Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Implications of GDPR & CCPA on Public Records
In the brave new world of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), staking out a safe harbor for republishing and retaining publicly available court records is critical for protecting the public's right to know the law and preventing criminals from hiding their crimes. Contrasted with GDPR, CCPA sets a crucial distinction between personal information and publicly available information obtained from government records, setting a workable balance between consumer privacy protections and the public's right to know and access public records.
In this article, we'll discuss the importance of securing a safe harbor for court records through reviewing an illustrative example of how a European Union (EU) citizen was able to force U.S. legal technology companies to remove and alter court records using GDPR. We'll also look at CCPA in light of US case law, and close on potential paths forward for GDPR on re-using “public sector information.”
The Real-World Impact of the GDPR on Court Records
In September of 2018, Michael Francois Bujaldon, a defendant in a real estate and securities fraud case involving $62 million of allegedly ill-gotten gains, contacted multiple legal technology vendors to demand deletion of his name from all dockets for his case. Using the sword and shield of GDPR's “right to be forgotten,” Bujaldon appears to have initially compelled PacerMonitor to remove his case (though it's now available on PacerMonitor) and forced PlainSite to remove his name from the docket within their site.
We largely know about this use of GDPR against legal tech companies because it was reported by PlainSite after receiving Bujaldon's request to remove his name from their dockets. Although PlainSite appears to have pushed back initially on removing Bujaldon's name from the $62 million fraud case, it was ultimately forced by its ISP to abbreviate his name, effectively erasing Bujaldon from a search of PlainSite's dockets.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?