opt out of targeted advertising, the sale of personal data, and certain profiling activities. The CPA also imposes similar obligations as the VCDPA, with some differences, such as requiring opt-in consent for the processing of sensitive data and allowing businesses to join a universal opt-out mechanism.

All three laws apply to businesses that conduct business in or target consumers in the respective states and meet certain thresholds of revenue or data processing volume. However, all three laws also provide exemptions for certain types of data or entities that are subject to other federal or state laws, such as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).

One of the exemptions that may be relevant for Mega Corp. is the employee data exemption, which excludes personal data that is collected and used by an employer within the context of an employment relationship or for emergency contact or benefits administration purposes. However, this exemption is not permanent or uniform across the three laws. The CPRA’s employee data exemption is set to expire on January 1, 2023, unless extended by the legislature. The VCDPA’s employee data exemption is set to expire on January 1, 2023, unless repealed by the legislature. The CPA’s employee data exemption does not have an expiration date, but it does not apply to the right to opt out of the sale of personal data or the right to appeal a business’s response to a request.

Therefore, depending on the type and scope of the human resources data that Mega Corp. collects and processes, it may have to comply with the California Privacy Rights Act, the Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act, and the Colorado Privacy Act, unless it qualifies for another exemption under each law.

References:

• [IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide], Chapter 10: State Data Security Laws, pp. 227-229.
• CIPP/US Practice Questions (Sample Questions), Question 32.

Under the GDPR, the complainant’s request regarding her personal information is known as the right to be forgotten, also known as the right to erasure. This right allows individuals to ask organizations to delete their personal data in certain circumstances, such as when the data is no longer necessary, the consent is withdrawn, or the processing is unlawful. The right to be forgotten is not absolute and may not apply if the processing is necessary for legal, public interest, or legitimate purposes. The right to be forgotten also requires organizations to inform any recipients of the data about the erasure request, unless it is impossible or involves disproportionate effort. References:

• Everything you need to know about the “Right to be forgotten”
• Right to erasure | ICO
• Art. 17 GDPR – Right to erasure (‘right to be forgotten’) - General …
• [IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide], Chapter 6, page 213.

 The European approach to privacy is based on the recognition of privacy as a fundamental human right that requires strong legal protection and oversight. The EU has adopted comprehensive and binding privacy laws, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the ePrivacy Directive, that apply to all sectors and activities involving personal data. The EU also has independent data protection authorities (DPAs) that monitor and enforce compliance with the privacy laws, and a European Data Protection Board (EDPB)that issues guidance and opinions on privacy matters. The EU also requires adequate levels of privacy protection for personal data transferred to third countries or international organizations.

In contrast, the U.S. approach to privacy is based on a sectoral and self-regulatory model that relies on a combination of federal and state laws, industry codes of conduct, consumer education, and market forces. The U.S. does not have a single, comprehensive, and enforceable federal privacy law that covers all sectors and activities involving personal data. Instead, the U.S. has a patchwork of federal and state laws that address specific issues or sectors, such as health, financial, children’s, and electronic communications privacy. The U.S. also has various federal and state agencies that share jurisdiction over privacy matters, such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The U.S. also relies on self-regulation by industries that develop and adhere to voluntary codes of conduct, standards, and best practices for privacy. The U.S. also allows personal data to be transferred to third countries or international organizations without requiring adequate levels of privacy protection, as long as the data subjects have given their consent or the transfer is covered by a mechanism such as the Privacy Shield or the Standard Contractual Clauses.

Some supporters of the European approach to privacy are skeptical about self-regulation of privacy practices because they believe that self-regulation is not effective, consistent, or accountable enough to protect the rights and interests of data subjects. They argue that self-regulation may not provide sufficient incentives or sanctions for industries to comply with privacy rules, or to adopt privacy-enhancing technologies and practices. They also contend that self-regulation may not reflect the views and expectations of data subjects, or address the emerging and complex privacy challenges posed by new technologies and business models. They also question the transparency and legitimacy of self-regulation, and the ability of data subjects to exercise their rights and seek redress for privacy violations. References:

• IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, Chapter 1: Introduction to the U.S. Privacy Environment, pp. 9-10, 16-17
• IAPP website, CIPP/US Certification
• NICCS website, Certified Information Privacy Professional/United States (CIPP/US) Training

The CCPA provides consumers with a private right of action to pursue statutory damages following data security breaches that impact certain sensitive categories of personal information and are caused by a business’s failure to institute reasonable and appropriate security. The CCPA defines personal information for this purpose as an individual’s name in combination with any of the following: social security number, driver’s license number, account number, credit or debit card number, medical information, or health insurance information. The CCPA allows consumers to seek damages between $100 and $750 per consumer per incident, or actual damages, whichever is greater. The CCPA also requires consumers to provide the business with 30 days’ written notice and an opportunity to cure the violation before initiating an action. Additionally, the CCPA requires consumers to notify the Attorney General within 30 days of filing the action and obtain the Attorney General’s approval or nonobjection before proceeding with the action. Therefore, John can sue the corporation for the data breach to recover monetary damages suffered as a result of the data breach, and in some circumstances seek statutory damages irrespective of whether he suffered any financial harm, as long as he meets the requirements of the CCPA. References:

• CCPA Provides Private Right of Action for Data Security Breaches
• CCPA Private Right of Action – Data Breach Security Requirement
• CCPA Fines & Penalties for Data Protection Violations | MatrixPoint

Janice’s first draft of the privacy policy may be too restrictive and impractical for Fitness Coach, Inc. to follow, given the nature of its business and the expectations of its customers. By limiting the retention of personal information to one year and requiring written consent for any third-party sharing, the policy may create operational challenges and customer dissatisfaction. For example, customers may want to resume their fitness programs after a long hiatus and expect the company to have their previous records and preferences. Similarly, third-party contractors may need access to customer information to provide better services and tailor their classes. If the company fails to adhere to its own privacy policy, it may face legal consequences, reputational damage, and loss of trust from its customers. Therefore, the company should adopt a more realistic and flexible privacy policy that balances its business needs and its customers’ privacy rights. References:

• Privacy Policy for Health Coaches
• Privacy Policies for Online Coaches
• Privacy Policy - Coaching.com

Financial institutions (FIs) collect and process a large amount of personal data from their customers, such as name, address, account number, transaction history, credit score, etc. Customers may have different preferences regarding how their data is used, shared, or protected by the FIs. For example, some customers may want to receive marketing offers from the FIs or their affiliates, while others may opt out of such communications. Some customers may prefer to access their accounts online, while others may use mobile apps, phone calls, or physical branches. Some customers may want to enable biometric authentication, while others may rely on passwords or PINs.

Managing these diverse and dynamic user preferences is a challenge for FIs, as they need to ensure that they respect and honor the choices of their customers across all the channels and platforms they use. This requires FIs to have arobust and integrated system that can capture, store, update, and apply user preferences consistently and accurately. Failing to do so may result in customer dissatisfaction, loss of trust, regulatory fines, or legal disputes.12

References: 1: The Top Three Digital Challenges Faced By Financial Institutions And How To Overcome Them3, paragraph 42: IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide, page 127.

 The Privacy Act allows agencies to exempt certain records from some of its provisions, including the right to disclosure, if the records fall within one of the categories specified in subsections (j) or (k) of the Act. One of these categories is records maintained by an agency or component thereof which performs as its principal function any activity pertaining to the enforcement of criminal laws, including police efforts to prevent, control, or reduce crime or to apprehend criminals, and the activities of prosecutors, courts, correctional, probation, pardon, or parole authorities, and which consists of (A) informationcompiled for the purpose of identifying individual criminal offenders and alleged offenders and consisting only of identifying data and notations of arrests, the nature and disposition of criminal charges, sentencing, confinement, release, and parole and probation status; (B) information compiled for the purpose of a criminal investigation, including reports of informants and investigators, and associated with an identifiable individual; or © reports identifiable to an individual compiled at any stage of the process of enforcement of the criminal laws from arrest or indictment through release from supervision. 5 U.S.C. § 552a (j) (2). Therefore, material reporting investigative efforts pertaining to the enforcement of criminal law falls within this category and can be exempted from the right to disclosure under the Privacy Act. References:

• Overview of the Privacy Act: 2020 Edition, Ten Exemptions, subsection (j) (2).
• Privacy Act Exemptions, subsection (j) (2).
• IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, page 66.

The Dodd-Frank Act created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) as an independent agency within the Federal Reserve System. The CFPB has the authority to regulate consumer financial products and services, such as mortgages, credit cards, student loans, and payday loans. One of the main objectives of the CFPB is to promote transparency, fairness, and consumer choice in the financial marketplace. The CFPB has issued rules and guidance to require financial institutions to provide clear and accurate information to consumers about the costs, risks, and benefits of their products and services. The CFPB also has the power to enforce consumer protection laws and prohibit unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices by financial institutions123 References: 1: Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Title X, Subtitle A, Section 1011. 2: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Wikipedia. 3: Dodd-Frank Act: What It Does, Major Components, and Criticisms, Investopedia.

The Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing (CAN-SPAM) Act is a law passed in 2003 that establishes the first national standards for the sending of commercial e-mail in the United States. The law requires the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to enforce its provisions. The law applies to any commercial e-mail message, which is defined as any electronic mail message the primary purpose of which is the commercial advertisement or promotion of a commercial product or service. The law does not apply to transactional or relationship messages, which are messages that facilitate an agreed-upon transaction or update a customer about an existing business relationship. The law also does not apply to non-commercial messages, such as political or charitable solicitations12

The CAN-SPAM Act is intended to help consumers by giving them more control over the commercial e-mails they receive. The law does not require companies to obtain prior consent (opt-in) from consumers before sending them commercial e-mails, but it does require companies to honor consumers’ requests to stop receiving such e-mails (opt-out). The law specifies that each commercial e-mail message must include a clear and conspicuous notice of the opportunity to decline to receive further messages from the sender, and a valid physical postal address of the sender. The sender must provide a functioning return e-mail address or other Internet-based mechanism that allows the recipient to submit an opt-out request. The sender must honor the opt-out request within 10 business days and must not sell, exchange, or transferthe e-mail address of the opt-out requester to another entity, unless the other entity is acting as an agent of the sender12

By requiring companies to allow consumers to opt-out of future e-mails, the CAN-SPAM Act aims to reduce the amount of unwanted and unsolicited commercial e-mail that consumers receive, and to protect their privacy and preferences. The law also imposes other requirements on companies that send commercial e-mails, such as banning false or misleading header information and deceptive subject lines, requiring the identification of the message as an advertisement, and requiring the labeling of sexually explicit content. The law also authorizes the FTC and other federal agencies to enforce the law and impose civil penalties for violations12

References:

• Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 (CAN-SPAM Act)
• IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide, Chapter 4: Federal Privacy Laws, Section 4.4: The CAN-SPAM Act

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued its 2012 report, “Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change: Recommendations for Businesses and Policymakers”1, which outlined a framework for privacy protection based on three main principles: privacy by design, simplified consumer choice, and greater transparency. The report also identified five priority areas for the FTC’s privacy enforcement and policy efforts, which were:

• Data brokers
• Large platform providers
• Mobile
• Promoting enforceable self-regulatory codes
• International data transfers

Do Not Track was not one of the five priority areas, but rather a specific mechanism for implementing the principle of simplified consumer choice. The report endorsed the development of a Do Not Track system that would allow consumers to opt out of online behavioral advertising across websites and platforms1. The report also noted the progress made by various stakeholders, such as the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), the Digital Advertising Alliance (DAA), and browser companies, in advancing the Do Not Track initiative1. References: 1: Federal Trade Commission, Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change: Recommendations for Businesses and Policymakers (March 2012), available at 1.

The Department of Commerce (DOC) plays a role in privacy policy by promoting the development and adoption of voluntary codes of conduct, standards, and best practices for the private sector, as well as facilitating cross-border data transfers through mechanisms such as the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield and the APEC Cross-Border Privacy Rules. However, the DOC does not have regulatory authority to enforce privacy laws or impose sanctions for privacy violations. The other agencies listed have some degree of regulatory authority over privacy issues within their respective domains. For example, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) supervises national banks and federal savings associations and enforces the GLBA privacy and security rules for these institutions. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates interstate and international communications and enforces the privacy and security rules for telecommunications carriers, broadband providers, and voice over internet protocol (VoIP) services. The Department of Transportation (DOT) oversees the transportation sector and enforces the privacy and security rules for airlines, travel agents, and other covered entities under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA). References:

• IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide, Chapter 1: Introduction to the U.S. Privacy Environment, Section 1.3: Federal Agencies with a Role in Privacy, p. 18-19
• IAPP CIPP/US Body of Knowledge, Domain I: Introduction to the U.S. Privacy Environment, Objective I.B: Identify the major federal agencies with a role in privacy, Subobjective I.B.4: Identify the role of the Department of Commerce, p. 7
• IAPP CIPP/US Exam Blueprint, Domain I: Introduction to the U.S. Privacy Environment, Objective I.B: Identify the major federal agencies with a role in privacy, Subobjective I.B.4: Identify the role of the Department of Commerce, p. 3

 An intrusion upon seclusion tort occurs when someone intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person12. The intrusion does not need to involve a physical trespass, but can also be an electronic or optical intrusion, such as using a webcam to record a person who has a reasonable expectation of privacy2. The intrusion must also cause mental anguish or suffering to the plaintiff2.

In this case, option A would best support an employee claim for an intrusion upon seclusion tort, because the webcam is enabled to record video any time the computer is turned on, regardless of whether the employee is working or not, or whether the employee is in a private or public place. This would be an intentional and highly offensive intrusion into the employee’s seclusion or private affairs, and would likely cause the employee distress or anxiety.

Option B would not support an intrusion upon seclusion tort, because the creation and saving of a biometric template based on keystroke dynamics is not an intrusion into the employee’s seclusion or private affairs, but rather a data collection and processing activity that may implicate other privacy laws or principles, such as notice, consent, and security3.

Option C would not support an intrusion upon seclusion tort, because the software sending a notification to a supervisor when the employee’s mouse is dormant for more than five minutes is not an intrusion into the employee’s seclusion or private affairs, but rather a performance monitoring activity that may be justified by the employer’s legitimate business interests4.

Option D would not support an intrusion upon seclusion tort, because the webcam recording video of an employee using a company laptop to perform personal business while at a coffee shop during work hours is not an intrusion into the employee’s seclusion or private affairs, but rather a misuse of company property and time that may be subject to the employer’s policies and disciplinary actions5. Moreover, the employee may not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place like a coffee shop. References: 1: Intrusion on seclusion - Wikipedia 2: Elements of an Intrusion Claim | Digital Media Law Project 3: Biometrics - IAPP 4: Employee Monitoring - IAPP 5: Employee Privacy - IAPP : Privacy in Public Places - IAPP

Data flow diagrams are graphical representations of how data moves within an organization or between different entities. They can help identify the sources, destinations, and processing of personal data, as well as the legal basis, retention periods, and security measures for each data flow. Reviewing the available data flow diagrams can help the data privacy leader to quickly and accurately respond to the urgent request from the EU-based retail partner, as well as to assess the potential risks and compliance gaps in the data transfer process. Data flow diagrams are also a key component of data protection impact assessments (DPIAs), which are required by the GDPR for high-risk processing activities. References:

• IAPP CIPP/US Body of Knowledge, Section II, A, 2
• [IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, Chapter 2, Section 2.3]
• [GDPR, Article 35]

The HIPAA Privacy Rule generally prohibits covered entities and business associates from disclosing protected health information (PHI) to law enforcement without the individual’s authorization, unless one of the exceptions in 45 CFR § 164.512 applies. These exceptions include disclosures required by law, disclosures for law enforcement purposes, disclosures about victims of abuse, neglect or domestic violence, disclosures for health oversight activities, disclosures for judicial and administrative proceedings, disclosures for research purposes, disclosures to avert a serious threat to health or safety, disclosures for specialized government functions, disclosures for workers’ compensation, and disclosures to coroners and medical examiners. None of these exceptions apply to the type of information in option D, which is personal health information that is not related to any of the above purposes. Therefore, an organization would generally not be required to disclose such information to law enforcement under the HIPAA Privacy Rule. References: https://www.justice.gov/opcl/overview-privacy-act-1974-2020-edition/disclosures-third-parties

https://bing.com/search?q=information+disclosure+to+law+enforcement

https://hipaatrek.com/law-enforcement-hipaa-disclosing-phi/

BYOD is a practice that allows employees to use their own personal devices, such as smartphones, tablets, or laptops, for work-related purposes. BYOD can offer some benefits for both employers and employees, such as increased flexibility, convenience, and productivity. However, BYOD also poses significant privacy and security risks, such as data breaches, unauthorized access, loss or theft of devices, malware infections, and compliance challenges. Therefore, the business consultant will most likely advise Felicia and Celeste to weigh any productivity benefits of the plan against the risk of privacy issues, and to implement a comprehensive BYOD policy that addresses the following aspects:

• The scope and purpose of the BYOD program, including the types of devices, data, and applications that are allowed or prohibited.
• The roles and responsibilities of the employer and the employees, including the ownership, control, and access rights of the devices and the data.
• The security measures and controls that are required to protect the devices and the data, such as encryption, passwords, remote wipe, antivirus software, firewalls, and VPNs.
• The privacy expectations and obligations of the employer and the employees, such as the notice, consent, and disclosure requirements, the limits on data collection and monitoring, the retention and deletion policies, and the rights of access and correction.
• The legal and regulatory compliance requirements that apply to the BYOD program, such as the FTC Act, the GLBA, the HIPAA, the COPPA, the CCPA, and the GDPR.
• The incident response and reporting procedures that are followed in the event of a data breach, loss, or theft of a device, or any other privacy or security issue.
• The training and education programs that are provided to the employees to raise awareness and understanding of the BYOD policy and the best practices.
• The enforcement and audit mechanisms that are used to ensure compliance and accountability of the BYOD policy, such as sanctions, penalties, reviews, and audits. References:
• IAPP CIPP/US Body of Knowledge, Section III.C.2
• IAPP CIPP/US Textbook, Chapter 3, pp. 113-115
• FTC Mobile Device Security

 U.S. federal laws protect individuals from employment discrimination based on a number of protected characteristics, such as age, pregnancy, and genetic information. However, marital status is not one of them. There is no federal law that prohibits employment discrimination based on marital status, although some states and localities have enacted such laws. The other statements are incorrect because:

• A. Age is a protected characteristic under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which protects people who are 40 or older from discrimination because of age1.
• B. Pregnancy is a protected characteristic under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to make it illegal to discriminate against a woman because of pregnancy, childbirth, or a medical condition related to pregnancy or childbirth2.
• D. Genetic information is a protected characteristic under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), which makes it illegal to discriminate against employees or applicants because of genetic information, such as family medical history, genetic tests, or participation in genetic research2. References: Prohibited Employment Policies/Practices, Employment discrimination law in the United States, Civil Rights Requirements- Federal Employment Discrimination Laws

 The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA) is a federal law that protects the privacy of student education records. FERPA grants parents or eligible students the right to access, amend, and control the disclosure of their education records, with some exceptions. Schools must obtain written consent from the parent or eligible student before disclosing any personally identifiable information from the education records, unless an exception applies123

Option A violates FERPA because it involves the disclosure of a student’s personally identifiable information (PII) from the education records without consent. A student’s signed essay about her hometown is considered an education record under FERPA, as it is directly related to the student and maintained by the school12 A K-12 assessment vendor is not a school official with a legitimate educational interest, nor does it fall under any of the exceptions that allow disclosure without consent12 Therefore, the school must obtain the student’s (or the parent’s, if the student is a minor) written consent before providing the essay to the vendor for public release.

Option B does not violate FERPA because it involves the disclosure of directory information, which is not considered PII under FERPA. Directory information is information that would not generally be considered harmful or an invasion of privacy if disclosed, such as name, address, phone number, e-mail address, major, etc12 Schools may disclose directory information without consent, unless the parent or eligible student has opted out of such disclosure12 However, schools must notify parents and eligible students of the types of directory information they designate and their right to opt out annually12

Option C does not violate FERPA because it involves the disclosure of information that is not part of the education records. FERPA only applies to education records that are directly related to a student and maintained by theschool or a party acting for the school12 A newspaper’s publication of the names, grade levels, and hometowns of students who made the quarterly honor roll is not based on the education records, but on the newspaper’s own sources and reporting. Therefore, FERPA does not prohibit such disclosure.

Option D does not violate FERPA because it involves the disclosure of information under an exception that allows disclosure without consent. FERPA permits schools to disclose education records, or PII from education records, without consent to comply with a judicial order or lawfully issued subpoena, or to appropriate officials in connection with a health or safety emergency123 If the university police provide an arrest report to the student’s hometown police in response to a subpoena or to prevent a serious threat to the student or others, they are not violating FERPA.

References: 1: Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act - Wikipedia 2: Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) | CDC 3: What is FERPA? | Protecting Student Privacy - ed

 The Red Flags Rule is a regulation that requires financial institutions and creditors to implement a written identity theft prevention program that is designed to detect, prevent, and mitigate identity theft in connection with the opening of a covered account or any existing covered account1. A creditor is any person who regularly extends, renews, or continues credit; any person who regularly arranges for the extension, renewal, or continuation of credit; or any assignee of an original creditor who participates in the decision to extend, renew, or continue credit2. A covered account is an account that a financial institution or creditor offers or maintains, primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, that involves or is designed to permit multiple payments or transactions, such as a credit card account, mortgage loan, automobile loan, margin account, cell phone account, utility account, checking account, or savings account2. A money wire service is a service that allows customers to send or receive money electronically3. The owner of a grocery store who uses a money wire service is not a creditor because he or she does not regularly extend, renew, or continue credit to customers. Therefore, the Red Flags Rule does not apply to the owner of a grocery store who uses a money wire service. References:

• 1: FTC, Red Flags Rule, https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/privacy-security/red-flags-rule
• 2: FTC, Fighting Identity Theft with the Red Flags Rule: A How-To Guide for Business, https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/fighting-identity-theft-red-flags-rule-how-guide-business
• 3: Alessa, Wire Transfer Red Flags: Understanding Money Laundering and Fraud Risks, https://alessa.com/webinars/wire-transfer-red-flags-and-fraud-risks/

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has rulemaking authority for the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA), as well as other consumer financial laws. The Dodd-Frank Act, enacted in 2010, transferred most of the rulemaking responsibilities added to the FCRA by the FACTA and the Credit CARD Act from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to the CFPB. However, the FTC retains its enforcement authority for the FCRA and the FACTA, along with other federal and state agencies1. The CFPB also shares rulemaking authority for some provisions of the FACTA with the FTC, such as the identity theft red flags and address discrepancy rules2. The Department of Commerce and the State Attorneys General do not have rulemaking authority for the FCRA or the FACTA. References: 1: FTC3, Fair Credit Reporting Act; 2: CFPB4, Fair Credit Reporting Act; 3: FTC; 4: CFPB.

The Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights is a set of principles that the Obama administration proposed in 2012 to guide the development of privacy legislation and policies in the United States. The report that introduced the bill of rights stated that it was "generally based on the widely accepted Fair Information Practice Principles (FIPPs)"1, which are a set of standards that originated in the 1970s and have influenced many privacy laws and frameworks around the world. The FIPPs include concepts such as individual control, transparency, security, accountability, and data minimization2. The Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights adapted and expanded these principles to address the challenges and opportunities of the digital economy1. References: 1: Consumer Data Privacy in a Networked World: A Framework for Protecting Privacy and Promoting Innovation in the Global Digital Economy2, page 92: IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide3, page 17.

The Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) is a federal regulation that applies to telemarketing calls, which are defined as "a plan, program, or campaign which is conducted to induce the purchase of goods or services or a charitable contribution, by use of one or more telephones and which involves more than one interstate telephone call."1 The TSR requires telemarketers to make specific disclosures, prohibit misrepresentations, limit the times and number of calls, and set payment restrictions for the sale of certain goods and services. The TSR also gives consumers the right to opt out of receiving telemarketing calls by registering their phone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry.2

The TSR applies to both for-profit and not-for-profit organizations, but there are some exemptions and partial exemptions for certain types of entities, calls, and transactions. For example, the TSR does not apply to nonprofit organizations calling on their own behalf, as they are not considered to be engaged intelemarketing. However, if a nonprofit organization hires a for-profit telemarketer or telefunder to solicit charitable contributions on its behalf, the for-profit entity must comply with the TSR, as it is engaged in telemarketing. Similarly, the TSR does not apply to for-profit organizations calling businesses when a binding contract exists between them, as they are not considered to be inducing the purchase of goods or services. However, if a for-profit organization calls businesses to sell additional services to established customers, the TSR applies, as it is considered to be inducing the purchase of goods or services.3

Therefore, among the four options, only for-profit organizations and for-profit telefunders regarding charitable solicitations must comply with the TSR, as they are engaged in telemarketing and do not fall under any of the exemptions or partial exemptions. References: 1: eCFR :: 16 CFR Part 310 – Telemarketing Sales Rule3, Section 310.22: Telemarketing Sales Rule | Federal Trade Commission1, Rule Summary3: Complying with the Telemarketing Sales Rule - Federal Trade Commission2, Exemptions to the TSR.

The CAN-SPAM Act is a federal law that sets the rules for commercial email, establishes requirements for commercial messages, gives recipients the right to have you stop emailing them, and spells out tough penalties for violations1. The main purpose of the act is to protect consumers from unwanted and deceptive email messages and to give them more control over their online privacy2. The act applies to all commercial messages, which are defined as "any electronic mail message the primary purpose of which is the commercial advertisement or promotion of a commercial product or service"1. The act does not apply to transactional or relationship messages, which are messages that facilitate an agreed-upon transaction or update a customer about an existing business relationship1. The act also does not apply to non-commercial messages, such as political or charitable solicitations3. References: 1: CAN-SPAM Act: A Compliance Guide for Business2: What is the CAN-SPAM Act? | Proton3: What is the CAN-SPAM Act? | Cloudflare

The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) is a federal law that protects the privacy of children under 13 who use online sites and services. COPPA requires operators of such sites and services to obtain verifiable parental consent before collecting, using, or disclosing personal information from children, and to provide notice of their information practices to parents and the public. COPPA also gives parents the right to access, review, and delete their children’s personal information, and to limit further collection or use of such information.1

One way for operators to comply with COPPA is to participate in an approved self-regulatory program, also known as a “safe harbor” program. These are programs that are run by industry groups or other organizations that set and enforce standards for privacy protection that meet or exceed the requirements of COPPA. Operators that join a safe harbor program and follow its guidelines are deemed to be in compliance with COPPA and are subject to the review and disciplinary procedures of the program instead of FTC enforcement actions. The FTC has approved several safe harbor programs, such as CARU, ESRB, iKeepSafe, kidSAFE, PRIVO, and TRUSTe.2

By participating in an approved self-regulatory program, the marketer in the scenario could have best changed its privacy management program to meet COPPA “Safe Harbor” requirements. This would mean that the marketer would have to adhere to the guidelines of the program, which would likely include obtaining verifiable parental consent before collecting personal information from children, providing clear and prominent privacy notices on its website and emails, honoring parents’ choices and requests regarding their children’s data, and ensuring the security and confidentiality of the data collected. The marketer would also benefit from the oversight and assistance of the program in ensuring compliance and resolving any complaints or disputes.3 References: 1: Complying with COPPA: Frequently Asked Questions4, Section A2: COPPA Safe Harbor Program3: IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide, page 143.

 A data ethics framework is a set of principles and guidelines that help organizations ensure that their data practices are ethical, responsible, and trustworthy. According to the IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, some of the key components of a data ethics framework are1:

• Data governance: the policies, processes, and standards that govern how data is collected, used, stored, and shared within an organization.
• Preferability testing: the process of assessing the potential impacts and risks of data-driven solutions on stakeholders, such as customers, employees, and society.
• Auditing: the process of monitoring, reviewing, and verifying the compliance and performance of data practices against the established ethical standards and legal requirements. Automated decision-making, on the other hand, is not a key component of a data ethics framework, but rather a data practice that may raise ethical issues and challenges. Automated decision-making refers to the use of algorithms, artificial intelligence, or machine learning to make decisions or recommendations without human intervention2. While automated decision-making can offer benefits such as efficiency, accuracy, and consistency, it can also pose risks such as bias, discrimination, lack of transparency, and accountability3. Therefore, automated decision-making should be subject to ethical evaluation and oversight, but it is not itself a part of a data ethics framework. References:
• [IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide], Chapter 10, Section 10.4, page 287
• [IAPP Glossary], Automated Decision-Making
• IAPP Resources, Ethical Data Use and Automated Decision-Making: A Practical Guide

The FTC has stated that it is a deceptive practice to make retroactive changes to a privacy policy that affect how a company uses or shares previously collected personal information, unless the company obtains affirmative consent from the affected consumers. This means that the company must clearly and conspicuously disclose the changes and obtain the consumers’ express agreement to them. Simply describing the policy changes on the website, publicizing them through social media, or reassuring customers of the security of their information are not sufficient to comply with the FTC’s position. References:

• FTC Staff Revises Online Behavioral Advertising Principles, paragraph 3.
• Do I really have to obtain consent from all my customers to make a change to my privacy policy?, paragraph 2.
• IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, page 64.

An injunction is a court order that requires a party to stop or refrain from doing something. In a case of civil litigation, a defendant who is being sued for distributing an employee’s private information might face an injunction that prohibits them from further disclosing or using the employee’s private information. An injunction is a form of equitable relief that aims to prevent or remedy harm that cannot be adequately compensated by monetary damages. Probation, criminal fines, and jail sentences are forms of criminal sanctions that are not applicable in civil litigation, unless the defendant is also charged with a criminal offense related to the distribution of the employee’s private information. References: Standing issues in U.S. privacy class actions, US Private-Sector Privacy (CIPP/US Exam Prep), IAPP CIPP/US

 The Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) is a federal law that regulates the disclosure of personal information obtained by state departments of motor vehicles (DMVs). The DPPA prohibits DMVs and other entities that receive such information from DMVs from disclosing it to anyone without the express consent of the individual to whom the information pertains, unless the disclosure falls under one of the 14 exceptions listed in the statute.

Some of the exceptions that allow disclosure of personal information from DMV records without consent are:

• For use by any government agency, including any court or law enforcement agency, in carrying out its functions, or any private person or entity acting on behalf of a government agency in carrying out its functions.
• For use in connection with matters of motor vehicle or driver safety and theft; motor vehicle emissions; motor vehicle product alterations, recalls, or advisories; performance monitoring of motor vehicles, motor vehicle parts and dealers; motor vehicle market research activities, including survey research; and removal of non-owner records from the original owner records of motor vehicle manufacturers.
• For use in the normal course of business by a legitimate business or its agents, employees, or contractors, but only to verify the accuracy of personal information submitted by the individual to the business or its agents, employees, or contractors; and if such information as so submitted is not correct or is no longer correct, to obtain the correct information, but only for the purposes of preventing fraud by, pursuing legal remedies against, or recovering on a debt or security interest against, the individual.
• For use in connection with any civil, criminal, administrative, or arbitral proceeding in any federal, state, or local court or agency or before any self-regulatory body, including the service of process, investigation in anticipation of litigation, and the execution or enforcement of judgments and orders, or pursuant to an order of a federal, state, or local court.
• For use in research activities, and for use in producing statistical reports, so long as the personal information is not published, redisclosed, or used to contact individuals.
• For use by any insurer or insurance support organization, or by a self-insured entity, or its agents, employees, or contractors, in connection with claims investigation activities, antifraud activities, rating or underwriting.
• For use in providing notice to the owners of towed or impounded vehicles.
• For use by any licensed private investigative agency or licensed security service for any purpose permitted under this subsection.
• For use by an employer or its agent or insurer to obtain or verify information relating to a holder of a commercial driver’s license that is required under chapter 313 of title 49.
• For use in connection with the operation of private toll transportation facilities.
• For any other use specifically authorized under the law of the state that holds the record, if such use is related to the operation of a motor vehicle or public safety.

None of the exceptions above apply to the use of personal information from DMV records by marketers wishing to distribute bulk materials. Therefore, such use would require the consent of the individual to whom the information pertains, according to the DPPA. Hence, option D is the correct answer.

Option A is incorrect, as law enforcement agencies performing investigations are exempt from the consent requirement under the first exception.

Option B is incorrect, as insurance companies needing to investigate claims are exempt from the consent requirement under the sixth exception.

Option C is incorrect, as attorneys gathering information related to lawsuits are exempt from the consent requirement under the fourth exception.

References:

• [IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide], Chapter 8: Federal Privacy Laws, pp. 181-182.
• CIPP/US Practice Questions (Sample Questions), Question 31.